So I guess you’re happy with the concept of Redlining[0] and believe that any government spending on either preventing the practice, or undoing the decades worth of damage caused by historical Redlining are simply a waste of government time and money?
That preventing a repeat of the damage done to America cities by the national highway system[1], which was used mechanism to literally segregate American cities is also a waste of time and money.
Most of the US significant racial atrocities committed against its own citizens, where either committed by, or with the direct assistance of, the U.S. government (at both state and federal level).
There probably a good discussion to be had on how much should be spent on DEI efforts. But the idea that spending zero really doesn’t make much sense, we know what the consequences of allowing the U.S. government to become entirely occupied by white men. Ultimately a monoculture of people results in a monoculture of ideas, and monocultures never last, something comes along finding some critical weakness that common to every agent in the monoculture, and utterly destroys the organism (in the case of the U.S. government, that might be Trump and Musk). DEI is strategically important because diverse systems are more robust, produce better ideas, and are better capable of surviving extreme shocks. All attributes people should want in their government.
Don’t say “I’m avoiding any biases” with one breath and “I don’t want the gov to spend a dollar on DEI and don’t try to convince me otherwise” with the other. Seems you don’t understand what “bias” means.
A disappointingly high number of people think "DEI" means "choosing unqualified women/PoC over qualified white men".
The reality is that DEI is a campaign to get people aware of implicit bias. It's been proven time and time again that resumes with a name like "Shaniqua" are more likely to be rejected over one with a "John" even when all the qualifications are the same.
But now, of course, with the current political climate, if you're a woman or PoC, you have to be a perfect worker. If you make any kind of mistake, you'll be accused of being a DEI hire.
I suspect we're gonna start seeing this XKCD linked more often over the next 4 years: https://xkcd.com/385/
One could argue that Senators from small states are DEI hires -- since the reason Wyoming and California both get 2 senators was to ensure that small states were not otherwise disadvantaged due to their population size. Correcting inherent disadvantages in the system is the whole point of "equity".
Cutting DEI is blatantly and explicitly political. They can do that, within the laws and regulation that apply (this part is arguably something they don't follow). But it's not fraud or abuse, this is just "stuff they don't like".
They're cutting a lot more than that, this has been all over the media. One example would be biomedical research via NIH/NSF. This is not just DEI (in whatever overly broad and vague definition they use), but a lot more.
So maybe they're cutting a lot of other things and just highlighting the DEI stuff in order to draw attention away from the non-DEI stuff? I could believe that though I doubt anyone has done an analysis of the proportions yet.
What about this argument people are making in this thread that they're not actually doing any real cutting because they're not Congress? That seems like a stretch.
No, if I was deaf my views on this would still be the same. I would still think that "DEI" as an idea is not something the federal government should spend money on.
I would also still support the ADA and its enforcement.
These two ideas are not in conflict. No one is trying to strip the legal rights of deaf people, nor will it happen. That is a straw man/hyperbole.
“ Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”
So I guess you’re happy with the concept of Redlining[0] and believe that any government spending on either preventing the practice, or undoing the decades worth of damage caused by historical Redlining are simply a waste of government time and money?
That preventing a repeat of the damage done to America cities by the national highway system[1], which was used mechanism to literally segregate American cities is also a waste of time and money.
Most of the US significant racial atrocities committed against its own citizens, where either committed by, or with the direct assistance of, the U.S. government (at both state and federal level).
There probably a good discussion to be had on how much should be spent on DEI efforts. But the idea that spending zero really doesn’t make much sense, we know what the consequences of allowing the U.S. government to become entirely occupied by white men. Ultimately a monoculture of people results in a monoculture of ideas, and monocultures never last, something comes along finding some critical weakness that common to every agent in the monoculture, and utterly destroys the organism (in the case of the U.S. government, that might be Trump and Musk). DEI is strategically important because diverse systems are more robust, produce better ideas, and are better capable of surviving extreme shocks. All attributes people should want in their government.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-...
Don’t say “I’m avoiding any biases” with one breath and “I don’t want the gov to spend a dollar on DEI and don’t try to convince me otherwise” with the other. Seems you don’t understand what “bias” means.
A disappointingly high number of people think "DEI" means "choosing unqualified women/PoC over qualified white men".
The reality is that DEI is a campaign to get people aware of implicit bias. It's been proven time and time again that resumes with a name like "Shaniqua" are more likely to be rejected over one with a "John" even when all the qualifications are the same.
But now, of course, with the current political climate, if you're a woman or PoC, you have to be a perfect worker. If you make any kind of mistake, you'll be accused of being a DEI hire.
I suspect we're gonna start seeing this XKCD linked more often over the next 4 years: https://xkcd.com/385/
One could argue that Senators from small states are DEI hires -- since the reason Wyoming and California both get 2 senators was to ensure that small states were not otherwise disadvantaged due to their population size. Correcting inherent disadvantages in the system is the whole point of "equity".
So how about we start by purging the Senate.
Cutting DEI is blatantly and explicitly political. They can do that, within the laws and regulation that apply (this part is arguably something they don't follow). But it's not fraud or abuse, this is just "stuff they don't like".
They're cutting a lot more than that, this has been all over the media. One example would be biomedical research via NIH/NSF. This is not just DEI (in whatever overly broad and vague definition they use), but a lot more.
So maybe they're cutting a lot of other things and just highlighting the DEI stuff in order to draw attention away from the non-DEI stuff? I could believe that though I doubt anyone has done an analysis of the proportions yet.
What about this argument people are making in this thread that they're not actually doing any real cutting because they're not Congress? That seems like a stretch.
How is getting rid of USAID and CFPB, cutting back on the EPA and firing anyone at the DOJ who had anything to do with Trumps cases, related to DEI?
[flagged]
No, if I was deaf my views on this would still be the same. I would still think that "DEI" as an idea is not something the federal government should spend money on.
I would also still support the ADA and its enforcement.
These two ideas are not in conflict. No one is trying to strip the legal rights of deaf people, nor will it happen. That is a straw man/hyperbole.
Well, about that:
“ Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”
So… not exactly a strawman.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi...