UVA President resigns under pressure

[Anonymous]

The white leftist profs at UVA Law School, where Ryan and his ex provost graduated in early/mid 90’s, would defend affirmative action by saying if there were no such policy, there would be less than 3 blacks a year in the law school class and they didn’t believe that was “fair.” (They didn’t even mention Latino back then - the only reason they started to use it in the last 15 years was to give cover to the blacks who were the only intended beneficiaries of the policy.) Today, most people are just fine with less than 3 blacks (or even, gasp, 0) in the graduating class of UVA Law, including me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mediocre white students, especially males, hate being around excellence.

Huh? How does giving a boost to someone purely because of the color of their skin make them "excellent"? Removing DEI means that no one gets in based on their race, but ONLY due to their qualifications. Of course, Democrats are dead set against merit ONLY admissions. Makes sense.

People, people! How many times does this have to be explained?! White women have statistically been the biggest beneficiaries of DEI policies. Yes, shocking and sad. That means that DEI includes everyone in the US except for cis, able-bodied white men.

It was created because that small minority of Americans had (and in most cases) have an outsized representation in all facets of academia, business, government, etc. it was created BECAUSE merit didn’t exist, and we’re seeing with this admin, who cut all the women generals and fired people of color that they hate women and POC and LGBTQ and veterans and people with any kind of disability.

This is petty, vindictive, and an overreach of state’s rights. Stand up or watch your own rights be eroded, unless you are a cis, able bodied white man (and there are fortunately a decent amount of them finally speaking up).

Women benefitted from affirmative action (as it was originally conceived), not DEI.

Women were admitted into all male schools DEPITE being women, not BECAUSE they were women.
Underqualified white women were not admitted over more qualified men.
Women were allowed to compete in areas where they were not previously allowed.

I ask no favor for my sex, all I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. - RBG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The white leftist profs at UVA Law School, where Ryan and his ex provost graduated in early/mid 90’s, would defend affirmative action by saying if there were no such policy, there would be less than 3 blacks a year in the law school class and they didn’t believe that was “fair.” (They didn’t even mention Latino back then - the only reason they started to use it in the last 15 years was to give cover to the blacks who were the only intended beneficiaries of the policy.) Today, most people are just fine with less than 3 blacks (or even, gasp, 0) in the graduating class of UVA Law, including me.

This white lady is not fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mediocre white students, especially males, hate being around excellence.

Huh? How does giving a boost to someone purely because of the color of their skin make them "excellent"? Removing DEI means that no one gets in based on their race, but ONLY due to their qualifications. Of course, Democrats are dead set against merit ONLY admissions. Makes sense.

People, people! How many times does this have to be explained?! White women have statistically been the biggest beneficiaries of DEI policies. Yes, shocking and sad. That means that DEI includes everyone in the US except for cis, able-bodied white men.

It was created because that small minority of Americans had (and in most cases) have an outsized representation in all facets of academia, business, government, etc. it was created BECAUSE merit didn’t exist, and we’re seeing with this admin, who cut all the women generals and fired people of color that they hate women and POC and LGBTQ and veterans and people with any kind of disability.

This is petty, vindictive, and an overreach of state’s rights. Stand up or watch your own rights be eroded, unless you are a cis, able bodied white man (and there are fortunately a decent amount of them finally speaking up).

Women benefitted from affirmative action (as it was originally conceived), not DEI.

Women were admitted into all male schools DEPITE being women, not BECAUSE they were women.
Underqualified white women were not admitted over more qualified men.
Women were allowed to compete in areas where they were not previously allowed.

I ask no favor for my sex, all I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. - RBG

Now that women are outnumbering men on most campuses, many less qualified men are being admitted BECAUSE they’re men to keep the balance somewhat in check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mediocre white students, especially males, hate being around excellence.

Huh? How does giving a boost to someone purely because of the color of their skin make them "excellent"? Removing DEI means that no one gets in based on their race, but ONLY due to their qualifications. Of course, Democrats are dead set against merit ONLY admissions. Makes sense.

People, people! How many times does this have to be explained?! White women have statistically been the biggest beneficiaries of DEI policies. Yes, shocking and sad. That means that DEI includes everyone in the US except for cis, able-bodied white men.

It was created because that small minority of Americans had (and in most cases) have an outsized representation in all facets of academia, business, government, etc. it was created BECAUSE merit didn’t exist, and we’re seeing with this admin, who cut all the women generals and fired people of color that they hate women and POC and LGBTQ and veterans and people with any kind of disability.

This is petty, vindictive, and an overreach of state’s rights. Stand up or watch your own rights be eroded, unless you are a cis, able bodied white man (and there are fortunately a decent amount of them finally speaking up).

VP - JD Vance - veteran
Secretary of State - Marco Rubio - Hispanic
Secretary of Treasury - Scott Bessent - gay
Defense - Pete Hegseth - veteran
Attorney General - Pam Bondi - woman
Secretary of Interior - some white dude
Secretary of Agriculture - Brook Rollins woman
Secretary of Commerce - Howard Lutnick Jew
Secretary of Labor - Lori Chavez DeRemer Mexican American Woman
And the list goes on.

