So, question for the libs.
You support DEI, supposedly you think DEI is thus GOOD.
Yet, you get very offended if any specific person is considered to be a DEI hire.
If DEI is GOOD, then wouldn't being a DEI hire also be GOOD?
That makes sense. But your reactions seem to show that that is NOT the case.
Please explain this discrepancy.
Good question. DEI stinks. Look what happened to movies and television after DEI casting was implemented. Outrageous casting decisions were made with both Little Orphan Annie and The Little Mermaid. A lot of stories went totally woke after SJW writers were hired.
https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards * Oscar DEI Standards *
https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/ABC-INCLUSION-STANDARDS-ONE-PAGER-6-16-21.pdf *Disney UGH *
https://press.aboutamazon.com/2021/6/amazon-studios-releases-inclusion-policy-and-playbook-to-strengthen-ongoing-commitment-to-diverse-and-equitable-representation * Amazon Inclusion Playbook *
The Biden administration issued an executive order implementing EQUITY in all of their departments. This basically meant that they would prioritize "underrepresented groups" when providing services and that meant that white males were discriminated against. I'm aware of two court cases that the Biden administration lost over discriminatory treatments of white males and women. The only way for white males to become "underrepresented" is to put on a wig/dress or come out as gay.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-administration-guidance-prioritizes-race-administering-covid-drugs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ginaheeb/2021/04/29/white-farmers-sue-biden-administration-alleging-racial-discrimination-in-stimulus-package/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2021/06/03/federal-appellate-court-rules-that-biden-administration-cant-deny-covid-relief-funds-to-white-restaurant-owners/
https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/court-rules-biden-admin-discriminate-racesmall-business-loans-stake-heart-dei
United Airlines announced their goal of having training classes of at least 50% women and minorities. I consider this to be discriminatory against white males and many good candidates will be turned away due to their race and gender. The most qualified candidates should be accepted since people can die if the planes are not operated properly.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html
All this DEI slinging kind of reminds me of those old share-cropper crackers in the jim crow south who consoled themselves that, even if they didn't have a pot to piss in, they were BETTER than that nigra Doctor in town.
Or that nigra VPOTUS. :)
Very similar juxtaposition of inferiority laced with contempt laced with envy. A witch's brew.
That would kind of make sense, if DEI was just a conspiracy theory and didn't actually exist.
BUT, instead DEI DOES exist and is celebrated by nearly the entire political and cultural and economic elite.
So, as it does exist, and is very much and widely celebrated, we should be allowed to discuss it, and who might have benefitted from it, without being called "crackers".
You know why DEI is needed & good ? Because poor kids don't have families who know the ropes, get them quality summer jobs, have family & affluent neighbor connections, or have them in schools with strong AP programs, strong inter-generational success to model from - just put your thinking cap on and, for one second, try to IMAGINE what advantages secure middle-class kids have that poor kids don't.
Now, I don't think this should be race based, but class based. However, it will in any case give more attention to minorities because they are more strongly correlated with poverty. Which I personally have zero problem with.
DEI does not address one's background or upbringing. It solely considers ethnicity, gender, sexuality and disabilities. DEI mostly discriminates against white males. I've met a lot of dark-skinned first-generation immigrants who benefit from DEI programs even though they grew up wealthy in their foreign countries. You also seem to have this crazy notion that every middle-class family is nurturing and beneficial for children. Tons of parents of all backgrounds abuse their kids or even disown them. You are IMAGINING all these advantages that middle-class kids have over poor kids. The Turpin family featured in the article were a white middle-class family that tortured their children. They were technically middle-class BUT twelve children is a serious financial burden.
https://people.com/where-are-turpin-family-siblings-now-8379490 * Turpin family *
There isn't a formal class system in the USA so any DEI based on class would be impossible to implement. A lot of people end up poor because they make bad investments, piss away their money, have too many divorces and too many kids. DEI cannot be focused on minorities since mass immigration has resulted in more dark-skinned people from foreign countries joining the population.
I want to live in a meritocracy. When I am a passenger on an airplane, I want that pilot and crew to be the best qualified. When I am on an emergency room operating table, I want the surgeons and nurses to be the best qualified. When I step in an elevator, I want the elevator maintenance man to be the best qualified. Their gender or ethnicity does not matter; they need to get the job done.
As joe abve pointed out, the reality is that,
1. What we have is RACE based, so that poor white kids take the hit so that rich black or brown kids get additional help.
2. And your assumptions on middle class families being able to greatly support their kids...especially in this time period when the middle class is struggling as a whole.
And let me ask the OP question again. If this program exists, and libs support it, because they think that it is a good thing, then why are they afraid to discuss the results, especially when looking at people that might have benefitted from it?
Hell, the one lib here is DENYING that DEI is about hiring. He's not clear about how we are supposed to GET these "Diverse" work forces and student bodies... but he did know to race bait too.
I gave this topic a little bit of thought, and I think this "discrepancy" is due to context and the connotation to which a person uses the term "DEI".
When DEI supporters use the term, we use it with the connotation which like you said we consider a good thing. DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion which we consider good things for organizations to have.
DEI opponents however, don't use the term is a positive manner, which is why it seems derisive when they call someone a DEI hire. They are against diversity, equity, and inclusion so when applying these concepts they don't like to people it's going to be seen as negative.
Hard to explain, but the key concepts with my post is context and connotation.
But why not at that point, if the DEI supporters consider it a GOOD thing, instead of attacking the opponents of DEI for point out that someone is a dei hire, when they very well might be,
should the proper response be to point to the good results from teh dei hire to thus shown how the policy is a GOOD policy and that the claims of the opponents are... wrong?
Instead, of response like, denyhing that dei is about hiring, or refusing to discuss whether the individual in question is a dei hire.
Those don't seem to be the actions of people that are confident in the policy that they support.
Because racists call someone a "DEI hire" in order to be offensive and we recognize that intention. They are saying they aren't qualified for the position because they are a minority, and that is offensive.
And you don't know what DEI programs are about if you think it means hiring quotas and affirmative action.
What is especially funny is that when Republican members of congress immediately started with racists and codes racist attacks when Kamala Harris emerged as the democratic candidate, leadership called them in to teach them how to criticize her without being racist so they v wouldn't offend people.
THAT WAS EQUIVALENT TO DEI TRAINING, LOL.