Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While all of you have been obsessed about keeping black and brown people in their place, you haven’t noticed how much young women have surpassed young men. Quiet affirmative action has been put in place for males throughout academia and in professions based on academic achievements.

Except no one here was advocating for keeping black and brown people “in their place”. Some people may be concerned about the possibility of quotas over merit however. Things like TJ ending a race neutral entrance exam etc. which actually ends up discriminating against Asian people, but you go ahead and throw out your nonsense accusation of racism.

Removing barriers to allow other groups to have greater representation is not, in and of itself, "discrimination against Asian people."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of this racial crap. If you cannot keep up work harder.

Yes, because the best way to solve a problem is to not talk about it because somebody fragile is "tired" of it.

I feel so, so sorry for your spouse.

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of this racial crap. If you cannot keep up work harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While all of you have been obsessed about keeping black and brown people in their place, you haven’t noticed how much young women have surpassed young men. Quiet affirmative action has been put in place for males throughout academia and in professions based on academic achievements.

Except no one here was advocating for keeping black and brown people “in their place”. Some people may be concerned about the possibility of quotas over merit however. Things like TJ ending a race neutral entrance exam etc. which actually ends up discriminating against Asian people, but you go ahead and throw out your nonsense accusation of racism.

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of this racial crap. If you cannot keep up work harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Call me crazy, but I think the goal might be increased diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Yeah, kinda hard to believe that when we just had Fairfax County go on a crusade to target Thomas Jefferson HS on "diversity, equity, and inclusion" grounds for having too many Asians.

It is one thing to say "nobody should be excluded," which is an idea pretty much everyone would support.

When you insist the system has to be gamed to make sure certain groups are advanced, regardless of the actual merit of the individuals in question is when you get into trouble.... and that is what the entire modern D&I effort is about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

I don’t think it is a straw an, actually. I think there are many DEI proponents/professionals who aren’t all that creative, can’t do anything about the pipeline, and want to look bold and like they are capable of implementing change quickly and decisively (because metrics are important).

It sure looks like a quota system is coming When the GC of a company like Coca Cola tells the law firms that support them that the firms must have at least 30% of the legal work performed by “diverse attorney” and that at least half of that 30% must be performed by Black attorneys or the company (the client) will withhold payment.

Which of course would be wildly racist if it weren't for the fact that, well, it's wildly racist.


It won't do anything to solve the core problem, lack of well qualified black law school applicants in the first place.

"Students seeking admission to the nation's highest-ranked law schools such as Yale, Harvard, and Stanford have a mean LSAT score of about 170. Data obtained by JBHE from the Law School Admission Council shows that very few blacks nationwide score at this level.

In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.

Even if we drop the scoring level to 165, a level equal to the mean score of students enrolling at law schools ranked in the top 10 nationwide but not at the very top, we still find very few blacks. There were 108 blacks scoring 165 or better on the LSAT in 2004. They made up 1 percent of all black test takers. For whites, there were 6,689 test takers who scored 165 or above. They made up 10.6 percent of all white students who took the LSAT examination.

The nation's top law schools could fill their classes exclusively with students who scored 165 or above on the LSAT. But if they were to do so, these law schools would have almost no black students."

https://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_graduate_admissions_test.html


Consider the implications of those numbers. White applicants with a 165+ outnumber black applicants 62 to 1... and this doesn't account for Asians obviously.


The "equity" solution is to simply discriminate based on race for law school admission. Then discriminate by race for law firm hiring. Then discriminate by race when assigning clients/work. Obviously the black associates will also need to make partner at the "right" rate. This is what it DE&I means in modern America.

Did you just argue against the idea of leveling the effects of systemic, institutional racism by suggesting the lack of qualified candidates as judged by a standardized test that is fraught with systemic, institutional racism?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

I don’t think it is a straw an, actually. I think there are many DEI proponents/professionals who aren’t all that creative, can’t do anything about the pipeline, and want to look bold and like they are capable of implementing change quickly and decisively (because metrics are important).

It sure looks like a quota system is coming When the GC of a company like Coca Cola tells the law firms that support them that the firms must have at least 30% of the legal work performed by “diverse attorney” and that at least half of that 30% must be performed by Black attorneys or the company (the client) will withhold payment.

Which of course would be wildly racist if it weren't for the fact that, well, it's wildly racist.


It won't do anything to solve the core problem, lack of well qualified black law school applicants in the first place.

"Students seeking admission to the nation's highest-ranked law schools such as Yale, Harvard, and Stanford have a mean LSAT score of about 170. Data obtained by JBHE from the Law School Admission Council shows that very few blacks nationwide score at this level.

In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.

Even if we drop the scoring level to 165, a level equal to the mean score of students enrolling at law schools ranked in the top 10 nationwide but not at the very top, we still find very few blacks. There were 108 blacks scoring 165 or better on the LSAT in 2004. They made up 1 percent of all black test takers. For whites, there were 6,689 test takers who scored 165 or above. They made up 10.6 percent of all white students who took the LSAT examination.

The nation's top law schools could fill their classes exclusively with students who scored 165 or above on the LSAT. But if they were to do so, these law schools would have almost no black students."

https://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_graduate_admissions_test.html


Consider the implications of those numbers. White applicants with a 165+ outnumber black applicants 62 to 1... and this doesn't account for Asians obviously.


The "equity" solution is to simply discriminate based on race for law school admission. Then discriminate by race for law firm hiring. Then discriminate by race when assigning clients/work. Obviously the black associates will also need to make partner at the "right" rate. This is what it DE&I means in modern America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

I don’t think it is a straw an, actually. I think there are many DEI proponents/professionals who aren’t all that creative, can’t do anything about the pipeline, and want to look bold and like they are capable of implementing change quickly and decisively (because metrics are important).

It sure looks like a quota system is coming When the GC of a company like Coca Cola tells the law firms that support them that the firms must have at least 30% of the legal work performed by “diverse attorney” and that at least half of that 30% must be performed by Black attorneys or the company (the client) will withhold payment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the longterm political goal of Diversity Equity and Inclusion initiatives? Is there more a focus on this now because baby boomers are retiring and more younger people are needed in the workplace? It seems like eventually when baby boomers retire, younger more diverse people will fill those roles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many affluent liberal whites claim to be fine with those programs because they are engaging in afirmó of self-preservation and/or do not actually believe that the programs will in any way diminish the socioeconomic status they enjoy. But for many white managers, I tend to think it’s a means of self-preservation, such as, if I stay publicly and loudly my support for these efforts, I will be safe.

Support for these programs tends to be performative all around.


There really is a pseudo religious aspect to this where we are all expected to proclaim that we will do ever more to further DE&I, and that we will exhort everyone we know to do the same, and that we are "allies" of key identity groups, and that we will fly flags and put signs in our front yards indicating our support, and that we will examine every conscious thought for any hint of bias... before continuing on to examine our unconscious where bias must surely lurk.


The fundamental problem is that if "bias" were keeping qualified diverse candidates out of jobs, out of universities, etc, what you would expect to see would be highly qualified diverse candidates who weren't being hired despite their objective strength. Is that what we are actually seeing?

Inflation has a way of squashing this pseudo religion.