Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people, ( even radical feminist liberals like me) , are tired of being told they are racists and are tired of being forced fed pronouncements about diversity.

Nobody is calling anybody racist. However, everyone that is racist is definitely anti-DEBI for a lot is the same reasons people are throwing out here.

The problem we have is overcorrection. I don’t think any liberal would argue that we shouldn’t have DEIA/B etc efforts. We should definitely think about race and class and social structures at an organizational level. However, not everything we do can be about race / gender etc all the time. It’s stifling discussions and conversations. It’s exhausting. When you lose the liberals on this stuff, what we have to fear most is the overcorrection on the other side of this.

What conversations have you recently had that were stifled?

How well do you think these schools or any of the pro-DEI posters on this thread would embrace a “working class” affinity group in the schools? Particularly one in which teachers shared their experiences of their salaries and what it’s actually like to teach the children of the upper class?

We all know the answer.

I keep asking for proof, but the examples just keep getting more ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people, ( even radical feminist liberals like me) , are tired of being told they are racists and are tired of being forced fed pronouncements about diversity.

Nobody is calling anybody racist. However, everyone that is racist is definitely anti-DEBI for a lot is the same reasons people are throwing out here.

The problem we have is overcorrection. I don’t think any liberal would argue that we shouldn’t have DEIA/B etc efforts. We should definitely think about race and class and social structures at an organizational level. However, not everything we do can be about race / gender etc all the time. It’s stifling discussions and conversations. It’s exhausting. When you lose the liberals on this stuff, what we have to fear most is the overcorrection on the other side of this.

What conversations have you recently had that were stifled?

How well do you think these schools or any of the pro-DEI posters on this thread would embrace a “working class” affinity group in the schools? Particularly one in which teachers shared their experiences of their salaries and what it’s actually like to teach the children of the upper class?

We all know the answer.

I keep asking for proof, but the examples just keep getting more ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people, ( even radical feminist liberals like me) , are tired of being told they are racists and are tired of being forced fed pronouncements about diversity.

Nobody is calling anybody racist. However, everyone that is racist is definitely anti-DEBI for a lot is the same reasons people are throwing out here.

The problem we have is overcorrection. I don’t think any liberal would argue that we shouldn’t have DEIA/B etc efforts. We should definitely think about race and class and social structures at an organizational level. However, not everything we do can be about race / gender etc all the time. It’s stifling discussions and conversations. It’s exhausting. When you lose the liberals on this stuff, what we have to fear most is the overcorrection on the other side of this.

What conversations have you recently had that were stifled?

How well do you think these schools or any of the pro-DEI posters on this thread would embrace a “working class” affinity group in the schools? Particularly one in which teachers shared their experiences of their salaries and what it’s actually like to teach the children of the upper class?

We all know the answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people, ( even radical feminist liberals like me) , are tired of being told they are racists and are tired of being forced fed pronouncements about diversity.

Nobody is calling anybody racist. However, everyone that is racist is definitely anti-DEBI for a lot is the same reasons people are throwing out here.

The problem we have is overcorrection. I don’t think any liberal would argue that we shouldn’t have DEIA/B etc efforts. We should definitely think about race and class and social structures at an organizational level. However, not everything we do can be about race / gender etc all the time. It’s stifling discussions and conversations. It’s exhausting. When you lose the liberals on this stuff, what we have to fear most is the overcorrection on the other side of this.

What conversations have you recently had that were stifled?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Latinx or Latine was the preferred DEIB nomenclature.

NP. I think Latinx is on the way out because academics are finally realizing they're the only ones to use it. Most Latinos/Latinas have never heard the term or don't care.

Surveys show that most in the Latin American community oppose "Latinx." DEI coordinators are trying to impose language on the rest of us. Who elected them to make those decisions?
Language shifts that stick are the ones that occur over time and in a pretty democratic way.

PP here. Pretty sure "Latinx" started in academia, not with DEIB coordinators. Still, it was a top-down change that never resonated with the larger community.

There was a bit more too it than that. Like attempting to change the language rules of a foreign language even though not a single person asked for that change. It was performative, condescending and deeply ironic.

+1

Wasn't it Latina academics mostly in California? So it wasn't a foreign language. Agree that nobody asked for it and it was performative and condescending.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people, ( even radical feminist liberals like me) , are tired of being told they are racists and are tired of being forced fed pronouncements about diversity.

Nobody is calling anybody racist. However, everyone that is racist is definitely anti-DEBI for a lot is the same reasons people are throwing out here.

