Dept of Ed Gives Schools Two Weeks to Eliminate Race-Based Programs

[Anonymous]

I don’t doubt that some people in admissions offices can’t wait to trash applications of highly qualified minorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time we end this unconstitutional nonsense.

The Civil Rights Act was also super clear on nondiscrimination based on race.

A ever complicated multicultural society like ours must be race blind.

Nice goal but we aren’t there.

+1

As evidenced by all of this backlash against 'DEI'.

DP.

Agree we aren't there and need to get there.

But I think DEI/AA are absolutely terrible ways to accomplish that goal. In fact, I think they contribute to preventing us from ever getting to an equal opportunity/race blind society.

So I 100% disagree with your conclusion about what the backlash against DEI "proves".

Let's see what this backlash reveals about many Americans:
1. People are assuming that DEI means "black".
2. People are assuming that DEI means less qualified.
3. People would prefer to tear down our country vs. keep DEI.

We are not there yet, as evidenced by the backlash to "DEI".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The race-based med school pipelines are pretty egregious.

Please elaborate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a middle school teacher in Baltimore county. I have very few students who are not Black.

We hosted a weekly club called Black Boy Joy, but we are no longer allowed to run the club and those boys will no longer get that time and attention.

Yes you can still give them that time and attention. Rename your club (kind of silly name anyway). Keep your same focus. Open it up to everyone. You might get a couple of White kids but so what. It would only be a problem if your program was in a 98% white school.

I'm curious about why either scenario would be problem. Or do you believe only certain children deserve encouragement and support? Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time we end this unconstitutional nonsense.

The Civil Rights Act was also super clear on nondiscrimination based on race.

A ever complicated multicultural society like ours must be race blind.

Nice goal but we aren’t there.

+1

As evidenced by all of this backlash against 'DEI'.

DP.

Agree we aren't there and need to get there.

But I think DEI/AA are absolutely terrible ways to accomplish that goal. In fact, I think they contribute to preventing us from ever getting to an equal opportunity/race blind society.

So I 100% disagree with your conclusion about what the backlash against DEI "proves".

Let's see what this backlash reveals about many Americans:
1. People are assuming that DEI means "black".
2. People are assuming that DEI means less qualified.
3. People would prefer to tear down our country vs. keep DEI.

We are not there yet, as evidenced by the backlash to "DEI".

1. Sloppy argument. DEI programming grew exponentially (literally) in response to the murder of George Floyd. This is the reason that many associate DEI primarily with “Black”—because it was widely adopted in response to a Black man’s murder.

2. DEI *sometimes* has been used as a factor in hiring/promotion/admission decisions. Not surprising that this creates resentment. Americans generally hate any perception of unfairness (see the nepo baby backlash or the “dad donated a library to Harvard” or “boss’s nephew” jokes that have around since the beginning of time.

3. Hate Trump and agree that he’s tearing the country down, but disagree (a) that DEI was the primary reason he was elected, and (b) that his voters were consciously making any such tradeoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t doubt that some people in admissions offices can’t wait to trash applications of highly qualified minorities.

I’m sure there are, but they are probably outweighed by those who are going to dump anyone who looks like he could be a MAGA-supporting LMC male. Too much of a liability for too little benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time we end this unconstitutional nonsense.

The Civil Rights Act was also super clear on nondiscrimination based on race.

A ever complicated multicultural society like ours must be race blind.

Nice goal but we aren’t there.

+1

As evidenced by all of this backlash against 'DEI'.

DP.

Agree we aren't there and need to get there.

But I think DEI/AA are absolutely terrible ways to accomplish that goal. In fact, I think they contribute to preventing us from ever getting to an equal opportunity/race blind society.

So I 100% disagree with your conclusion about what the backlash against DEI "proves".

Let's see what this backlash reveals about many Americans:
1. People are assuming that DEI means "black".
2. People are assuming that DEI means less qualified.
3. People would prefer to tear down our country vs. keep DEI.

We are not there yet, as evidenced by the backlash to "DEI".

1. Sloppy argument. DEI programming grew exponentially (literally) in response to the murder of George Floyd. This is the reason that many associate DEI primarily with “Black”—because it was widely adopted in response to a Black man’s murder.

2. DEI *sometimes* has been used as a factor in hiring/promotion/admission decisions. Not surprising that this creates resentment. Americans generally hate any perception of unfairness (see the nepo baby backlash or the “dad donated a library to Harvard” or “boss’s nephew” jokes that have around since the beginning of time.

