So-called Anti-Woke, Anti-DEI policy catch-all

[ZenMode]

Well, at least you've acknowledged it's not a Dem thing only. BTW, Eisenhower picked Brennan because he was Catholic; Reagan picked Scalia because he was Italian. Anyway, the big question:

What about Neil Gorsuch? Was he selected based on superficial, irrelevant characteristics? Or does the DEI stigma only attach to minorities? I think you're actually creating a system in which white men are seen as the default and a decision to hire, promote, appoint, etc., a white man can't be based on superficial characteristics. Alone among people, the white man enjoys the presumption of merit even where it is plainly inappropriate. Gorsuch was not well known, and to the extent he had a reputation, it was mostly as a fringe judge with bizarre views. So why was he the choice?

Why has the modern GOP never nominated a minority candidate to the Supreme Court, with the exception of the obviously token hire Clarence Thomas? Is that DEI? Or is it only minorities who have to battle that perception?

Again... I don't support any use of superficial characteristics as criteria for a seat on SCOTUS or any other government position. It is discriminatory and, in most cases, unconstitutional because the government can't discriminate. When Biden said he's picking a black female, that should have been treated as blatant discrimination on the basis of sex and race.

 

[superrific]

Yeah. And how are they doing now?

I know blacks were treated poorly and in some cases they're still being treated poorly. I want to move away from that and move them closer to the status and integration of Irish Americans and Italian Americans.

And we didn't see those European Americans or other immigrants that have successfully integrated get those same affirmative action programs. I think that's the model that we need to follow.

LOL. What do you think Tammany Hall and the urban political machines were all about? Who do you think Fiorello Laguardia's administration was hiring? Laguardia was an excellent mayor, one of the best. Italian employment in the city government went way up. I don't have a problem with that, at all. But let's not pretend that now-white Americans never had affirmative action programs.

Black Americans were subject to forms of discrimination and oppression that went far beyond anything that the European Americans had to suffer. The affirmative action program of LBJ was necessary because of the tremendous hostility of Southern states. You didn't see governors blocking the doors of universities when Italians came in.

 

[superrific]

Again... I don't support any use of superficial characteristics as criteria for a seat on SCOTUS or any other government position. It is literally discrimination and, in most cases, unconstitutional because the government can't discriminate. When Biden said he's picking a black female, that should have been treated as blatant discrimination.

So answer the question. What about Neil Gorsuch? What about white men? Are they the default? The ones who are hired on the merits whereas everyone else was suspicious?

Is this just a matter of PR for you? Saying the nominee will be a black woman = bad. Picking the nominee because she's a black woman without saying so = OK?

 

[rodoheel]

Yeah. And how are they doing now?

I know blacks were treated poorly and in some cases they're still being treated poorly. I want to move away from that and move them closer to the status and integration of Irish Americans and Italian Americans.

And we didn't see those European Americans or other immigrants that have successfully integrated get those same affirmative action programs. I think that's the model that we need to follow.

Surely you aren't this naive. Those nationalities didn't get "those same affirmative action programs" because they weren't subject to generations of legally sanctioned and enforced discrimination. The second generation of white European immigrants were visually and legally indistinguishable from "ordinary" Americans. Not so for generations of black Americans.

 

[Carolina Fever]

GT and Zen are like a two-headed monster of stupidity when it comes to this subject.

 

[ZenMode]

So answer the question. What about Neil Gorsuch? What about white men? Are they the default? The ones who are hired on the merits whereas everyone else was suspicious?

I don't know enough about Neil Gorsuch's selection to comment.

Is this just a matter of PR for you? Saying the nominee will be a black woman = bad. Picking the nominee because she's a black woman without saying so = OK?

Obviously, neither of us can read minds. Yes, the President of the United States publicly making race and sex a determining criteria is a bad thing, not only for the person he selected, but for the country. In a perfect world, nobody would consider superficial characteristics but, when you're POTUS, it's especially bad to do so publicly.

How many black, Ivy League/upper echelon university students go their entire college career knowing that people around them are wondering if they were an affirmative action selection? Is that really the best environment for them? Do you think they want that hanging over their heads? Because of Biden, KBJ will forever be known as a DEI selection. Sure, people may have wondered either way, but he removed all doubt.

 

[superrific]

I don't know enough about Neil Gorsuch's selection to comment.

Obviously, neither of us can read minds. Yes, the President of the United States publicly making race and sex a determining criteria is a bad thing, not only for the person he selected, but for the country. In a perfect world, nobody would consider superficial characteristics but, when you're POTUS, it's especially bad to do so publicly.

