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

[Anonymous]

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

Good. Enough of the government sanctioned discrimination.

Amen. Time for DEI to DIE.

[Anonymous]

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?

Saying DEI = inclusion is just front for racists. I don’t tolerate racism.

You don't understand racism. And DEI is inclusion, not exclusion. You are convinced that all these unqualified minorities are getting something you're not, instead of seeing that making the tent bigger is a GOOD thing. You do not want inclusion. You want the same small tent so you can keep your piece and not have to share.

I don't know if it is racism so much as selfish, myopic narcissism, but your arguments are not in good faith.

And Women's clubs and LGBTQ clubs and Black American clubs are not racist. They just ARE. Get over it.

According to DeSantis and Florida law, if seeing a Black person makes me "feel uncomfortable about my race”, that person is discriminating against me.

Cute the law that states this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP here. I worked in admissions in a T10 law school many years ago (2000’s) and I can say as a fact that had there not been affirmative action, our law school would have have few if any black or Hispanic students. For whatever reason, the applicants we saw had LSAT score far below what we would have otherwise accepted. Now maybe you don’t think the LSAT is a good judge, but that was the main metric being used at the time and as far as I know still is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or if you have two X chromosome’s. But hey let’s drama it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP here. I worked in admissions in a T10 law school many years ago (2000’s) and I can say as a fact that had there not been affirmative action, our law school would have have few if any black or Hispanic students. For whatever reason, the applicants we saw had LSAT score far below what we would have otherwise accepted. Now maybe you don’t think the LSAT is a good judge, but that was the main metric being used at the time and as far as I know still is.

It’s been proven that family income is the biggest factor in how a person performs on a “standardized” test. You either have $5k to spend on LSAT prep classes or you don’t. And guess who usually doesn’t. Moreover, just telling a person that “x does bad on tests” results in a statistically significant decline in scores.

The LSAT is pretty good at predicting who will pass other standardized tests, like the bar. But not so much success in the practice of law. I personally know two LMC-raised women who had terrible LSAT scores and are now partners at high powered firms doing complex work. More than a few of the top ranked incoming first years flamed out early.

Any law school would be foolish to discount those with the hustle, regardless of their class or race. People remember the schools that took a chance on them when they make it big.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

That's the end of the Governor of Maine. Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's the end of the Governor of Maine. Bye.

You’re clearly not from Maine. Mainers care more about grant freezes to academic institutions, laid off feds (there are more than 12K feds in Maine), and having their PII compromised by DOGE while the avian flu goes unchecked. Donald Trump is head faking with these culture war issues while he sells out Ukraine and guts medicaid. No one from Maine is buying what he’s selling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the end of the Governor of Maine. Bye.

You’re clearly not from Maine. Mainers care more about grant freezes to academic institutions, laid off feds (there are more than 12K feds in Maine), and having their PII compromised by DOGE while the avian flu goes unchecked. Donald Trump is head faking with these culture war issues while he sells out Ukraine and guts medicaid. No one from Maine is buying what he’s selling.

He also trashed US shipbuilding a month ago and if you don’t know why that would be problematic in Maine you don’t know Maine.