Harvard University announced it will not comply with orders from Donald Trump to cut DEI programs and expel students in involved in pro-Palestinian protests.
I’m interested in the truth. Just not what you claim to be the truth. And based on what? DEI doesn’t have explicit quotas? You can still discriminate without them.
I’m confused how you think DEI is discrimination- its entire purpose is to make reviewers cognizant of their own biases to make hiring more based on merit. There is no quota. There is no agenda to put unqualified people on top
I’m honestly confused how you don’t. If they wanted to make things unbiased, they’d just anonymise them. But they don’t, they put a spotlight on their race and gender. That adds bias, it doesn’t get rid of it.
Making people aware of their biases is not discrimination nor favoritism- it is removing favoritism for equal odds for everyone. In short, “here’s a problem we have as a community- you should be aware of it when you are hiring so you treat people equally.” It’s clear you don’t even understand the problem- you can’t remove people’s innate characteristics when they come to your work for an interview, so obviously you make it so the people interviewing are less biased. The only way to make people less biased is to inform them of their possible biases.
DEI is explicitly about including anyone qualified. It’s explicitly anti-discrimination. It’s not about quotas. It’s about ensuring everyone is included in the process. It makes sure you don’t only look at white men, or whatever the bias may be prioritizing. If a white man is the best candidate, they get it. If a black woman is, they get it. It’s just about making sure you’re actually looking at everyone and taking account of them equally.
Explicitly anti-discrimination by being pro-discrimination. If they were being honest, they’d anonymized everything, but they don’t. They do the opposite and put a spotlight on their race and gender. Their actions speak louder than their words.
More like he lied so hard mods decided to stop the spread of disinformation, and then followed up with a comment explaining exactly why he was wrong.
Unfortunately I get the feeling that you aren’t interested in the truth.
I’m interested in the truth. Just not what you claim to be the truth. And based on what? DEI doesn’t have explicit quotas? You can still discriminate without them.
DEI stops discrimination, not the other way. If you can’t understand that then it’s clear you don’t want to.
Ah yes, the old fight fire with fire. That always turns out well
I’m confused how you think DEI is discrimination- its entire purpose is to make reviewers cognizant of their own biases to make hiring more based on merit. There is no quota. There is no agenda to put unqualified people on top
I’m honestly confused how you don’t. If they wanted to make things unbiased, they’d just anonymise them. But they don’t, they put a spotlight on their race and gender. That adds bias, it doesn’t get rid of it.
Making people aware of their biases is not discrimination nor favoritism- it is removing favoritism for equal odds for everyone. In short, “here’s a problem we have as a community- you should be aware of it when you are hiring so you treat people equally.” It’s clear you don’t even understand the problem- you can’t remove people’s innate characteristics when they come to your work for an interview, so obviously you make it so the people interviewing are less biased. The only way to make people less biased is to inform them of their possible biases.
Remember when y’all banned the word “fascist” as mods on /conservative.ee?
God damn that was funny.
Unfortunately, there aren’t exactly a lot of decentralized alternatives.
DEI is explicitly about including anyone qualified. It’s explicitly anti-discrimination. It’s not about quotas. It’s about ensuring everyone is included in the process. It makes sure you don’t only look at white men, or whatever the bias may be prioritizing. If a white man is the best candidate, they get it. If a black woman is, they get it. It’s just about making sure you’re actually looking at everyone and taking account of them equally.
Explicitly anti-discrimination by being pro-discrimination. If they were being honest, they’d anonymized everything, but they don’t. They do the opposite and put a spotlight on their race and gender. Their actions speak louder than their words.
Evidence for your claims?