Diversity Equity and Inclusion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

The goal is to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy.

Yep -- all those adjuncts who make $20,000 a year are suddenly propelled to the lofty heights of university pay because they string together some word salad, show up looking like themselves, and scare the bejesus out of the general counsel's office.

Can you please elaborate on what you are trying to say here? I want to make sure I completely understand.

Maybe an illustration can help. A poster said that the goal of DE&I was to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy

Bonnie diAngelo, author of “White Fragility,” is a renowned, wealthy DE&I huckster

She started as an adjunct at Westfield State in Massachusetts, a school with an 85% admission rate

She strung together this word salad “how whiteness is reproduced in every day whiteness.”

That propelled her to an Affiliate Associate Professor at the University of Washington, a school with a 51% admission rate

That propelled her to lucrative gigs with HR departments at companies whose legal department said they needed DE&I training.

Dr di Angelo is one of the not do special academics who prospered from DE&I.

Hope this helps with your 6th grade summer project.

Wow. One adjunct made it big. That's definitely PROOF that it's a trend. I'd better tell all my adjunct friends so they can get in on the scam!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got a feeling the DE&I backlash is starting to emerge. The moral busybodies have taken what is otherwise a noble cause.

For the simple reason that it isn't what they claim it is.

D&I people: "We just want to help people who were disadvantaged."

Normal people: "Why don't you focus your program on people who have been disadvantaged?"

D&I people: "No, it has to be about identity, race in particular."

I'm not sure the conversation on this thread is going anywhere unless we can agree on a common definition of DE&I. Anyone who is actually in the field would absolutely never say anything like that.

Part of the problem is that people opposed to concepts like DE&I, critical race theory based initiatives, structural racism, etc. don't trust that advocates of those concepts are really saying what they mean.

Alternatively, what if those people are really trying to square how those concepts practically work in a free-market capitalist country like the United States? It is not like Kendi hid the fact that anti-racism is at best in tension with, if not diametrically opposed to, a capitalist economy. See here: https://mobile.twitter.com/dribram/status/1302724276412387334?lang=en. Accordingly, they may be asking proponents of the concepts what it would mean to achieve equity, whereas equality is a concept that fits in with capitalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

The goal is to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy.

Yep -- all those adjuncts who make $20,000 a year are suddenly propelled to the lofty heights of university pay because they string together some word salad, show up looking like themselves, and scare the bejesus out of the general counsel's office.

Can you please elaborate on what you are trying to say here? I want to make sure I completely understand.

Maybe an illustration can help. A poster said that the goal of DE&I was to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy

Bonnie diAngelo, author of “White Fragility,” is a renowned, wealthy DE&I huckster

She started as an adjunct at Westfield State in Massachusetts, a school with an 85% admission rate

She strung together this word salad “how whiteness is reproduced in every day whiteness.”

That propelled her to an Affiliate Associate Professor at the University of Washington, a school with a 51% admission rate

That propelled her to lucrative gigs with HR departments at companies whose legal department said they needed DE&I training.

Dr di Angelo is one of the not do special academics who prospered from DE&I.

Hope this helps with your 6th grade summer project.

Thank you. Why did you feel the need to include the last line, which I gather was meant as an insult? What in my original question prompted that?

Robin DiAngelo is akin to those shady physicians who hawk diet pills in commercials that run at 2 AM on the weekends.

Ibram Henry Rogers... err Ibram X. Kendi is another one like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

The goal is to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy.

Yep -- all those adjuncts who make $20,000 a year are suddenly propelled to the lofty heights of university pay because they string together some word salad, show up looking like themselves, and scare the bejesus out of the general counsel's office.

Every time I see a statement like this I assume the poster has absolutely no idea what they're talking about and move on.

What is there to talk about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

The goal is to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy.

Yep -- all those adjuncts who make $20,000 a year are suddenly propelled to the lofty heights of university pay because they string together some word salad, show up looking like themselves, and scare the bejesus out of the general counsel's office.

Can you please elaborate on what you are trying to say here? I want to make sure I completely understand.

Maybe an illustration can help. A poster said that the goal of DE&I was to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy

Bonnie diAngelo, author of “White Fragility,” is a renowned, wealthy DE&I huckster

She started as an adjunct at Westfield State in Massachusetts, a school with an 85% admission rate

She strung together this word salad “how whiteness is reproduced in every day whiteness.”

That propelled her to an Affiliate Associate Professor at the University of Washington, a school with a 51% admission rate

That propelled her to lucrative gigs with HR departments at companies whose legal department said they needed DE&I training.

Dr di Angelo is one of the not do special academics who prospered from DE&I.

Hope this helps with your 6th grade summer project.

Thank you. Why did you feel the need to include the last line, which I gather was meant as an insult? What in my original question prompted that?

NP. The entire topic is at an elementary level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

The goal is to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy.

Yep -- all those adjuncts who make $20,000 a year are suddenly propelled to the lofty heights of university pay because they string together some word salad, show up looking like themselves, and scare the bejesus out of the general counsel's office.

Can you please elaborate on what you are trying to say here? I want to make sure I completely understand.

