DEI RIFs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering how many people impacted by this are straight white men? I’m guessing not to many.

Guessing not many White men got these jobs in the first place.

Exactly. So this is effectively targeting minorities.

Only because the original hiring was discriminatory.

So hiring anyone who isn’t white is discrimination

Isn’t hiring white male veterans DEI? Please tell me they are included. I’m not anti white male veteran, my dad was one, but if since they also benefit from hiring priority, they should be included in this.

No, veterans preference is a law. My mom is a veteran and so is my dad. While he’s a man, he’s not white. But he’s never benefited from veterans preference so it’s moot.

It’s DEI. It needs to be dismantled if DEI is going away.

Pffft.

Veterans preference is based on qualification, and is race/gender/ethnicity blind.

It is not even remotely the same thing as DEI.

Remind me, which of the letters "D," "E," or "I," stand for "race," "gender," or "ethnicity?"

What a surprise, another braindead regressive who has no idea what the thing their boomer memes told them to hate even is.

I'm pretty sure all this talk on DEI in the last four years wasn't talking about people of Italian versus Polish ancestry, was it?

Everyone knows what DEI really was all about. Black people. That's it. It was never about any other group of people no matter what lip service may have been paid here and there. In practice it was just affirmative action on steroids and creating by fiat a bigger black sinecure roles that couldn't happen on its own. The revising of American history was solely about black experience, not Latino or Asian or Italian or Polish or whatever. The whole DEI boom followed Biden's election in 2020 as part of his deal with Clyburn of SC to get the endorsement, and with the black votes, the nomination. That's why Kamala Harris was picked for the VP slot, why KBJ was appointed to SCOTUS, why a very high percentage of Biden's appointees and judges and nominees were... you got it.... black.

If you think it was anything but about black people, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

My post is not about the merits of DEI or the pros or cons of DEI, but simply pointing out the reality of DEI and what it meant.

Your post is actually really funny. I’m black and hate DEI and actually one thing that has come up in conversations with other black professionals is how the focus of DEI is about expanding to an ever larger conglomerate of “people of color” and “marginalized groups” that has nothing to do with anyone actually harmed by historical American racism. It’s really not about black people anymore at all. Tons of DEI-type things are for LGBTQI-ever-more-letters and various “Black and Brown” people who are recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants. It’s like liberals figured out it’s not actually popular to focus on the descendants of slaves.

Yep, because focusing on descendants of slaves means you have to admit that there was a harm, not just with the institution of slavery, but the hundreds of years for certain people to accumulate generational wealth. People thought it would be more palatable if it were expanded to include white folks but it turns out the monied white folks don’t like those particular whites (gay, transgender, etc.) so it was doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any agency actually put DEI staff on admin leave?

Mine did, sub component of DHS. They were put on admin leave yesterday and mgt was told they were not allowed to reassign. All will be terminated on the 30th.

what about work protection-dont they have to offered other positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

How does it make them better able to do the job? If this is about merit, it should only be about who can do the job best. Why is the veteran without a heart condition not able to do as good a job?

If both are equally capable, one should not get preference. Otherwise it’s about a “characteristic” of the person (i.e., having a heart condition) and not something they chose, which is what you said distinguishes DEI from acceptable preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

How does it make them better able to do the job? If this is about merit, it should only be about who can do the job best. Why is the veteran without a heart condition not able to do as good a job?

If both are equally capable, one should not get preference. Otherwise it’s about a “characteristic” of the person (i.e., having a heart condition) and not something they chose, which is what you said distinguishes DEI from acceptable preferences.

We’re right back to your point being quibbles with distinctions between veterans, not veterans preference generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

How does it make them better able to do the job? If this is about merit, it should only be about who can do the job best. Why is the veteran without a heart condition not able to do as good a job?

If both are equally capable, one should not get preference. Otherwise it’s about a “characteristic” of the person (i.e., having a heart condition) and not something they chose, which is what you said distinguishes DEI from acceptable preferences.

We’re right back to your point being quibbles with distinctions between veterans, not veterans preference generally.

Why won’t you answer the question? Why is the veteran without a heart condition less qualified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering how many people impacted by this are straight white men? I’m guessing not to many.

Guessing not many White men got these jobs in the first place.

Exactly. So this is effectively targeting minorities.

Only because the original hiring was discriminatory.

So hiring anyone who isn’t white is discrimination

Isn’t hiring white male veterans DEI? Please tell me they are included. I’m not anti white male veteran, my dad was one, but if since they also benefit from hiring priority, they should be included in this.

No, veterans preference is a law. My mom is a veteran and so is my dad. While he’s a man, he’s not white. But he’s never benefited from veterans preference so it’s moot.

