DEI at Michigan--NYT article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems telling that the critique of the work done by an NYT investigative reporter largely centers on his reference to the Heritage Foundation -- to wit, so many commentators saying the legitimacy of the article fails there for them. Assume every bad thing you wish about Heritage Foundation, but the merit of the article is in the thoroughness of the reporting. If the reporting is fair and substantiated, then any critique ought to deal with those facts.

Read the rebuttal then, and stop worrying about what made some DCUMers stop reading the NYT. There are plenty of points to chew over in the rebuttal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems telling that the critique of the work done by an NYT investigative reporter largely centers on his reference to the Heritage Foundation -- to wit, so many commentators saying the legitimacy of the article fails there for them. Assume every bad thing you wish about Heritage Foundation, but the merit of the article is in the thoroughness of the reporting. If the reporting is fair and substantiated, then any critique ought to deal with those facts.

Read the rebuttal then, and stop worrying about what made some DCUMers stop reading the NYT. There are plenty of points to chew over in the rebuttal.

I love this comment because it highlights how corrupt and self indulgent much of the reporting is these days.

The credibility of every source is dependent upon your political view. If the source disagrees with you, it's not legitimate. If they support your position, it's totally legit.

Is the NYT or Times Magazine legit this week or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems telling that the critique of the work done by an NYT investigative reporter largely centers on his reference to the Heritage Foundation -- to wit, so many commentators saying the legitimacy of the article fails there for them. Assume every bad thing you wish about Heritage Foundation, but the merit of the article is in the thoroughness of the reporting. If the reporting is fair and substantiated, then any critique ought to deal with those facts.

Read the rebuttal then, and stop worrying about what made some DCUMers stop reading the NYT. There are plenty of points to chew over in the rebuttal.

I love this comment because it highlights how corrupt and self indulgent much of the reporting is these days.

The credibility of every source is dependent upon your political view. If the source disagrees with you, it's not legitimate. If they support your position, it's totally legit.

Is the NYT or Times Magazine legit this week or not?

PP. You're quoting me. Think about what I wrote. I read the whole article and the rebuttal. I didn't stop reading the article because I saw the words "Heritage Foundation". I've posted in this thread many times. I like to read both sides of a discussion and I will hear out both. I mentioned earlier before the rebuttal was issued that I was going to wait to learn more because the article was spicy/provocative enough that I expected a response with clarifications. And it came. I also mentioned that at times, I've seen stories reported that were inaccurate in outlets that I trust to be generally on track.

As we learned from the rebuttal, part of this sum of money that's talked about covers the low-income scholarship fund. The NYT author can be correct in reporting the sum without reporting what it was spent on. There are other examples.

Everyone knows that even high-quality writing has a POV. It's a bit of a game how hidden it is or should be. Everyone reading about controversial topics should be thinking about facts vs. opinions and assessing for themselves.

TL;DR - the author wrote a long, thoughtful article but did not have all the facts, maybe was a bit sexist in how he discussed the executive in charge of DEI, and can't "prove" much because he doesn't have any clean data. It's still worth reading but I conclude the author could have done a more even-handed presentation. I'm still going to read the NYT. I also read Fox News online...mainly to see what concerns they are obsessed with at any given time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ The progress we’ve seen from our efforts over the past decade (including increasing new Black enrollment by 13% over the past year alone and 87% over the past five years) is due to these collaborative efforts. That doesn’t mean we don’t have more to do. In contrast, those who seek to dismantle DEI offices and activities offer no alternative solutions and have no plans to use any “resources saved” to improve the lives of Black students or other minoritized communities. (In fact, when DEI programs have been dismantled, the resources are more likely to go to functions and groups other than minoritized ones).

So, let’s be very clear: those critics (like Heritage) who say they want to dismantle DEI work because they care about Black or minoritized students are gaslighting you.”


100%

Well let's just hope they get rid of the waste.

I mean 250 MILLION. WTF?

Howard university's annual budget is $200 million
Morehouse is $160 million
Spelman is $140 million

I don't think there are any HBCUs that have a budget higher than $250 million

There are a handful of HBCUs that are under great economic strain.
Meanwhile, Michigan is spending this kid of money to remind white people to feel guilty about slavery.
Just give the money to the HBCUs and you'll be doing more good.

It was over 8 years and much of it included scholarship money.

OK. Sure. It would still be better to just give the money to the United Negro College Fund.,

Stop talking s-t. You are just talking to talk.