How many black, Ivy League/upper echelon university students go their entire college career knowing that people around them are wondering if they were an affirmative action selection? Is that really the best environment for them? Do you think they want that hanging over their heads? Because of Biden, KBJ will forever be known as a DEI selection. Sure, people may have wondered either way, but he removed all doubt.

She will forever be known as a DEI selection to YOU. To me, she's a promising young justice who is very sharp and can easily pierce the noise to get at what the cases are really about.

Your point about black students wondering if people see them as affirmative action selections is, in fact, one of the more important justifications for DEI. The point of DEI is to erase the stigma of being black (or other minority traits often targeted for discrimination). The problem of black students being viewed negatively is not a black person problem. It's a white person problem.

 

[TangledUpInBlue06]

Because of Biden, KBJ will forever be known as a DEI selection

Thinking of KBJ as a DEI selection is a choice. Maybe it is a choice you have made. I view her as an eminently qualified jurist.

You say in a perfect world no one would consider superficial characteristics but then you force KBJ to wear the scarlet letters "DEI." Pick a lane.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Surely you aren't this naive. Those nationalities didn't get "those same affirmative action programs" because they weren't subject to generations of legally sanctioned and enforced discrimination. The second generation of white European immigrants were visually and legally indistinguishable from "ordinary" Americans. Not so for generations of black Americans.

Yeah. I know. I'm not saying African Americans had it easy. I'm saying that affirmative action and DEI are not the right solution. We've had affirmative action for 60 years now. How much closer are we really? It seems like it's just reinforcing the discrimination and separation.

In that same period, you have Asian American immigrants who are pretty much integrated. Indian American immigrants are well on their way. It's debatable but I'd argue that Mexican Americans are further along as a demographic group than black Americans.

Affirmative action was a good idea and I likely would endorse it if it was new today but at this point, I think we can see it didn't work. Time to end it.

 

[ZenMode]

She will forever be known as a DEI selection to YOU. To me, she's a promising young justice who is very sharp and can easily pierce the noise to get at what the cases are really about.

Her being a "promising young justice" is the correct reason to nominate her. I knew, and know, very little about her beyond her dissent, which I disagreed with, on the affirmative action case.... ironically. Having lots of melanin in her skin and a vagina is the wrong reason.

Your point about black students wondering if people see them as affirmative action selections is, in fact, one of the more important justifications for DEI. The point of DEI is to erase the stigma of being black (or other minority traits often targeted for discrimination). The problem of black students being viewed negatively is not a black person problem. It's a white person problem.

Changing standards for black applicants, and making it known that some number of them are going to be selected because of irrelevant, superficial characteristics, created the stigma. Before that, nobody would question whether a black student got in based on test scores and other relevant qualifications.

 

[rodoheel]

Yeah. I know. I'm not saying African Americans had it easy. I'm saying that affirmative action and DEI are not the right solution. We've had affirmative action for 60 years now. How much closer are we really? It seems like it's just reinforcing the discrimination and separation.

In that same period, you have Asian American immigrants who are pretty much integrated. Indian American immigrants are well on their way. It's debatable but I'd argue that Mexican Americans are further along as a demographic group than black Americans.

Affirmative action was a good idea and I likely would endorse it if it was new today but at this point, I think we can see it didn't work. Time to end it.

Affirmative action has worked more slowly than hoped - in large part due to strong opposition from people who have sought to limit or reverse its effects - but I think we could all agree that black Americans are better off today than they were 60 years ago, don't you think? How is the answer to affirmative action not working as quickly as hoped to eliminate it? Is there a credible argument that the existence of affirmative action has somehow hurt black Americans and kept them from prospering? I'd love to hear it.

 

[superrific]

Changing standards for black applicants, and making it known that some number of them are going to be selected because of irrelevant, superficial characteristics, created the stigma.

Serious question: why do you keep misrepresenting what DEI programs or affirmative action programs do?

Quotas in admission have been illegal since the 1970s. There are zero universities, this century, that have made it known that some black students are going to be selected regardless of merit.

The stigma is a choice, as another poster said. Even if it were true that universities had black quotas, why would you interpolate that to any individual person? It's your choice to draw a line from a policy to a person.

And race is not an irrelevant characteristic. In an ideal world, perhaps, it would be. In our world, it is very much not and you know that.

 

[superrific]

Her being a "promising young justice" is the correct reason to nominate her. I knew, and know, very little about her beyond her dissent, which I disagreed with, on the affirmative action case.... ironically. Having lots of melanin in her skin and a vagina is the wrong reason.

There's nothing ironic about it.