It’s DEI. It needs to be dismantled if DEI is going away.

Pffft.

Veterans preference is based on qualification, and is race/gender/ethnicity blind.

It is not even remotely the same thing as DEI.

Remind me, which of the letters "D," "E," or "I," stand for "race," "gender," or "ethnicity?"

What a surprise, another braindead regressive who has no idea what the thing their boomer memes told them to hate even is.

I'm pretty sure all this talk on DEI in the last four years wasn't talking about people of Italian versus Polish ancestry, was it?

Everyone knows what DEI really was all about. Black people. That's it. It was never about any other group of people no matter what lip service may have been paid here and there. In practice it was just affirmative action on steroids and creating by fiat a bigger black sinecure roles that couldn't happen on its own. The revising of American history was solely about black experience, not Latino or Asian or Italian or Polish or whatever. The whole DEI boom followed Biden's election in 2020 as part of his deal with Clyburn of SC to get the endorsement, and with the black votes, the nomination. That's why Kamala Harris was picked for the VP slot, why KBJ was appointed to SCOTUS, why a very high percentage of Biden's appointees and judges and nominees were... you got it.... black.

If you think it was anything but about black people, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

My post is not about the merits of DEI or the pros or cons of DEI, but simply pointing out the reality of DEI and what it meant.

Wow. Mask off.

I think you mean: hood off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any agency actually put DEI staff on admin leave?

Yes-DHS

which DHS?

[Anonymous]

Veterans preference is DEI. However, this administration had the sense to specifically exclude it from the DEI memo, so they can still feel special and keep the focus on POC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

How does it make them better able to do the job? If this is about merit, it should only be about who can do the job best. Why is the veteran without a heart condition not able to do as good a job?

If both are equally capable, one should not get preference. Otherwise it’s about a “characteristic” of the person (i.e., having a heart condition) and not something they chose, which is what you said distinguishes DEI from acceptable preferences.

We’re right back to your point being quibbles with distinctions between veterans, not veterans preference generally.

Why won’t you answer the question? Why is the veteran without a heart condition less qualified?

Why are you obtusely pretending like the question is important? It’s fundamentally different than DEI because it’s based on service. If you want to say that service-resulting-in-injury should be treated equally to service-resulting-in-no-or-less-severe-injury, okay, you do you. It’s still different than some characteristic having no relation to service at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

How does it make them better able to do the job? If this is about merit, it should only be about who can do the job best. Why is the veteran without a heart condition not able to do as good a job?

If both are equally capable, one should not get preference. Otherwise it’s about a “characteristic” of the person (i.e., having a heart condition) and not something they chose, which is what you said distinguishes DEI from acceptable preferences.

We’re right back to your point being quibbles with distinctions between veterans, not veterans preference generally.

Why won’t you answer the question? Why is the veteran without a heart condition less qualified?

Why are you obtusely pretending like the question is important? It’s fundamentally different than DEI because it’s based on service. If you want to say that service-resulting-in-injury should be treated equally to service-resulting-in-no-or-less-severe-injury, okay, you do you. It’s still different than some characteristic having no relation to service at all.

I think your inability to answer proves the point. Maybe not to you. But that doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering how many people impacted by this are straight white men? I’m guessing not to many.

Guessing not many White men got these jobs in the first place.

Exactly. So this is effectively targeting minorities.

Only because the original hiring was discriminatory.

So hiring anyone who isn’t white is discrimination

Isn’t hiring white male veterans DEI? Please tell me they are included. I’m not anti white male veteran, my dad was one, but if since they also benefit from hiring priority, they should be included in this.

No, veterans preference is a law. My mom is a veteran and so is my dad. While he’s a man, he’s not white. But he’s never benefited from veterans preference so it’s moot.

It’s DEI. It needs to be dismantled if DEI is going away.

Pffft.

Veterans preference is based on qualification, and is race/gender/ethnicity blind.

It is not even remotely the same thing as DEI.

Remind me, which of the letters "D," "E," or "I," stand for "race," "gender," or "ethnicity?"

What a surprise, another braindead regressive who has no idea what the thing their boomer memes told them to hate even is.

I'm pretty sure all this talk on DEI in the last four years wasn't talking about people of Italian versus Polish ancestry, was it?

Everyone knows what DEI really was all about. Black people. That's it. It was never about any other group of people no matter what lip service may have been paid here and there. In practice it was just affirmative action on steroids and creating by fiat a bigger black sinecure roles that couldn't happen on its own. The revising of American history was solely about black experience, not Latino or Asian or Italian or Polish or whatever. The whole DEI boom followed Biden's election in 2020 as part of his deal with Clyburn of SC to get the endorsement, and with the black votes, the nomination. That's why Kamala Harris was picked for the VP slot, why KBJ was appointed to SCOTUS, why a very high percentage of Biden's appointees and judges and nominees were... you got it.... black.

