Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a stupid question with a lot of stupid answers here.
Vet preference is simply a category that gives preference based on military service to the US, which started as preference for vets discharged on account of having been wounded or disabled as a result of their service. It is in some sense transactional, a special duty regarded as being owed to veterans.

Sure, it's the equity part of DEI. Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with that.

lol the Trump administration is saying it is bad.

Absolutely. If you look at any major corporation and where their veteran hiring initiatives live - they are under the DEI umbrella. Having helped set up both veteran hiring and retention programs for Fortune 50 companies - there are times that military skills don't necessarily translate directly into a job description but the leadership, flexibility, core values, responsibility, etc. that someone brings to the table are important and may compensate for some of the direct skills that they lack. Veterans also tend to be trainable, so this is another plus. Think about in the early 2000s when a lot of companies didn't want to hire vets because of the fear mongering that they would have PTSD, etc. etc. etc. - DEI programs at corporations helped educate hiring managers about this and helped alleviate some of this unnatural fear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's how JD Vance got into Yale Law School.

I’ve heard that he also used “economic diversity” because he was from WV

Also geographic diversity. Easier to get into Yale from rural WV, they literally lower the qualifications based solely on geography! That is the opposite of merit.

Once again, he graduated from Ohio State summa cum laude.
That probably had something to do with his acceptance to Yale.

Thanks again for proving you know very little about DEI.

What’s your comprehensive definition?

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a stupid question with a lot of stupid answers here.
Vet preference is simply a category that gives preference based on military service to the US, which started as preference for vets discharged on account of having been wounded or disabled as a result of their service. It is in some sense transactional, a special duty regarded as being owed to veterans.

Sure, it's the equity part of DEI. Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a stupid question with a lot of stupid answers here.
Vet preference is simply a category that gives preference based on military service to the US, which started as preference for vets discharged on account of having been wounded or disabled as a result of their service. It is in some sense transactional, a special duty regarded as being owed to veterans.

Affirmative action was in many ways the same. A way for the government to make up for things like leaving black soldiers and their families out of the GI bill, which is widely credited with boosting an entire generation of poor white people into the middle class while leaving blacks in poverty. This is something very much owed to black Americans for a whole lot of reasons. You can keep trying to rationalize your preferred form of DEI to advance your racist agenda, but we see through it.

I think it is a stupid question with a lot of stupid answers here.
Vet preference is simply a category that gives preference based on military service to the US, which started as preference for vets discharged on account of having been wounded or disabled as a result of their service. It is in some sense transactional, a special duty regarded as being owed to veterans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's how JD Vance got into Yale Law School.

I’ve heard that he also used “economic diversity” because he was from WV

Also geographic diversity. Easier to get into Yale from rural WV, they literally lower the qualifications based solely on geography! That is the opposite of merit.

Once again, he graduated from Ohio State summa cum laude.
That probably had something to do with his acceptance to Yale.

Thanks again for proving you know very little about DEI.

Agreed PP doesn’t understand DEI. Ohio State is not even T25 and accepts more than 50% of applicants. Hardly a ringing endorsement for admission to Yale law school. Would love to see JD’s LSAT. It’s almost guaranteed that he received preference over more qualified candidates, getting a boost for being a vet from nowheresville USA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's how JD Vance got into Yale Law School.

I’ve heard that he also used “economic diversity” because he was from WV

Also geographic diversity. Easier to get into Yale from rural WV, they literally lower the qualifications based solely on geography! That is the opposite of merit.

Once again, he graduated from Ohio State summa cum laude.
That probably had something to do with his acceptance to Yale.

Thanks again for proving you know very little about DEI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not DEI, it’s far better. It’s not just getting an opportunity to try, it’s being given preferential treatment on a silver plattter.

And they deserve it. How many people here would rather see their kids enlist after high school instead of heading to a 4 year college?

Everybody has their preferred version of DEI, and you have yours.

When someone enlists they’re putting themselves at risk. They’re relocated to places they may/not want to go to, they’re at risk for PTSD, for injury, for death. They should get something in return for putting themselves on the line.

Not quite the same as going to a nice college in New England.

