Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Military service is not DEI. The US military is incredibly diverse. Less than 50 percent of soldiers are white males. Whatever preference federal hiring may give to former service members, it's not because of their race, gender, orientation etc. It's simply a recognition of their service to the country and to give them a small boost as they transition into the civilian world. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If people are upset about it, they have every opportunity to serve themselves.
Well said.
Nobody is upset about it. But it is a form of DEI.
No one is upset, because Veterans are owed this. Veterans are a cut bellow, they require hiring preferences, that goes beyond DEI.
"a cut bellow," huh? Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Military service is not DEI. The US military is incredibly diverse. Less than 50 percent of soldiers are white males. Whatever preference federal hiring may give to former service members, it's not because of their race, gender, orientation etc. It's simply a recognition of their service to the country and to give them a small boost as they transition into the civilian world. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If people are upset about it, they have every opportunity to serve themselves.
Well said.
Nobody is upset about it. But it is a form of DEI.
Anonymous wrote:DEI refers to the characteristics that are not earned or competency based.
Anonymous wrote:Let me point out I have the utmost respect for veterans and think we as a country owe them for their service. But if you use their military service as a "leg up" in the private sector or for government jobs isn't that just another DEI classification? Just want to debate the merits of it if GOP wants to do away with all DEI.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let me point out I have the utmost respect for veterans and think we as a country owe them for their service. But if you use their military service as a "leg up" in the private sector or for government jobs isn't that just another DEI classification? Just want to debate the merits of it if GOP wants to do away with all DEI.
Many veterans are disabled, which is definitely DEI. Vets will be significantly hurt through these efforts.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let me point out I have the utmost respect for veterans and think we as a country owe them for their service. But if you use their military service as a "leg up" in the private sector or for government jobs isn't that just another DEI classification? Just want to debate the merits of it if GOP wants to do away with all DEI.
It's earned.
Anonymous wrote:DEI refers to the characteristics that are not earned or competency based.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's how JD Vance got into Yale Law School.
Because every veteran gets into Yale Law School?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Do you give the same benefit of the doubt to others in perceived DEI categories?
MAGAs would NEVER give the benefit of doubt to a black woman who graduated from Ohio State summa cum laude. They would just smirk and say "DEI hire."
Every. Single. Time.
I just read an article on a female pilot who grinded for 12 years to achieve her status only to be looked at as a DEI hire by most people. She's even had passengers refuse to fly with her when they board and find out she's the Captain and question her abilities to her face and in front of other passengers.
And this is yet another reason why the rhetoric of the current administration is so detrimental to anyone that isn't a white male. Women and minorities already have to work twice as hard to prove themselves only to now be called "DEI hires"
Anonymous wrote:Let me point out I have the utmost respect for veterans and think we as a country owe them for their service. But if you use their military service as a "leg up" in the private sector or for government jobs isn't that just another DEI classification? Just want to debate the merits of it if GOP wants to do away with all DEI.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Military service is not DEI. The US military is incredibly diverse. Less than 50 percent of soldiers are white males. Whatever preference federal hiring may give to former service members, it's not because of their race, gender, orientation etc. It's simply a recognition of their service to the country and to give them a small boost as they transition into the civilian world. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If people are upset about it, they have every opportunity to serve themselves.
Well said.
Anonymous wrote:Military service is not DEI. The US military is incredibly diverse. Less than 50 percent of soldiers are white males. Whatever preference federal hiring may give to former service members, it's not because of their race, gender, orientation etc. It's simply a recognition of their service to the country and to give them a small boost as they transition into the civilian world. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If people are upset about it, they have every opportunity to serve themselves.
Anonymous wrote:It's how JD Vance got into Yale Law School.