Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

Nobody said anything about not being inclusive. However, if less qualified candidates are being accepted/hired/promoted over others because of DEI, that's wrong. Whites being promoted over more qualified candidates for being white is wrong as well.

An example has been provided on the previous page.

Harvard university, the world-renowned university, chose as its president, a Black female; which was a first. However, it was public knowledge she had a paltry 11 published works. That number of published works is ridiculous on its face. She also had relatively little leadership experience. These publicly-known facts heavily suggest she was selected over other candidates primarily on the basis of her race and sex.

It later turned out she plagiarized most the work she claimed as her own. And the topic of that work? It largely involved DEI and critical race theory. She is still employed by Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

Nobody said anything about not being inclusive. However, if less qualified candidates are being accepted/hired/promoted over others because of DEI, that's wrong. Whites being promoted over more qualified candidates for being white is wrong as well.

An example has been provided on the previous page.

Harvard university, the world-renowned university, chose as its president, a Black female; which was a first. However, it was public knowledge she had a paltry 11 published works. That number of published works is ridiculous on its face. She also had relatively little leadership experience. These publicly-known facts heavily suggest she was selected over other candidates primarily on the basis of her race and sex.

It later turned out she plagiarized most the work she claimed as her own. And the topic of that work? It largely involved DEI and critical race theory. She is still employed by Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

Nobody said anything about not being inclusive. However, if less qualified candidates are being accepted/hired/promoted over others because of DEI, that's wrong. Whites being promoted over more qualified candidates for being white is wrong as well.

An example has been provided on the previous page.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

The anti-DEI people make claims that unqualified people are being hired/promoted/given preferential treatment yet they have absolutely no real data to back that up. They don't even have enough real evidence to even justify "audits."

How would people even get that information since instate/out of state, gender, race, grades, test scores (if any), or course rigor for each applicant is unavailable?

Hard evidence is difficult to get and you know that unless they give us the data and reinstate requiring test scores.

For lack of evidence the right wing has fabricated a false narrative about how anyone who isn't straight, white, male and Christian is unqualified and undeserving. It's a disgusting fiction that they've unleashed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

The anti-DEI people make claims that unqualified people are being hired/promoted/given preferential treatment yet they have absolutely no real data to back that up. They don't even have enough real evidence to even justify "audits."

How would people even get that information since instate/out of state, gender, race, grades, test scores (if any), or course rigor for each applicant is unavailable?

Hard evidence is difficult to get and you know that unless they give us the data and reinstate requiring test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

The anti-DEI people make claims that unqualified people are being hired/promoted/given preferential treatment yet they have absolutely no real data to back that up. They don't even have enough real evidence to even justify "audits."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

Nobody said anything about not being inclusive. However, if less qualified candidates are being accepted/hired/promoted over others because of DEI, that's wrong. Whites being promoted over more qualified candidates for being white is wrong as well.

An example has been provided on the previous page.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

Nobody said anything about not being inclusive. However, if less qualified candidates are being accepted/hired/promoted over others because of DEI, that's wrong. Whites being promoted over more qualified candidates for being white is wrong as well.

An example has been provided on the previous page.