[Anonymous]

who is the incoming chair of the board at UVA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good riddance.

Thank you, Trump.

+100
I find it so interesting that the Democrats who are outraged about this are effectively saying, "We want certain people to be discriminated against and other people to be treated more favorably - and all based on their race." Not that we didn't already know this, but wow - it's something to see them actually confirm this.

Let me translate this for you: UVA wanted more people with actual potential, and fewer people whose daddies bought them the very best schools, the very best test prep, and the very best essay writers their money could buy. Maybe someone who worked a real job, because mom needed help with the bills that summer, instead of a summer “internship” in daddy’s golf buddy’s investment firm. People who can actually contribute and benefit from a rigorous market place ideas instead of get blackout drunk at the frat house every weekend.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion. Why have that when you can have same, unfair, and exclusionary? Why, I’d never get that.

And how do you know who had potential if there is no objective metrics at play? Oh that's right, their skin color and gender identity determines their "potential"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From trump because of DEI. Bastards! Why do they hate this much?

https://apnews.com/article/university-of-virginia-dei-james-ryan-6f8cfc43738944ca8164ab20814c5695

Because its a violation of our civil rights laws. Omg, why can't you guys get it? We arent going to make it legal to discriminate against white people and Asians. Okay? Give it up.

+1
From the article:

“This week’s developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution,” Megan Redshaw, an attorney at the group, said in a statement. “They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority.”

Can someone please share what laws were violated? I've looked and don't see anything specific. What triggered the Trump administration?

It's only been 4 months since the EOs from the administration were released. The one that reversed Executive Order 11246, issued in 1965, so now federal contractors no longer have to ensure that all qualified individuals, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or veteran status, are treated equally in employment, said 90 days to implement .

What did UVA do? Race based admissions has been stopped by the Supreme Court Colleges no longer see race data and there wasn't a significant increase of URM enrollment at UVS so what is the problem?

They played games with dismantling the DEI programs by renaming them and shuffling them around.

I personally don't feel like UVA was the worst offender but they did play games with DEI abnd they are probably using race in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mediocre white students, especially males, hate being around excellence.

Huh? How does giving a boost to someone purely because of the color of their skin make them "excellent"? Removing DEI means that no one gets in based on their race, but ONLY due to their qualifications. Of course, Democrats are dead set against merit ONLY admissions. Makes sense.

People, people! How many times does this have to be explained?! White women have statistically been the biggest beneficiaries of DEI policies. Yes, shocking and sad. That means that DEI includes everyone in the US except for cis, able-bodied white men.

It was created because that small minority of Americans had (and in most cases) have an outsized representation in all facets of academia, business, government, etc. it was created BECAUSE merit didn’t exist, and we’re seeing with this admin, who cut all the women generals and fired people of color that they hate women and POC and LGBTQ and veterans and people with any kind of disability.

This is petty, vindictive, and an overreach of state’s rights. Stand up or watch your own rights be eroded, unless you are a cis, able bodied white man (and there are fortunately a decent amount of them finally speaking up).

VP - JD Vance - veteran
Secretary of State - Marco Rubio - Hispanic
Secretary of Treasury - Scott Bessent - gay
Defense - Pete Hegseth - veteran
Attorney General - Pam Bondi - woman
Secretary of Interior - some white dude
Secretary of Agriculture - Brook Rollins woman
Secretary of Commerce - Howard Lutnick Jew
Secretary of Labor - Lori Chavez DeRemer Mexican American Woman
And the list goes on.

Wow, he really does love white people, doesn’t he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why isn't Tech getting caught up in this? They had the 40% URM/USS admissions strategic goal.

Just wait. It's probably next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm an Asian female and despise DEI. That being said, I despise Trump and his admin even more!

To me, DEI as a concept is wrong. Merit has to come first. Always. A person will succeed but it has to be on their efforts not because they are white or black or yellow or whatever. DEI is an insult to anyone who has any self respect and most people who are condoning it are white who think they know why it's important. I've never met a self respecting minority who wholly embraces DEI because they would not be judged on their merits but many of course love that they don't need to be and that's why it can exist.

I don't agree either with Miller's ilk pushing this in a manner that's strong arming those in leadership. It ought to be a debated policy change. I don't think it hurts whites as much as it's unfair to them and unfair to anyone who cares about merit. But taking down this policy isn't about ordering it, rather needs to be a process that isn't based on fear tactics.

It's racial discrimination. Why do we need consensus to stomp out racial discrimination the way we did with segregation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mediocre white students, especially males, hate being around excellence.

Huh? How does giving a boost to someone purely because of the color of their skin make them "excellent"? Removing DEI means that no one gets in based on their race, but ONLY due to their qualifications. Of course, Democrats are dead set against merit ONLY admissions. Makes sense.

People, people! How many times does this have to be explained?! White women have statistically been the biggest beneficiaries of DEI policies. Yes, shocking and sad. That means that DEI includes everyone in the US except for cis, able-bodied white men.