If you think it was anything but about black people, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

My post is not about the merits of DEI or the pros or cons of DEI, but simply pointing out the reality of DEI and what it meant.

Your post is actually really funny. I’m black and hate DEI and actually one thing that has come up in conversations with other black professionals is how the focus of DEI is about expanding to an ever larger conglomerate of “people of color” and “marginalized groups” that has nothing to do with anyone actually harmed by historical American racism. It’s really not about black people anymore at all. Tons of DEI-type things are for LGBTQI-ever-more-letters and various “Black and Brown” people who are recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants. It’s like liberals figured out it’s not actually popular to focus on the descendants of slaves.

DEI never included Asians. DEI helped UMC blacks and African immigrants the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

How does it make them better able to do the job? If this is about merit, it should only be about who can do the job best. Why is the veteran without a heart condition not able to do as good a job?

If both are equally capable, one should not get preference. Otherwise it’s about a “characteristic” of the person (i.e., having a heart condition) and not something they chose, which is what you said distinguishes DEI from acceptable preferences.

We’re right back to your point being quibbles with distinctions between veterans, not veterans preference generally.

Why won’t you answer the question? Why is the veteran without a heart condition less qualified?

Why are you obtusely pretending like the question is important? It’s fundamentally different than DEI because it’s based on service. If you want to say that service-resulting-in-injury should be treated equally to service-resulting-in-no-or-less-severe-injury, okay, you do you. It’s still different than some characteristic having no relation to service at all.

I think your inability to answer proves the point. Maybe not to you. But that doesn’t matter.

Your point is a quibble. You could tweak the way veterans preferences are administered and I probably wouldn’t care one way or the other. Apparently your entire defense of DEI is “But But but veterans!!!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering how many people impacted by this are straight white men? I’m guessing not to many.

Guessing not many White men got these jobs in the first place.

Exactly. So this is effectively targeting minorities.

Only because the original hiring was discriminatory.

So hiring anyone who isn’t white is discrimination

Isn’t hiring white male veterans DEI? Please tell me they are included. I’m not anti white male veteran, my dad was one, but if since they also benefit from hiring priority, they should be included in this.

No, veterans preference is a law. My mom is a veteran and so is my dad. While he’s a man, he’s not white. But he’s never benefited from veterans preference so it’s moot.

It’s DEI. It needs to be dismantled if DEI is going away.

Pffft.

Veterans preference is based on qualification, and is race/gender/ethnicity blind.

It is not even remotely the same thing as DEI.

Remind me, which of the letters "D," "E," or "I," stand for "race," "gender," or "ethnicity?"

What a surprise, another braindead regressive who has no idea what the thing their boomer memes told them to hate even is.

I'm pretty sure all this talk on DEI in the last four years wasn't talking about people of Italian versus Polish ancestry, was it?

Everyone knows what DEI really was all about. Black people. That's it. It was never about any other group of people no matter what lip service may have been paid here and there. In practice it was just affirmative action on steroids and creating by fiat a bigger black sinecure roles that couldn't happen on its own. The revising of American history was solely about black experience, not Latino or Asian or Italian or Polish or whatever. The whole DEI boom followed Biden's election in 2020 as part of his deal with Clyburn of SC to get the endorsement, and with the black votes, the nomination. That's why Kamala Harris was picked for the VP slot, why KBJ was appointed to SCOTUS, why a very high percentage of Biden's appointees and judges and nominees were... you got it.... black.

If you think it was anything but about black people, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

My post is not about the merits of DEI or the pros or cons of DEI, but simply pointing out the reality of DEI and what it meant.

Your post is actually really funny. I’m black and hate DEI and actually one thing that has come up in conversations with other black professionals is how the focus of DEI is about expanding to an ever larger conglomerate of “people of color” and “marginalized groups” that has nothing to do with anyone actually harmed by historical American racism. It’s really not about black people anymore at all. Tons of DEI-type things are for LGBTQI-ever-more-letters and various “Black and Brown” people who are recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants. It’s like liberals figured out it’s not actually popular to focus on the descendants of slaves.

DEI never included Asians. DEI helped UMC blacks and African immigrants the most.

Not true. In a lot of corporate contexts (not tech, but other companies), South Asians by virtue of brownness benefited. There are a LOT of Asians (mostly South Asians, but also East Asians too) who lean hard into a left-wing post-colonial kind of identity and very much talk about being marginalized and wronged. Same for Middle Easterners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.