So says AI? Sorry, but AI has to be the most unreliable source in the Internet. Not that it matters because you are going to declare any position that disagrees with you, as "liberal" and dismiss it. I knew you were going to do that as soon as I read, "Please be certain to reference information sources that are unbiased and reliable.".
I don't necessarily disagree with liberal positions on many topics... actually, although on economic matters I'm dependably conservative, but on many 'social' issues, I'm still quite liberal. ("Do whatever you want to do with your life -- just don't expect me to pay for it!") One thing we should ALL be committed to, though, is complete color-blind, 'ethnicity-blind' FAIRNESS between people of all races, and cultural backgrounds. And in that spirit it's clear that those who abandon the fair-and-equal treatment of ALL U. S. citizens, while pandering to the ambitions of minority 'advocacy groups', are the most UNfair and UN-American of all! Think: Not all people are "created equal" -- but -- ALL U. S. CITIZENS ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW! .
Using his profile to debate the views of other participants here is trashing the author, just saying. It seems to me like you've used his own racial background to dismiss him as too biased to have a valid opinion on this issue. If that wasn't your intention, my apologies, but I see no other reason to paste all of that into your post.
That's a snarky statement. That isn't how debate works. If I make a claim, only then is it on me to "do my homework." You made a claim a couple of times on this thread, and I asked you to prove your claim. It's on you to do your homework. Thanks for doing so, but two isolated instances do not really prove your claim. For all we know, the Somali man could have been hired because he passed the tests for whatever municipality he was in. I don't know the rules in that city's police department. Do you? As for Ms Gay, those who have the duty of choosing leadership at Harvard obviously considered her to be the right choice. I see nothing in your post that verifies your notion that DEI was involved in their decision. I personally disliked her own racist and pompous attitude, but that does not mean they hired her because she's black. Anecdotes are not proof of your claim, but they do explain why you hold such an extreme view. I do appreciate that you went to the trouble, so thanks for that. I'm just not that easily convinced.
I don't even try to "explain" anyone else's views on race. I'm simply not convinced that a majority of non-white people have their jobs because of their race or gender, and that they aren't really qualified. I didn't find that to be the case during my nearly 50 years of high tech employment. Incompetence is not limited to non-whites.
And THAT is why you need to do your own homework. By this time, if you need more evidence of the violence, bloodshed, injustice and death and worse havoc that DEI is showering us with, you are willfully blind and it doesn't matter what I post. Open your eyes. It will make you a better person.
Did someone claim that or are you slaying a strawman? Does seem though that the former president of Harvard fits that description.[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. I've done enough research to have a well-informed opinion. I've gone out of my way to remain civil with you, and you post that personal insult? Why did I deserve that? You can either man-up and apologize, or you can double down on your nastiness by replying with more insults. If you want to continue with gloves off, go ahead. Your choice.
[/QUOTE] What description? Sorry, you need to clarify that. Look back through the posts. The way the poll choices are worded is flame-bait, and the right took that hook deep. There are many posts about the inadequacy and incompetence of people they are convinced were DEI hires. As I said, I'm not convinced.
Do you really want me to think you are genuine, and really agnostic about the issue, that in the current environment, it's a simple coincidence that, for instance, Harvard had an incompetent plagiarist black woman who should have her degree rescinded as their president? Possibly the most important university on the planet? And that isn't hyperbole. Harvard ranks # one on the list of schools from which Federal Judges received their law degrees. Half of USSC justices appointed in this century graduated from there. Eight US POTUS got their degrees there. And it is just a coincidence during the DEI wars that Claudine Gay became their president? I have to think such an argument is made in bad faith. But I'll bite. What has your research resulted in? What is your well-informed opinion?