And a poor kid who goes to a dangerous inner city school with high crime and dropout rates but takes the toughest classes their school has to offer and gets the best grades— but maybe not the best SAT scores because it’s still a not great inner city school and they can’t afford SAT prep—will be called a DEI pick if they get accepted to Harvard. That’s called being set up to fail b/c that kid maximized every possible opportunity available to them but it was the opportunities not the kid that was insufficient. But MAGA has a problem with that kind of DEI. No “points” for resilience and perseverance in a crap environment. But we should give those same points to military. Research has shown that some inner city neighborhoods are comparable to war zones and living in them can give people ptsd.

Veterans preference is different. Military personnel basically give themselves to the government, so in return, the government should absolutely give them something in return for their service. And for many, that something is a steady, protected job that isn’t at the mercy of the stock market.

Meh, we’re going in circles at this point. The same can be said for civil service employees that Trump is treating like crap right now. Civil service employees go into harms way frequently throughout their careers as well. The MAGAs need to get really clear because you’re looking like a bunch of hypocrites.

🤷‍♀️ There’s a reason we say “thank you for your service.” How many of us would run for the hills before we let our kids get drafted?

As far as DEI goes, most people born and raised in adversity can use a little help. Let’s face it— not everyone is Elie Wiesel. Sent to Auschwitz and Buchenwald as a teenager, was surrounded by death, watched his own father die, was liberated, then went on to become a professor, author and Nobel Laureate. Pre DEI. One in a million, right?

You think Jewish people received no assistance after the holocaust? The US War Refugee Board was set up in part to ease immigration to the US…To be clear, any easing of any rules to support a specific group is DEI. I don’t have a problem with DEI but the MAGAS seem to think DEI means black and brown. It just isn’t true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically, yes it is.

Technically, not it isn't. It applies to all veterans who would not be covered under all DEI categories. White men still serve in large numbers in the military and would not be under any DEI categories unless they had something else that fit the definition, such as transgenderism.

They're covered under the veteran DEI category.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not DEI, it’s far better. It’s not just getting an opportunity to try, it’s being given preferential treatment on a silver plattter.

And they deserve it. How many people here would rather see their kids enlist after high school instead of heading to a 4 year college?

Everybody has their preferred version of DEI, and you have yours.

When someone enlists they’re putting themselves at risk. They’re relocated to places they may/not want to go to, they’re at risk for PTSD, for injury, for death. They should get something in return for putting themselves on the line.

Not quite the same as going to a nice college in New England.

And a poor kid who goes to a dangerous inner city school with high crime and dropout rates but takes the toughest classes their school has to offer and gets the best grades— but maybe not the best SAT scores because it’s still a not great inner city school and they can’t afford SAT prep—will be called a DEI pick if they get accepted to Harvard. That’s called being set up to fail b/c that kid maximized every possible opportunity available to them but it was the opportunities not the kid that was insufficient. But MAGA has a problem with that kind of DEI. No “points” for resilience and perseverance in a crap environment. But we should give those same points to military. Research has shown that some inner city neighborhoods are comparable to war zones and living in them can give people ptsd.

Veterans preference is different. Military personnel basically give themselves to the government, so in return, the government should absolutely give them something in return for their service. And for many, that something is a steady, protected job that isn’t at the mercy of the stock market.

Meh, we’re going in circles at this point. The same can be said for civil service employees that Trump is treating like crap right now. Civil service employees go into harms way frequently throughout their careers as well. The MAGAs need to get really clear because you’re looking like a bunch of hypocrites.

🤷‍♀️ There’s a reason we say “thank you for your service.” How many of us would run for the hills before we let our kids get drafted?

As far as DEI goes, most people born and raised in adversity can use a little help. Let’s face it— not everyone is Elie Wiesel. Sent to Auschwitz and Buchenwald as a teenager, was surrounded by death, watched his own father die, was liberated, then went on to become a professor, author and Nobel Laureate. Pre DEI. One in a million, right?

There’s a reason it’s called the civil “service”… There’s also a reason Trump didn’t include civil service employees in national security jobs in his little buyout. He knows these people are doing critical work and can do better in the private sector. These are exactly the people who want the buyout. They can do better and don’t want to work for him. These are the people the government will lose.