It was created because that small minority of Americans had (and in most cases) have an outsized representation in all facets of academia, business, government, etc. it was created BECAUSE merit didn’t exist, and we’re seeing with this admin, who cut all the women generals and fired people of color that they hate women and POC and LGBTQ and veterans and people with any kind of disability.

This is petty, vindictive, and an overreach of state’s rights. Stand up or watch your own rights be eroded, unless you are a cis, able bodied white man (and there are fortunately a decent amount of them finally speaking up).

Women benefitted from affirmative action (as it was originally conceived), not DEI.

Women were admitted into all male schools DEPITE being women, not BECAUSE they were women.
Underqualified white women were not admitted over more qualified men.
Women were allowed to compete in areas where they were not previously allowed.

I ask no favor for my sex, all I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. - RBG

I would gently ask that nobody quote that selfish, obtuse POS whose inability to put the national interests first has probably done more damage to this republic than anyone other than Mitch McConnell over the past 50 years.

RBG, thanks for nothing … literally … nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an Asian female and despise DEI. That being said, I despise Trump and his admin even more!

To me, DEI as a concept is wrong. Merit has to come first. Always. A person will succeed but it has to be on their efforts not because they are white or black or yellow or whatever. DEI is an insult to anyone who has any self respect and most people who are condoning it are white who think they know why it's important. I've never met a self respecting minority who wholly embraces DEI because they would not be judged on their merits but many of course love that they don't need to be and that's why it can exist.

I don't agree either with Miller's ilk pushing this in a manner that's strong arming those in leadership. It ought to be a debated policy change. I don't think it hurts whites as much as it's unfair to them and unfair to anyone who cares about merit. But taking down this policy isn't about ordering it, rather needs to be a process that isn't based on fear tactics.

I agree with the bolded. The precedent that has been set in terms of government overreach and use of fear tactics is what bothers me the most about this case.

On the DEI issue, if you are Asian then at some point in time someone in your family line came from a largely homogenous Asian country. My roots are in a super homogenous European country where university admission is entirely based on performance on a single annual university entry exam--and nothing else. That's probably also the case in the Asian country(its) your relatives came from. But the US's experience is very different. It is a country of immigrants and has a history of forced migration (slavery), so it is very different than more homogenous countries that haven't had this experience. Can you understand why the approach here might be different and why addressing differences in access to employment, college admission, etc. may be necessary in such a heterogenous society?

It has been over 150 years since the emancipation of slaves.
It has been over 50 years since the civil rights movement.
Immigrants frequently come to this country with little to nothing and achieve success.
I don't know of many other places in this world where this is true.
So, no I do not understand why there have to be racial preferences that mostly help african and Caribbean immigrants over the descendants of slaves and help hispanics more frequently than the asians they used to lynch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From trump because of DEI. Bastards! Why do they hate this much?

https://apnews.com/article/university-of-virginia-dei-james-ryan-6f8cfc43738944ca8164ab20814c5695

Because its a violation of our civil rights laws. Omg, why can't you guys get it? We arent going to make it legal to discriminate against white people and Asians. Okay? Give it up.

Stop lying. You are scared that if a TRUE merit system is in place, white people won't have the only seats at the table. Oh you poor, poor, unqualified white people.

So many in this thread live in bizarro world.

DEI is not based on merit.

Correct. This is what DEI means: we will not hire primarily based upon merit, experience, or education but by gender (female), sexuality (LGBTQ), and ethnicity (non-White). This is because of our perceived injustices in the past; therefore, in our wisdom, two wrongs actually do make a right.

No, what DEI means is that given two equal candidates, if one is from a "protected class" they should be given the nod. No one is hiring underqualified or unqualified candidates.

DEI is not and never has been merely a tie breaker. it isn't even a thumb on the scale. it is a heavy hand picking winners and losers based on skin color and sexual preference/gender identity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From trump because of DEI. Bastards! Why do they hate this much?

https://apnews.com/article/university-of-virginia-dei-james-ryan-6f8cfc43738944ca8164ab20814c5695

Because its a violation of our civil rights laws. Omg, why can't you guys get it? We arent going to make it legal to discriminate against white people and Asians. Okay? Give it up.

Stop lying. You are scared that if a TRUE merit system is in place, white people won't have the only seats at the table. Oh you poor, poor, unqualified white people.

So many in this thread live in bizarro world.

DEI is not based on merit.

Correct. This is what DEI means: we will not hire primarily based upon merit, experience, or education but by gender (female), sexuality (LGBTQ), and ethnicity (non-White). This is because of our perceived injustices in the past; therefore, in our wisdom, two wrongs actually do make a right.

No, what DEI means is that given two equal candidates, if one is from a "protected class" they should be given the nod. No one is hiring underqualified or unqualified candidates.

You are absolutely wrong about that. Unqualified candidates are hired ALL the time.

And yet there’s no outrage from MAGA about all the unqualified people running our country, our counterterrorism efforts, FFS.

You mean the guy that was ELECTED?