Maybe an illustration can help. A poster said that the goal of DE&I was to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy

Bonnie diAngelo, author of “White Fragility,” is a renowned, wealthy DE&I huckster

She started as an adjunct at Westfield State in Massachusetts, a school with an 85% admission rate

She strung together this word salad “how whiteness is reproduced in every day whiteness.”

That propelled her to an Affiliate Associate Professor at the University of Washington, a school with a 51% admission rate

That propelled her to lucrative gigs with HR departments at companies whose legal department said they needed DE&I training.

Dr di Angelo is one of the not do special academics who prospered from DE&I.

Hope this helps with your 6th grade summer project.

Wow. One adjunct made it big. That's definitely PROOF that it's a trend. I'd better tell all my adjunct friends so they can get in on the scam!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

+ a million
Those three words make me (and most normal people) tune out immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got a feeling the DE&I backlash is starting to emerge. The moral busybodies have taken what is otherwise a noble cause.

For the simple reason that it isn't what they claim it is.

D&I people: "We just want to help people who were disadvantaged."

Normal people: "Why don't you focus your program on people who have been disadvantaged?"

D&I people: "No, it has to be about identity, race in particular."

I'm not sure the conversation on this thread is going anywhere unless we can agree on a common definition of DE&I. Anyone who is actually in the field would absolutely never say anything like that.

Part of the problem is that people opposed to concepts like DE&I, critical race theory based initiatives, structural racism, etc. don't trust that advocates of those concepts are really saying what they mean.

Alternatively, what if those people are really trying to square how those concepts practically work in a free-market capitalist country like the United States? It is not like Kendi hid the fact that anti-racism is at best in tension with, if not diametrically opposed to, a capitalist economy. See here: https://mobile.twitter.com/dribram/status/1302724276412387334?lang=en. Accordingly, they may be asking proponents of the concepts what it would mean to achieve equity, whereas equality is a concept that fits in with capitalism.

Do people make serious arguments based on Twitter feeds?

[Anonymous]

FCPS actually hired people whose job descriptions are as follows:

"The chief equity officer supports and leads efforts by FCPS to align actions around the shared value of equity by expanding perspectives, creating the space for courageous conversations, leveraging and building upon strengths, helping all staff to understand the difference between symptoms and root causes, challenging the status quo, clarifying and focusing attention on core purpose, and ensuring that FCPS does all that it can to unlock the potential of each student."

Just a bunch of words that say absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got a feeling the DE&I backlash is starting to emerge. The moral busybodies have taken what is otherwise a noble cause.

For the simple reason that it isn't what they claim it is.

D&I people: "We just want to help people who were disadvantaged."

Normal people: "Why don't you focus your program on people who have been disadvantaged?"

D&I people: "No, it has to be about identity, race in particular."

I'm not sure the conversation on this thread is going anywhere unless we can agree on a common definition of DE&I. Anyone who is actually in the field would absolutely never say anything like that.

Part of the problem is that people opposed to concepts like DE&I, critical race theory based initiatives, structural racism, etc. don't trust that advocates of those concepts are really saying what they mean.

Alternatively, what if those people are really trying to square how those concepts practically work in a free-market capitalist country like the United States? It is not like Kendi hid the fact that anti-racism is at best in tension with, if not diametrically opposed to, a capitalist economy. See here: https://mobile.twitter.com/dribram/status/1302724276412387334?lang=en. Accordingly, they may be asking proponents of the concepts what it would mean to achieve equity, whereas equality is a concept that fits in with capitalism.

Do people make serious arguments based on Twitter feeds?

Should Kendi’s comment not be taken at face value? If so, please articulate what conditions would need to satisfied to achieve equity and how meeting those conditions is consistent with free-market capitalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

+ a million
Those three words make me (and most normal people) tune out immediately.

Please define “normal people”, and if you can, try to not say something circular that boils down to “people that feel the same way I do.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

+ a million
Those three words make me (and most normal people) tune out immediately.

Please define “normal people”, and if you can, try to not say something circular that boils down to “people that feel the same way I do.”

Normal people = people who don't want to hurt any particular group, but have little interest in some equity ideology without any clear end goal (most people)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

+ a million
Those three words make me (and most normal people) tune out immediately.

Please define “normal people”, and if you can, try to not say something circular that boils down to “people that feel the same way I do.”

Normal people = people who don't want to hurt any particular group, but have little interest in some equity ideology without any clear end goal (most people)

What makes you think that is “most people”!
Also, can you please give an example of a social movement without a clear end goal? What are your thoughts on the civil rights movement of the 1960’s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

+ a million
Those three words make me (and most normal people) tune out immediately.

Please define “normal people”, and if you can, try to not say something circular that boils down to “people that feel the same way I do.”

Normal people = people who don't want to hurt any particular group, but have little interest in some equity ideology without any clear end goal (most people)

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

+ a million
Those three words make me (and most normal people) tune out immediately.

Please define “normal people”, and if you can, try to not say something circular that boils down to “people that feel the same way I do.”

Normal people = people who don't want to hurt any particular group, but have little interest in some equity ideology without any clear end goal (most people)

What makes you think that is “most people”!
Also, can you please give an example of a social movement without a clear end goal? What are your thoughts on the civil rights movement of the 1960’s?

dp here, a goal of the civil rights movement was ending segregation. once achieved, MLK moved onto to economic issues in Chicago, which did not get as much traction.