Being Black in America is not about having melanin. It's about an entire set of life experiences that white people do not share. One of them is having their existence on campuses being questioned by virtue of their race. Nobody does that with legacy admissions, even though there the standards are even more malleable. It's in part because the legacy admissions don't walk around with signs around their neck saying, "legacy admission." Black people wear signs by virtue of their skin color. The question is what content you choose to put on the sign.

 

[ZenMode]

Serious question: why do you keep misrepresenting what DEI programs or affirmative action programs do?

Quotas in admission have been illegal since the 1970s. There are zero universities, this century, that have made it known that some black students are going to be selected regardless of merit.

The stigma is a choice, as another poster said. Even if it were true that universities had black quotas, why would you interpolate that to any individual person? It's your choice to draw a line from a policy to a person.

And race is not an irrelevant characteristic. In an ideal world, perhaps, it would be. In our world, it is very much not and you know that.

I'm not misrepresenting DEI/affirmative action. Both initiatives take into account things like skin color, gender, sex, etc.

I'm not talking about quotas. I'm talking about taking into consideration irrelevant, superficial characteristics for admission/jobs.

 

[superrific]

I'm not misrepresenting DEI/affirmative action. Both initiatives take into account things like skin color, gender, sex, etc.

I'm not talking about quotas. I'm talking about taking into consideration irrelevant, superficial characteristics for admission/jobs.

Well, at the outset, you're misrepresenting them by lumping them together. And I guess you'll take to your grave that race is an irrelevant consideration when actually it's a fundamental building block of our social order. I came to that conclusion reluctantly, wanting to believe in a post-racial America. And maybe that day will come. But MAGA is organized racism, often virulent racism -- with other hatreds thrown in -- and it has won two presidential elections. I'm not interested in debating that point. There are reams of professional research going back a long time (even pre-MAGA) demonstrating the affinity between nativism and racial animus. There's especially a lot of research demonstrating that MAGA is a reaction to the browning of America.

MAGA is, in essence, a big DEI program for white people.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

I'm not misrepresenting DEI/affirmative action. Both initiatives take into account things like skin color, gender, sex, etc.

I'm not talking about quotas. I'm talking about taking into consideration irrelevant, superficial characteristics for admission/jobs.

So Gorsuch and ACB were both DEI appointments, correct?

 

[ZenMode]

There's nothing ironic about it.

Being Black in America is not about having melanin. It's about an entire set of life experiences that white people do not share. One of them is having their existence on campuses being questioned by virtue of their race.

Which didn't happen until it was known that things like race were being considered for applicants.

Nobody does that with legacy admissions, even though there the standards are even more malleable. It's in part because the legacy admissions don't walk around with signs around their neck saying, "legacy admission." Black people wear signs by virtue of their skin color. The question is what content you choose to put on the sign.

Sure, it's not easy to pinpoint a "legacy admission" beneficiary. There's also never been a public initiative to change/lower standards for legacy candidates.

 

[ZenMode]

So Gorsuch and ACB were both DEI appointments, correct?

I already said I don't know enough about Gorsuch to say either way and, yes, ACB was.

 

[ZenMode]

Well, at the outset, you're misrepresenting them by lumping them together.

One is primarily focused on race. The other is focused on race, gender, sex, etc.

And I guess you'll take to your grave that race is an irrelevant consideration when actually it's a fundamental building block of our social order.

I will take to my grave that continuing to make superficial characteristics, like skin color, important is contrary to what we should want. if we considered hair color in hiring, you would recognize the silliness of such actions.

I came to that conclusion reluctantly, wanting to believe in a post-racial America. And maybe that day will come. But MAGA is organized racism, often virulent racism -- with other hatreds thrown in -- and it has won two presidential elections. I'm not interested in debating that point. There are reams of professional research going back a long time (even pre-MAGA) demonstrating the affinity between nativism and racial animus. There's especially a lot of research demonstrating that MAGA is a reaction to the browning of America.

MAGA is, in essence, a big DEI program for white people.

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist. I'm also not saying that human nature doesn't mean we are naturally inclined to surrounding ourselves with people who are "like" ourselves. I'm just saying that continuing to make the irrelevant relevant, even with good intentions, isn't helping.

 

[Carolina Fever]

One is primarily focused on race. The other is focused on race, gender, sex, etc. I will take to my grave that continuing to make superficial characteristics, like skin color, important is contrary to what we should want. if we considered hair color in hiring, you would recognize the silliness of such actions.

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist. I'm also not saying that human nature doesn't mean we are naturally inclined to surrounding ourselves with people who are "like" ourselves. I'm just saying that continuing to make the irrelevant relevant, even with good intentions, isn't helping.

It isn't helping for racists and those that don't understand what DEI is all about.