I say this as a U of M alum and current undergrad tuition funder. And a long time donor to UNCF too.

Are you funding U Mich to the tune of $250 million? No? Then stfu. $250 million for DEI is a waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ The progress we’ve seen from our efforts over the past decade (including increasing new Black enrollment by 13% over the past year alone and 87% over the past five years) is due to these collaborative efforts. That doesn’t mean we don’t have more to do. In contrast, those who seek to dismantle DEI offices and activities offer no alternative solutions and have no plans to use any “resources saved” to improve the lives of Black students or other minoritized communities. (In fact, when DEI programs have been dismantled, the resources are more likely to go to functions and groups other than minoritized ones).

So, let’s be very clear: those critics (like Heritage) who say they want to dismantle DEI work because they care about Black or minoritized students are gaslighting you.”


100%

Well let's just hope they get rid of the waste.

I mean 250 MILLION. WTF?

Howard university's annual budget is $200 million
Morehouse is $160 million
Spelman is $140 million

I don't think there are any HBCUs that have a budget higher than $250 million

There are a handful of HBCUs that are under great economic strain.
Meanwhile, Michigan is spending this kid of money to remind white people to feel guilty about slavery.
Just give the money to the HBCUs and you'll be doing more good.

It was over 8 years and much of it included scholarship money.

OK. Sure. It would still be better to just give the money to the United Negro College Fund.,

Stop talking s-t. You are just talking to talk.

I say this as a U of M alum and current undergrad tuition funder. And a long time donor to UNCF too.

Are you funding U Mich to the tune of $250 million? No? Then stfu. $250 million for DEI is a waste of money.

Are you funding U Mich with any of your money? No? Then you take your complaints somewhere where they matter!

[Anonymous]

How is the Heritage Foundation's work crucial to this article? It's a single sentence that could just as well be removed.

What we should really be asking ourselves is why is the Heritage Foundation the only think tank comfortable studying this issue. No group to its left seems to want to touch it with a ten foot pole, which lends credibility to the claims of DEI being unquestionable by anyone who isn't on the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is the Heritage Foundation's work crucial to this article? It's a single sentence that could just as well be removed.

What we should really be asking ourselves is why is the Heritage Foundation the only think tank comfortable studying this issue. No group to its left seems to want to touch it with a ten foot pole, which lends credibility to the claims of DEI being unquestionable by anyone who isn't on the right.

It’s a red flag around the journalist’s integrity, which has since been shown to be lacking. Shocker.

I believe there were two references to Heritage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ The progress we’ve seen from our efforts over the past decade (including increasing new Black enrollment by 13% over the past year alone and 87% over the past five years) is due to these collaborative efforts. That doesn’t mean we don’t have more to do. In contrast, those who seek to dismantle DEI offices and activities offer no alternative solutions and have no plans to use any “resources saved” to improve the lives of Black students or other minoritized communities. (In fact, when DEI programs have been dismantled, the resources are more likely to go to functions and groups other than minoritized ones).

So, let’s be very clear: those critics (like Heritage) who say they want to dismantle DEI work because they care about Black or minoritized students are gaslighting you.”


100%

Well let's just hope they get rid of the waste.

I mean 250 MILLION. WTF?

Howard university's annual budget is $200 million
Morehouse is $160 million
Spelman is $140 million

I don't think there are any HBCUs that have a budget higher than $250 million

There are a handful of HBCUs that are under great economic strain.
Meanwhile, Michigan is spending this kid of money to remind white people to feel guilty about slavery.
Just give the money to the HBCUs and you'll be doing more good.

It was over 8 years and much of it included scholarship money.

OK. Sure. It would still be better to just give the money to the United Negro College Fund.,

Stop talking s-t. You are just talking to talk.

I say this as a U of M alum and current undergrad tuition funder. And a long time donor to UNCF too.

Are you funding U Mich to the tune of $250 million? No? Then stfu. $250 million for DEI is a waste of money.

Are you funding U Mich with any of your money? No? Then you take your complaints somewhere where they matter!

Why yes I am. Every American taxpayer is funding pretty much every college through the department of education.

This is a public institution engaging in an obscene amount of waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is the Heritage Foundation's work crucial to this article? It's a single sentence that could just as well be removed.

What we should really be asking ourselves is why is the Heritage Foundation the only think tank comfortable studying this issue. No group to its left seems to want to touch it with a ten foot pole, which lends credibility to the claims of DEI being unquestionable by anyone who isn't on the right.