You came in 'mid-stream'.... @DarkDaimon had stated that SAT scores are "affected by racism". I asked him then, "What exactly is your PROOF that SAT scores are "affected by racism"...?!" His reply was simply to provide a link to an article written by Francis Pearman, which amounted to little more than a subjective, 'woke' opinion about how unfair academic venues are to Blacks, etc. Dr. Pearman and DarkDaimaon are certainly entitled to their opinions, but neither answers with PROOF that "SAT scores are affected by racism". Now do you understand the crux of the argument? If you ask MS Co-Pilot to list the primary areas focused on by SAT tests, the answer is: "The SAT primarily assesses students in two main areas: Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (EBRW) and Mathematics. Here's how it breaks down: - EBRW Section: - Reading: Tests comprehension, interpretation, and reasoning using passages from literature, historical documents, social sciences, and natural sciences. - Writing and Language: Focuses on grammar, clarity, sentence structure, and effective communication. - Mathematics Section: - Covers algebra, problem-solving, data analysis, geometry, and some advanced math concepts like trigonometry." Now -- my question to you (and DarkDaimon) would be, "What exactly is there about reading, writing, and mathematics that is RACIST?!" Hell, most colleges and universities don't even make applicants write essays anymore... so what's the problem?!
I really hate to agree with Marv because his batting average with reality is terrible but.... Both Native Americans and African Americans do not have scholarly traditions. For 400 years of slavery it was against the law to teach them to read. After Emancipation they had underfunded schools, prevented from a higher higher education and barred from trade unions. 75 years after freedom, Black poverty rate was 87% and poorly educated. Industry brought them north for living wages and education was unnecessary to work in a factory. I read a study once on high school homework study habits. East Asians did homework for two hours, whites for one hour and Blacks one half hour. That is cultural. One was molded by racist oppression.
Nope, sorry, no apology means no credibility. I won't debate with someone who thinks it's okay to insult people online. Nasty people are not worth my time.
My wife keeps me informed of all things South American. We went to Mexico last August and to Argentina in February of 2025. Both my wife and I would like to settle in South America somewhere and I always think that I can go back to teaching English as a Second Language. I am sure that Mr. Pierre Poilievre's wife keeps him up to date on what is happening in South America as well. A suggestion for possible Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre?
"I am sure that Mr. Pierre Poilievre's wife keeps him up to date on what is happening in South America as well." What Huh? I could only imagine Ecuador for nice people & stability Remain in Nova Scotia. Visit as you like.
"non-white people (who) have their jobs because of their race or gender, and that they aren't really qualified." I did look back and didnt see anyone asserting that a "majority of non-white people have their jobs because of their race or gender, and that they aren't really qualified." Hyperbole used to support your claims you cannot support.
DEI is showering us with "violence, bloodshed, injustice and death and worse havoc"? The new right-wing bogeyman. It replaced BLM and CRT as something for white men to fear and you get hysterical comments like this..
Maybe it's a little less dramatic than that, Edna. Maybe the evil impulse that animates social-manipulation schemes like DEI is nothing more than the latest version of a theme that had become commonplace in America beginning way back in the 1970's... one which simply advocates the "inclusion" of people into situations, opportunities, and careers based on THEIR RACE -- and that's the very epitome of "racism"! It actually began with "Affirmative Action" (Reverse-Discrimination) in 1961, according to MS Copilot. Here's what Copilot had to say about the origins of "AA": "Affirmative Action in the United States began in 1961, when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925. This order required government contractors to take "affirmative action" to ensure fair employment practices without discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin. The policy was later expanded by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 through Executive Order 11246, which established enforcement guidelines for federal contractors. Over time, Affirmative Action evolved into a broader system addressing discrimination in education and employment." So egalitarian in theory, and so seemingly innocent in intent -- and yet look at what it and other 'reverse-discrimination' schemes morphed into during the last 60 years! Cut to the chase -- No American citizen should ever be given unfair advantages of any kind over another American citizen -- period!
Yeah, sure, that's DEI.....now I'll just back away slowly.... Yes, minorities demanding equal rights and equal treatment are all part of the lefts master plan to replace the power of white males.
All minorities were legally and morally correct in demanding EQUAL treatment in this country, Edna... we surely agree on that. Thankfully, 'Jim Crow' and other devices to suppress Blacks were terminated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But during the past 60 years, this striving for equality became a shrill, angry series of demands for reverse-discrimination in the forms of "affirmative action", hiring minority quotas in government, "race-conscious" college admissions, hiring quotas of minorities for government contractors, large numbers of lucrative government contracts that were "set-aside" so that only minority-owned companies were even allowed to BID on them, etc., etc., etc. That kind of 'reverse-discrimination' RACISM is what we see in creations like "DEI" and similar social-manipulation mechanisms. Slowly, but surely, this Supreme Court will finally get rid of all this despicable racist nonsense!