3. Hate Trump and agree that he’s tearing the country down, but disagree (a) that DEI was the primary reason he was elected, and (b) that his voters were consciously making any such tradeoff.

DP.

1. It means any underrepresented minority.
The goal is equality of outcome.

2. DEI definitely means less qualified. Perhaps not unqualified but definitely less qualified. It's not the only group of less qualified people being selected but racial discrimination has the added characteristics of being unconstitutional.

3. I hate trump too but he is right about a few things. But even the things he is right about, he is doing in the worst way I can think of. A lot of it is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t doubt that some people in admissions offices can’t wait to trash applications of highly qualified minorities.

Yep. And just in case you can’t tell by our names, our transcripts, and our personal statements, if pictures aren’t required as part of an admissions package, for most applicants they’re pretty easy to find. This, of course, is true when it comes to job applications as well.

[Anonymous]

What stands out to me is how deliberately (?) unclear it is what exactly DEI means. While that made a sick sort of sense when it came to randomly denouncing things as “DEI” it also makes me wonder about the long term goals of this. What exactly will happen to schools found to be out of compliance — despite an absence of guidelines regarding compliance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time we end this unconstitutional nonsense.

The Civil Rights Act was also super clear on nondiscrimination based on race.

A ever complicated multicultural society like ours must be race blind.

Nice goal but we aren’t there.

+1

As evidenced by all of this backlash against 'DEI'.

DP.

Agree we aren't there and need to get there.

But I think DEI/AA are absolutely terrible ways to accomplish that goal. In fact, I think they contribute to preventing us from ever getting to an equal opportunity/race blind society.

So I 100% disagree with your conclusion about what the backlash against DEI "proves".

Let's see what this backlash reveals about many Americans:
1. People are assuming that DEI means "black".
2. People are assuming that DEI means less qualified.
3. People would prefer to tear down our country vs. keep DEI.

We are not there yet, as evidenced by the backlash to "DEI".

1. Sloppy argument. DEI programming grew exponentially (literally) in response to the murder of George Floyd. This is the reason that many associate DEI primarily with “Black”—because it was widely adopted in response to a Black man’s murder.

2. DEI *sometimes* has been used as a factor in hiring/promotion/admission decisions. Not surprising that this creates resentment. Americans generally hate any perception of unfairness (see the nepo baby backlash or the “dad donated a library to Harvard” or “boss’s nephew” jokes that have around since the beginning of time.

3. Hate Trump and agree that he’s tearing the country down, but disagree (a) that DEI was the primary reason he was elected, and (b) that his voters were consciously making any such tradeoff.

DP.

1. It means any underrepresented minority.
The goal is equality of outcome.

2. DEI definitely means less qualified. Perhaps not unqualified but definitely less qualified. It's not the only group of less qualified people being selected but racial discrimination has the added characteristics of being unconstitutional.

3. I hate trump too but he is right about a few things. But even the things he is right about, he is doing in the worst way I can think of. A lot of it is illegal.

That's your take on it.

Too bad you thought this was such a big deal that you decided to give the crazy guy the keys to the car

[Anonymous]

Just assign a number to every application with no mention of race or gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is beyond getting rid of affirmative action. They are talking about ANY student activities related to race/DEI. No Asian or AA student unions. AA frats or sororities? What about women’s organizations? This is stupid.

You don’t need any of those things. Just be inclusive to everyone.

The AA students associations are in fact open to everyone. There were always a few non Asians in the membership. There is no "Asians only" requirement.

Seems like the name alone creates exclusions. If someone made a White Girl student association do you think a Black Man is going to feel welcome even if they claim no White or female requirement? DEI people always claim inclusion but create nothing but exclusion.

Okay, this argument is on its face nonsense, but let's just look at the philosophy here. How is ANYONE being hurt by not participating in a WOMEN in STEM club or an International club?
There is no harm, so why the frack do you care?

So I really am disappointed by this— as a women of color in engineering groups like swe and girls who code really encouraged me as a kid.

My kids school wouldn't allow formation of Girls Who Code, unless they set up a club for boys to join as well.

If they set up a Boys who code,or Whites who code, you’re ok with that right? Is it only special groups for certain people?

Programs like those are designed to support groups that have barriers. To reduce discrimination.