To be fair, both sides do it.

The left ignores issues that undermine their narrative and the right does the same.

This is how we end up with people who think that Barack Obama wasn't a natural born citizen and other people who think that he deserved the nobel peace prize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ The progress we’ve seen from our efforts over the past decade (including increasing new Black enrollment by 13% over the past year alone and 87% over the past five years) is due to these collaborative efforts. That doesn’t mean we don’t have more to do. In contrast, those who seek to dismantle DEI offices and activities offer no alternative solutions and have no plans to use any “resources saved” to improve the lives of Black students or other minoritized communities. (In fact, when DEI programs have been dismantled, the resources are more likely to go to functions and groups other than minoritized ones).

So, let’s be very clear: those critics (like Heritage) who say they want to dismantle DEI work because they care about Black or minoritized students are gaslighting you.”


100%

Well let's just hope they get rid of the waste.

I mean 250 MILLION. WTF?

Howard university's annual budget is $200 million
Morehouse is $160 million
Spelman is $140 million

I don't think there are any HBCUs that have a budget higher than $250 million

There are a handful of HBCUs that are under great economic strain.
Meanwhile, Michigan is spending this kid of money to remind white people to feel guilty about slavery.
Just give the money to the HBCUs and you'll be doing more good.

It was over 8 years and much of it included scholarship money.

OK. Sure. It would still be better to just give the money to the United Negro College Fund.,

Stop talking s-t. You are just talking to talk.

I say this as a U of M alum and current undergrad tuition funder. And a long time donor to UNCF too.

Are you funding U Mich to the tune of $250 million? No? Then stfu. $250 million for DEI is a waste of money.

Are you funding U Mich with any of your money? No? Then you take your complaints somewhere where they matter!

Why yes I am. Every American taxpayer is funding pretty much every college through the department of education.

This is a public institution engaging in an obscene amount of waste.

Set up an account. I'll send you a penny for your trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is the Heritage Foundation's work crucial to this article? It's a single sentence that could just as well be removed.

What we should really be asking ourselves is why is the Heritage Foundation the only think tank comfortable studying this issue. No group to its left seems to want to touch it with a ten foot pole, which lends credibility to the claims of DEI being unquestionable by anyone who isn't on the right.

To be fair, both sides do it.

The left ignores issues that undermine their narrative and the right does the same.

This is how we end up with people who think that Barack Obama wasn't a natural born citizen and other people who think that he deserved the nobel peace prize.

One of these propositions denies a fact.

The other is about opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems telling that the critique of the work done by an NYT investigative reporter largely centers on his reference to the Heritage Foundation -- to wit, so many commentators saying the legitimacy of the article fails there for them. Assume every bad thing you wish about Heritage Foundation, but the merit of the article is in the thoroughness of the reporting. If the reporting is fair and substantiated, then any critique ought to deal with those facts.

Is that a joke?

Go read the rebuttal and we'll wait your response.

Heritage was an accurate red flag.

I talked to a liberal U of M faculty member & she said the situation is every bit as bad as the article portrays it. Even many well-meaning people who are all-in on diversity think it has gotten out of control there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is the Heritage Foundation's work crucial to this article? It's a single sentence that could just as well be removed.

What we should really be asking ourselves is why is the Heritage Foundation the only think tank comfortable studying this issue. No group to its left seems to want to touch it with a ten foot pole, which lends credibility to the claims of DEI being unquestionable by anyone who isn't on the right.

It’s a red flag around the journalist’s integrity, which has since been shown to be lacking. Shocker.

I believe there were two references to Heritage.

Just pointing a suspicious finger at Heritage means nothing, & is not convincing. Cultivating an atmosphere in which it’s sufficient to challenge the source rather than the evidence is how totalitarian movements get traction.

[Anonymous]

Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems telling that the critique of the work done by an NYT investigative reporter largely centers on his reference to the Heritage Foundation -- to wit, so many commentators saying the legitimacy of the article fails there for them. Assume every bad thing you wish about Heritage Foundation, but the merit of the article is in the thoroughness of the reporting. If the reporting is fair and substantiated, then any critique ought to deal with those facts.

Is that a joke?

Go read the rebuttal and we'll wait your response.

Heritage was an accurate red flag.

I talked to a liberal U of M faculty member & she said the situation is every bit as bad as the article portrays it. Even many well-meaning people who are all-in on diversity think it has gotten out of control there.

There were obvious errors and biases in the piece.
Not thorough nor fair.