Your picture is absurd. Are you suggestibg the persons rioting in the picture are rioting against DEI policies? Are you suggesting anyone who riots in the US is leftist? Oh here let's remind you again of who else riots and you selectively ignore and sorenders your comment imbecilic in its intent to smeer:
I abbreviated your response not taking it out of context. The pith and substance of your argument is that DEI is reverse racist and "shrill". In regards to using the word shrill, when we use it on this forum of course we mean to say the position the other side states or advocates for was argued or criticized in a manner with too much force. All I can say in that regard is that people in favour and against DEI can be shrill in supporting their views so I will leave that one aside and assume you mean in your context DEI has become used too forcefully and/or for situations you see it is not needed for. I also assume from your comments that you also subjectively determined sometime in the last 60 years DEI became shrill. This undermines your position that all DEI is racist and therefore not a solution to racism because it infers at one time it may not have been shrill and therefore was still appropriate to be used but you are not specific when it turned shrill. Yes I have an issue with that. Either DEI or affirmative action was wrong from the get go for being racist, or according to you it started off non racist but then turned racist. Do you even know? That aside let's assume your argument is all DEI is racist. DEI policy reverses the effects of racist discrimination or tries to counter it by providing targets or racism an advantage to offset the discrimination to make things equal or fair in hiring processes. By nature it only provides the advantage to a group targetted as facing discrimination. I get your argument. I agree that it reverses racism with a type of reverse discrimination based on race. Yes. I don't believe on that point Edna disagrees that DEI identifies groups in need of an advantage to offset the disadvantage caused by the discrimination to the people targetted. She has never denied that to me or you. Here is the issue though I have no answer to her with when I express that reverse racism concern. All Edna has asked me and you is-what makes a hiring process fair. If policies were put in because the hiring practices were unfair to offset the unfairness how is that offsetting unfair? Well to be perfectly honest, for me to argue to Edna or anyone the offsetting is UNFAIR, I must provide evidence the unfair disadvantages in which the DEI is designed to offset have ended rendering them obsolete. How do I do that? Can I honestly say to Edna there are no disadvantages to visible minorities, disabled, women? Maybe in specific sectors I could prove it in very specific environments. Now I could understand and support your argument in suggesting a class or targetted group of people who need help in hiring processes could very well be "poor" people, i.e., chronically unemployed people. I do believe we all agree that programs designed to hire chronically unemployed and poor people should be colourless if the disadvantage is purely from poverty. My problem though is I am not sure how you or I define what is fair and unfair and simplify DEI to being racist and so wrong. Mixed into your argument without you specifying and you can correct me if I am wrong is an underlying concern targetted groups for DEI no longer need it and some of that could come from the argument there are poor, chronically unemployed white people in need of help in hiring processes. Me I am not sure DEI by itself prevents other programs for chronically unemployeed or poor white people. The two are NOT necessarily working against one another. Say they are, in cases where there is more than one disadvantaged group applying for the same job, i.e., black, other visible minority, female, gay, poor white, surely you realize they all are treated equally in consideration and so it comes down to often one's personality, certain qualifications. You have never heard Edna argue blacks are more entitled to disabled or other minorities or even poor white people. In her context of white men, yes it assumes white men who have a built kin advantage of getting hired because of specific things minorities do not have but they have and what those specific things are I leave to hear or others to define as being "privileged". I myself am never clear on the definition and is part of the confusion and arguement about DEI. So I will say this-I get your concerns. I agree to a point, i.e., if someone is hired by DEI but did not past the same competency test first to determine the necessary skills before DEI is hired, that for me is problematic. I argue DEI should only be applied after the initial round of competency when people make a certain mark of competency based on objective testing. Then after that my argument is DEI can and should be adjusted as society and inequality and the groups disadvantaged change so it can remain applicable onl to the disadvantaged. What the criteria should be to identify when a group changes from disadvantaged to advantaged is, I do not claim to have an answer right now for. Next I disagree with arbitrary firings based on the subjective assumption someone hired by DEI should not have their job which is what Trump is doing. That is blatantlly illegal and to no one's surprise the courts have ruled its illegal meaning much of the Musk firings and continuing threats against the military, schools, etc., by Trump are all being struck down in court.