The problem we have is overcorrection. I don’t think any liberal would argue that we shouldn’t have DEIA/B etc efforts. We should definitely think about race and class and social structures at an organizational level. However, not everything we do can be about race / gender etc all the time. It’s stifling discussions and conversations. It’s exhausting. When you lose the liberals on this stuff, what we have to fear most is the overcorrection on the other side of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't really agree with being told at my last workplace DEI training - in a school- that it's "not enough" to not be racist, one MUST be anti racist for approval from the DEI crowd. Where does this end? Probably not well in some way or other. Right now, it seems a lot of people are simply losing interest?

You should be anti-racist. Like why is this so bothersome to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Latinx or Latine was the preferred DEIB nomenclature.

NP. I think Latinx is on the way out because academics are finally realizing they're the only ones to use it. Most Latinos/Latinas have never heard the term or don't care.

Surveys show that most in the Latin American community oppose "Latinx." DEI coordinators are trying to impose language on the rest of us. Who elected them to make those decisions?
Language shifts that stick are the ones that occur over time and in a pretty democratic way.

PP here. Pretty sure "Latinx" started in academia, not with DEIB coordinators. Still, it was a top-down change that never resonated with the larger community.

There was a bit more too it than that. Like attempting to change the language rules of a foreign language even though not a single person asked for that change. It was performative, condescending and deeply ironic.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I didn't really agree with being told at my last workplace DEI training - in a school- that it's "not enough" to not be racist, one MUST be anti racist for approval from the DEI crowd. Where does this end? Probably not well in some way or other. Right now, it seems a lot of people are simply losing interest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are some of my favorite answers so far:

1. It promotes segregation.

2. It's anti-union

3. My job gave me a DEIB reading list and threaten to fire me if I didn't read them.

4. It's only for Black people.

5. Schools can't teach anything unless it includes DEIB. Including math.

6. It's racist towards Latinos and Asians.

7. It causes bullying.

8. My child feels terrible about being white.

7. I hate meetings.

8. It's getting shoved down my throat. (No evidence)

Funny that you only included “no evidence” for number 8

There isn't. The only people forcing anything are the anti-DEIB crowd mentioning it every single chance the can. Most of the threads on here prove that.

Weird take!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people, ( even radical feminist liberals like me) , are tired of being told they are racists and are tired of being forced fed pronouncements about diversity.

Nobody is calling anybody racist. However, everyone that is racist is definitely anti-DEBI for a lot is the same reasons people are throwing out here.

+1

If you’re actually being called a racist it’s probably for a valid reason…

That's just what the grifters tell themselves to keep the grift going. Seems like some people will need some job training soon once the funding for this garbage dries up. A lot of DEI officers have already lost their jobs. The writing is on the wall.

I’m a parent of kids in private school. I’m glad our communities are getting a healthy dose of DEI. Private school parents probably need it more than anyone else. Just look at this thread.

How very fascist of you to dictate what the majority needs if they don't want it.

DP. Take a deep breath, freedom fighter! At the end of the day we’re talking about private school - no one has to go there!

See how divisive DEI is?

Anonymous wrote:I knew it was out of a control when one of my kids teachers assigned the history class a partial rewrite of the Declaration of Independence to “make it more inclusive”
, you know, bcs “all men are created equal” is not inclusive. You can’t make this stuff up it’s so ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people, ( even radical feminist liberals like me) , are tired of being told they are racists and are tired of being forced fed pronouncements about diversity.

Nobody is calling anybody racist. However, everyone that is racist is definitely anti-DEBI for a lot is the same reasons people are throwing out here.

The problem we have is overcorrection. I don’t think any liberal would argue that we shouldn’t have DEIA/B etc efforts. We should definitely think about race and class and social structures at an organizational level. However, not everything we do can be about race / gender etc all the time. It’s stifling discussions and conversations. It’s exhausting. When you lose the liberals on this stuff, what we have to fear most is the overcorrection on the other side of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people, ( even radical feminist liberals like me) , are tired of being told they are racists and are tired of being forced fed pronouncements about diversity.

Nobody is calling anybody racist. However, everyone that is racist is definitely anti-DEBI for a lot is the same reasons people are throwing out here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Latinx or Latine was the preferred DEIB nomenclature.

NP. I think Latinx is on the way out because academics are finally realizing they're the only ones to use it. Most Latinos/Latinas have never heard the term or don't care.

Surveys show that most in the Latin American community oppose "Latinx." DEI coordinators are trying to impose language on the rest of us. Who elected them to make those decisions?
Language shifts that stick are the ones that occur over time and in a pretty democratic way.

PP here. Pretty sure "Latinx" started in academia, not with DEIB coordinators. Still, it was a top-down change that never resonated with the larger community.

There was a bit more too it than that. Like attempting to change the language rules of a foreign language even though not a single person asked for that change. It was performative, condescending and deeply ironic.