DEI is just the easiest way for the administration to be racist and commit hate based firings without repercussions.
Glad people are refusing to sign an agreement with the fascists as THEY WILL take money back at any moment in time. They are very fragile people trying to compensate for being cucks.
I think you are severely underestimating the level of influence the US government already has. NIST is a US Agency. Much of research in the US is done at the behest of the government. My local university had to comply* with anti-DEI policy to continue receiving federal funds ( it’s primary source of income).
Influencing the foundation of a, quite frankly bad, programming language is not really that impactful, especially considering that the foundation apparently only has 14 employees.
*In case you were wondering the only change they had to make was discontinuing LGBT work anniversaries. So you can probably see why I view this anti-anti-DEI fear mongering with some skepticism. The reality is that racial bias in an organization is very difficult to actually prove, regardless of whether it is pro or anti minority, so anti-DEI constraints simply prohibit explicit biasing.
DEI isn’t preferential treatment. It’s a methodology for correcting past, and preventing future preferential treatment.
And yes, I read your entire comment. The last 2 paragraphs are fine, but your first paragraph misses the mark by miles. What you describe in the first paragraph isn’t DEI.
It looks like in the US supreme court decision the justices clarified the law and kicked it back to the lower courts. The final case hasn’t been ruled on yet. In the past, majority groups were expected to have stronger evidence for discrimination. This decision changes that. I don’t think that’s a great decision for minorities and I’m not sure using the current US Supreme court’s motivations, which don’t seem to be at all concerned with precedent, are a great basis for how we should frame our understanding of racial justice.
The UK case seems to indicate a ruling on the narrow principle of ‘positive action’ which is fundamentally distinct from ‘positive discrimination.’ You seem to be mixing those two ideas up a bit.
The judicial system is inherently conservative. It’s designed to be that way. And just because a judge or group of judges decides something doesn’t make it the right thing to do. This whole ‘reverse discrimination’ push is simply undoing the progress of the civil rights movement, unfortunately.
You are proposing a solution that has no real way to be implemented. How would you distribute the reparations? Would just having one ancestor who was a slave be enough? What if you also have an ancestor who was a wealthy merchant? What if your family immigrated after slaver, but before Jim Crow? Does having multiple ancestors stack? What if the company that took advantage of your ancestors doesn’t exist anymore? There is no perfect system, but I think you’re underestimating how many problems your system has.
And black families were held back on the starting line on purpose.
It wasn’t just Black families either.
You also didn’t answer my question about how you handle families who came to America after slavery. You’ve made your answer simple by ignoring a lot of the issues I brought up. From a practical angle, it’s far easier to implement DEI. It also wouldn’t have to be implemented long term. It would only really be necessary for those with an unfair education. If you fix the public school system, you could retire DEI once those school kids enter the workforce.
DEI is just the easiest way for the administration to be racist and commit hate based firings without repercussions.
Glad people are refusing to sign an agreement with the fascists as THEY WILL take money back at any moment in time. They are very fragile people trying to compensate for being cucks.
I don’t believe that NSF had any ability to fire people from PSF.
Even if they will take the money back, isn’t that just a interest-free loan? It doesn’t seem like there is any drawback in your hypothetical.
That assumes you have that kind of cash to pay them back when they come knocking…
They’re buying influence. Its pretty clear.
The US government needs to buy influence? And they are doing that by giving grants that organizations apply for?
Do you think this is an isolated instance? They’re probably trying to do this a lot.
And if course they’re trying to influence other orgs to their will. Why else would you do this?
I think you are severely underestimating the level of influence the US government already has. NIST is a US Agency. Much of research in the US is done at the behest of the government. My local university had to comply* with anti-DEI policy to continue receiving federal funds ( it’s primary source of income).
Influencing the foundation of a, quite frankly bad, programming language is not really that impactful, especially considering that the foundation apparently only has 14 employees.
*In case you were wondering the only change they had to make was discontinuing LGBT work anniversaries. So you can probably see why I view this anti-anti-DEI fear mongering with some skepticism. The reality is that racial bias in an organization is very difficult to actually prove, regardless of whether it is pro or anti minority, so anti-DEI constraints simply prohibit explicit biasing.
That still doesn’t answer why do it then.
They’re literally attaching conditions to money. That’s one of the fundamentals of buying influence is attaching strings.
Removed by mod
DEI isn’t preferential treatment. It’s a methodology for correcting past, and preventing future preferential treatment.
And yes, I read your entire comment. The last 2 paragraphs are fine, but your first paragraph misses the mark by miles. What you describe in the first paragraph isn’t DEI.
Removed by mod
It looks like in the US supreme court decision the justices clarified the law and kicked it back to the lower courts. The final case hasn’t been ruled on yet. In the past, majority groups were expected to have stronger evidence for discrimination. This decision changes that. I don’t think that’s a great decision for minorities and I’m not sure using the current US Supreme court’s motivations, which don’t seem to be at all concerned with precedent, are a great basis for how we should frame our understanding of racial justice.
The UK case seems to indicate a ruling on the narrow principle of ‘positive action’ which is fundamentally distinct from ‘positive discrimination.’ You seem to be mixing those two ideas up a bit.
The judicial system is inherently conservative. It’s designed to be that way. And just because a judge or group of judges decides something doesn’t make it the right thing to do. This whole ‘reverse discrimination’ push is simply undoing the progress of the civil rights movement, unfortunately.
Removed by mod
Quite a mouthful. Too bad none of it addresses the legal nuances you completely ignored in your previous assessment.
You are proposing a solution that has no real way to be implemented. How would you distribute the reparations? Would just having one ancestor who was a slave be enough? What if you also have an ancestor who was a wealthy merchant? What if your family immigrated after slaver, but before Jim Crow? Does having multiple ancestors stack? What if the company that took advantage of your ancestors doesn’t exist anymore? There is no perfect system, but I think you’re underestimating how many problems your system has.
Removed by mod
It wasn’t just banks.
It wasn’t just Black families either.
You also didn’t answer my question about how you handle families who came to America after slavery. You’ve made your answer simple by ignoring a lot of the issues I brought up. From a practical angle, it’s far easier to implement DEI. It also wouldn’t have to be implemented long term. It would only really be necessary for those with an unfair education. If you fix the public school system, you could retire DEI once those school kids enter the workforce.
Removed by mod
You don’t understand dei. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Wrongggggggggggg