Please, don’t apply there

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

So you didn’t read the rebuttal? Start there.

You mean the rebuttal from the DEI exec herself? Telling us all what a wonderful job she did? No conflict of interest there. How about an unbiased rebuttal?

Did you read it? She presents facts.

Carefully selected facts. She is not going to evaluate herself honestly. Come on. If an outsider would like to speak up for her I would be much more interested but this is all CYA.

Do you think it was ok for the NYT to omit the facts she presented?

Do you realized that this is how it works? Facts are omitted on both sides to present the narrative you want to tell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

So you didn’t read the rebuttal? Start there.

You mean the rebuttal from the DEI exec herself? Telling us all what a wonderful job she did? No conflict of interest there. How about an unbiased rebuttal?

Did you read it? She presents facts.

Carefully selected facts. She is not going to evaluate herself honestly. Come on. If an outsider would like to speak up for her I would be much more interested but this is all CYA.

Do you think it was ok for the NYT to omit the facts she presented?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

So you didn’t read the rebuttal? Start there.

You mean the rebuttal from the DEI exec herself? Telling us all what a wonderful job she did? No conflict of interest there. How about an unbiased rebuttal?

Did you read it? She presents facts.

Carefully selected facts. She is not going to evaluate herself honestly. Come on. If an outsider would like to speak up for her I would be much more interested but this is all CYA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

So you didn’t read the rebuttal? Start there.

You mean the rebuttal from the DEI exec herself? Telling us all what a wonderful job she did? No conflict of interest there. How about an unbiased rebuttal?

Did you read it? She presents facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

So you didn’t read the rebuttal? Start there.

You mean the rebuttal from the DEI exec herself? Telling us all what a wonderful job she did? No conflict of interest there. How about an unbiased rebuttal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is the Heritage Foundation's work crucial to this article? It's a single sentence that could just as well be removed.

What we should really be asking ourselves is why is the Heritage Foundation the only think tank comfortable studying this issue. No group to its left seems to want to touch it with a ten foot pole, which lends credibility to the claims of DEI being unquestionable by anyone who isn't on the right.

It’s a red flag around the journalist’s integrity, which has since been shown to be lacking. Shocker.

I believe there were two references to Heritage.

Just pointing a suspicious finger at Heritage means nothing, & is not convincing. Cultivating an atmosphere in which it’s sufficient to challenge the source rather than the evidence is how totalitarian movements get traction.

Using dubious sources is a red flag. And the “evidence” has been shown to be dubious as well.

How are you any better than then people who think that if trump says it, it must be true; and if a democrat says it, it must be false?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

So you didn’t read the rebuttal? Start there.

Pay attention to correlation vs. causation

So if you spend $250 million on DEI and things get better it proves DEI is useful but if you spend $250 million and things get worse it's got nothing to do with DEI programs?
That sort of heads I win,tails you lose sort of unfalsifiable position is usually a bad position to take.
If you are immune to evidence then you fall into the category of people who cannot be reasoned out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

So you didn’t read the rebuttal? Start there.

Pay attention to correlation vs. causation

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

So you didn’t read the rebuttal? Start there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

*What are some errors it made besides citing Heritage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.

What are some wires it made besides cutting Heritage?

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Subject says the university was given short notice to fact check the piece and corrections were not accepted. So...there remains a difference of opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is the Heritage Foundation's work crucial to this article? It's a single sentence that could just as well be removed.

What we should really be asking ourselves is why is the Heritage Foundation the only think tank comfortable studying this issue. No group to its left seems to want to touch it with a ten foot pole, which lends credibility to the claims of DEI being unquestionable by anyone who isn't on the right.

It’s a red flag around the journalist’s integrity, which has since been shown to be lacking. Shocker.

I believe there were two references to Heritage.

Just pointing a suspicious finger at Heritage means nothing, & is not convincing. Cultivating an atmosphere in which it’s sufficient to challenge the source rather than the evidence is how totalitarian movements get traction.

Using dubious sources is a red flag. And the “evidence” has been shown to be dubious as well.

Anonymous wrote:Why are some people here taking the "rebuttal" (a blog post by a subject who comes off badly in the article) at face value as the Gospel truth? The Times article was extensively edited and fact checked. If we're assigning weights to things, it's probably more reliable.

Did you read it?

NYT did not properly fact check.