So they reduce discrimination by, excluding others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone posted on this yet?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/us/politics/education-dept-race-based-programs.html

"The Education Department warned schools in a letter on Friday that they risked losing federal funding if they continued to take race into account when making scholarship or hiring decisions, or so much as nodded to race in “all other aspects of student, academic and campus life.”

I don't even know where to begin...I feel like I'm in that Harry Potter movie where the Ministry of Magic keeps issuing inane decrees

How ironic that you mention race base programs when you see that JK Rowling is trying to keep women who do not menstruate out of women's sports.

Ugh, really? Lots of biological females who are serious athletes sometimes stop having their periods when they are doing intense training, it's called secondary amenorrhea. Why do people like JK Rowling hate other biological females who don't fit their mold? Same goes for the obnoxious Karens who try to call police on butch-looking biological women when they go to the ladies' room like they're supposed to.

PP was referring to trans women, not females, when they said "women that don't menstruate".

I’m a woman that doesn’t menstruate, that doesn’t make me male or a man.

That makes me a woman who doesn’t menstruate. But I am still 100% a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time we end this unconstitutional nonsense.

The Civil Rights Act was also super clear on nondiscrimination based on race.

A ever complicated multicultural society like ours must be race blind.

Nice goal but we aren’t there.

+1

As evidenced by all of this backlash against 'DEI'.

DP.

Agree we aren't there and need to get there.

But I think DEI/AA are absolutely terrible ways to accomplish that goal. In fact, I think they contribute to preventing us from ever getting to an equal opportunity/race blind society.

So I 100% disagree with your conclusion about what the backlash against DEI "proves".

Let's see what this backlash reveals about many Americans:
1. People are assuming that DEI means "black".
2. People are assuming that DEI means less qualified.
3. People would prefer to tear down our country vs. keep DEI.

We are not there yet, as evidenced by the backlash to "DEI".

1. Sloppy argument. DEI programming grew exponentially (literally) in response to the murder of George Floyd. This is the reason that many associate DEI primarily with “Black”—because it was widely adopted in response to a Black man’s murder.

2. DEI *sometimes* has been used as a factor in hiring/promotion/admission decisions. Not surprising that this creates resentment. Americans generally hate any perception of unfairness (see the nepo baby backlash or the “dad donated a library to Harvard” or “boss’s nephew” jokes that have around since the beginning of time.

3. Hate Trump and agree that he’s tearing the country down, but disagree (a) that DEI was the primary reason he was elected, and (b) that his voters were consciously making any such tradeoff.

DP.

1. It means any underrepresented minority.
The goal is equality of outcome.

2. DEI definitely means less qualified. Perhaps not unqualified but definitely less qualified. It's not the only group of less qualified people being selected but racial discrimination has the added characteristics of being unconstitutional.

3. I hate trump too but he is right about a few things. But even the things he is right about, he is doing in the worst way I can think of. A lot of it is illegal.

“Definitely “? Really, it takes more than your random anonymous unsupported opinion to pull of “definitely “. Many of us really have had to work twice as hard to get half as far. I’m chuckling thinking about how lost some of the front facing “good fit for our culture “ legacy brats would be without a lot of help from so-called “DEI” hires working hard behind the scenes, and often covering up for frat boys in over their heads. If hiring were really merit based things would get very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone posted on this yet?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/us/politics/education-dept-race-based-programs.html

"The Education Department warned schools in a letter on Friday that they risked losing federal funding if they continued to take race into account when making scholarship or hiring decisions, or so much as nodded to race in “all other aspects of student, academic and campus life.”

I don't even know where to begin...I feel like I'm in that Harry Potter movie where the Ministry of Magic keeps issuing inane decrees

How ironic that you mention race base programs when you see that JK Rowling is trying to keep women who do not menstruate out of women's sports.

Ugh, really? Lots of biological females who are serious athletes sometimes stop having their periods when they are doing intense training, it's called secondary amenorrhea. Why do people like JK Rowling hate other biological females who don't fit their mold? Same goes for the obnoxious Karens who try to call police on butch-looking biological women when they go to the ladies' room like they're supposed to.

PP was referring to trans women, not females, when they said "women that don't menstruate".

I’m a woman that doesn’t menstruate, that doesn’t make me male or a man.

That makes me a woman who doesn’t menstruate. But I am still 100% a woman.

Republicans only consider you a woman if you're young, pretty, and they can put a baby in you.