Coronavirus task force another example of Trump administration's lack of diversity.

Are you under the impression that the picture is the only thing in this article which relates to the Corona Virus? You may want to check the article's headline.

Why would I start ANOTHER thread about the Corona Virus?

 

I should of wrote more clearly and said some main stream leaders say that's what they want.

 

Why is diversity good and where could it not be good?

 

No and that isn't what I said. The headline literally describes it as an another example of lack of diversity, which is exactly what I said the article is about. You are wrong, get over it.

 

Yes, it is another example which is being CRITICISED, it's just that this one is utterly stupid criticism given the emergency nature of this Committee.

 

Yes, you should have.

Who said it was good? All else being equal, diversity of irrelevant characteristics would just happen by default. If there is nothing about gender or race that renders any subgroup incapable of doing and even excelling at the kind of roles we're talking about, we'd expect at least some to be represented in a cross-section like this. The fact there doesn't appear to be any diversity in this example (and many like it) suggests something is happening to lead to that imbalance which is worth looking in to.

 

It is criticism of the administration in general though. This committee will have been drawn from the wider administration, of whoever was best suited to the roles and tasks required of it. The question being raised is why do all of the people in the administration suited to those roles appear to be white males. It’s the same question that has been raised in all sorts of similar contexts before and, if it isn’t clearly addressed, it will continue to be raised in the future. It isn’t about the specific committee at all.

 

You don't think that many of them are from outside the administration?

Sorry, what "roles" are you talking about?

 

In the picture being referenced, I suspect not. Who they draw on from outside would be relevant to the question too anyway.

I'm not answering any of your "playing dumb" questions. I've made my points perfectly clearly, respond or don't, it's up to you.

 

I am no Trump supporter by any means, but there should be no concern about diversity unless the issue itself has to do with diversity. A task force dealing with police conduct in minority neighborhoods needs to be diverse. Dealing with cancer or heart issues does not need to be diverse.

Reporting such as this just paints us on the left as frivolous.

 

See my response in post #31.

 

It's quite classical. Hyper dogmatism over pragmatism. We could think to the nazis who persecuted among their best scientists because they were jewish, those scientists contributed to the USA then.
Communist were the same, they beheaded most of the intelligentsia of most country they were, with "reducation" or plain genocide like in Cambodia.

Kind of dogmatic hysteria happen times to times, sometimes, it just happen and disappear, sometimes it lead to the destruction of empires and countries.

 

And I don't think a meeting of white men is bad or could be improved upon by the addition of other races/sexes. I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't want the president or any CEO of any company I own stock in giving one hoot for diversity of sex or race.

Hell, I support Tulsi for president -a woman of color, but in no way shape of form am I supporting her because she is a woman of color. You get ten white men in a room regarding whether a color is aqua or teal or a group of diverse by sex, orientation and gender the results will be the same.

 

The question of why they all "appear to be white males?" How about maybe because it is based on merit, and given the fact that the country is over 70% white, simple probability says that there will be more white people. I don't have an explanation for the lack of women in this committee, other than it's just the way that it is and is not evidence of sexism. It should be noted that the number of women appointmees is no different to previous Republican administrations such as Bush, and isn't exactly significantly less than Clinton. And I think we all know why Clinton appointed more women. Anyway, less women appointed is not evidence of sexism. Correlation is not causation.

Your lack of ability to be able to stand up to tough scrutiny is demonstrated once again. I was just checking to see if you were only talking about Corona Virus related roles or if you were talking about other roles in the Trump administration. "Playing dumb questions!"

 

Yes, that is the question. You dismissed that question out of hand, asked if it was the "dumbest article ever written". Now you've accepted you were wrong and it is a question that can be discussed, you'll just have to find someone interested in discussing it with you.

 

Was it harmed by them being excluded though? We don't know unless we ask.

Some level of diversity should be natural. Half the US population are female and almost a third are none-white. When you see none at all among what should naturally be a general cross-section of the adult population, shouldn't that raise some questions? Why are so few women and ethnic minorities reaching the higher echelons of US politics? I'm not saying it's intentional and I'm not suggesting any answers but I do say that it's a very valid question that has long been raised but, to a great extent, long been ignored.

 

20 years from now with 55% of college grads females I would think will be more represented. and no I would not expect to see reflection of America but a reflection phd level health professionals and executives from healthcare delivery industry. I would question whether a group that was 35% female, and 30 percent people of color was not a group of people formed with that in mind and not with the goal of solving an a non diversity issue.

 

Well the lack of diversity is bad based off what your saying so why is diversity good. It could be as simple as certain people didnt apply for the position. Qualified people are qualified people. Hiring someone based off race is wrong regardless of what race you do it for.

 

Again, I'm not declaring it good or bad, merely noteworthy. Hiring (or enrolling) based on race (or gender) is indeed wrong so why not ask why there are few if any minorities in some fields? After all, if there is no good reason that members of minority groups couldn't excel in these fields, not having them (whatever the reasons) might mean we're missing out on some of the best potential.

 

Depends why they aren't in certain fields if applications are low or if people in power are actively ignoring those candidates based of of race. As whole the United States does not see that on a mass scale. Also with the way minorities see Trump they might not be wanting to work for him even.

 

Yes, and it's a question which you haven't given an answer to. I gave an answer to it - in the form of an argument which you were totally INCAPABLE of refuting! Again: How about maybe because it is based on merit, and given the fact that the country is over 70% white, simple probability says that there will be more white people. I don't have an explanation for the lack of women in this committee, other than it's just the way that it is and is not evidence of sexism. It should be noted that the number of women appointmees is no different to previous Republican administrations such as Bush, and isn't exactly significantly less than Clinton. And I think we all know why Clinton appointed more women. Anyway, less women appointed is not evidence of sexism. Correlation is not causation.

I haven't accepted that I am wrong about anything!

 

How does it cost 11 grand to incinerate some stuff?

 

Only a bunch of 'woke', hyperliberal morons would be concerned about whether the taskforce studying a pandemic-class virus is "diverse" or not! What possible difference does it make what color a person's skin is... or what that person's sexual 'plumbing' is...?

Hyperlibs are ALWAYS putting emphasis on, and attaching superabundant amounts of importance to things that flatly AREN'T IMPORTANT... no wonder they never accomplish anything but confusion, stupidity, and ruin....

 

probably because there are medical procedure to handle things that had contact with patients, cloth/electronic/medical tools/bed/room/toilet etc etc. we all know how expensive medical bill are. even a traffic light change cost about $200,000, so a higher skill labor/procedure such as med would cost more.

 

Your OP didn't answer the question. Your OP suggested that even asking the question is dumb. I was only challenging your assertion that asking the question is dumb. You are now attacking me for not answering the question you said was dumb. I've no interest in discussing the question with you, I only posted to highlight the flaw in the OP. The fact you now want to discuss the question must mean that either your OP was wrong or you're also dumb.