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

[nycfan]

“Before Tuesday, there was a story dedicated to the Army history of Jackie Robinson, who defiantly opposed racism in the military before breaking baseball's color barrier, on the website of the Department of Defense.

As of Tuesday evening, it was no longer there.

As KSBW and ESPN's Jeff Passan noted, the webpage has been scrubbed and the URL now features "dei" before the story's headline, indicating it was potentially taken down as part of President Donald Trump's administration's efforts to remove diversity, equity and inclusion programs from everything with ties to the federal government.

… [the removed link, still available via the Wayback Machine, described his early life and] the incident that nearly derailed the MLB legend's military career:

On July 6, 1944, Robinson boarded an Army bus. The driver ordered Robinson to move to the back of the bus, but Robinson refused. The driver called the military police, who took Robinson into custody. He was subsequently court martialed, but he was acquitted.

After his acquittal, he was transferred to Camp Breckinridge, Kentucky, where he served as a coach for Army athletics until receiving an honorable discharge in November 1944. …”

 

[ZenMode]

^^^^^It's actually pretty amusing to see DC beurocrats pretending to not know what is meant by DEI ^^^^^

Jackie Robinson is a DEI hire now?

He was the epitome of a non-DEI hire. He, more than anyone that comes to mind, had to earn his way onto the field and there was clearly nothing DEI about him getting into the military any more than any other black American.

More malicious compliance.

 

[nycfan]

^^^^^It's actually pretty amusing to see DC beurocrats pretending to not know what is meant by DEI ^^^^^

Jackie Robinson is a DEI hire now?

He was the epitome of a non-DEI hire. He, more than anyone that comes to mind, had to earn his way onto the field and there was clearly nothing DEI about him getting into the military any more than any other black American.

More malicious compliance.

But again this is tagged DEI by whatever process Defense implemented? If this is malicious compliance that keeps happening, why not issue clarifying directions or stop the info purge until they refine the human or AI review? Why does the Defense Department spokesman keep responding to specific inquiries with “DEI is dead at the Defense Department”?

Like I actually do believe there has been some malicious compliance meant to show how absurd and overly broad the directives are but the reporting and Administration responses on this DoD/Arlington purge hasn’t supported that.

 

[CFordUNC]

Would somebody mind explaining to me what is meant by the phrase "malicious compliance" in the context of actions being undertaken by the current administration. In my 35 years I don't think I've ever heard that phrase and now every MAGA apologist on the internet is using it.

 

[finesse]

Would somebody mind explaining to me what is meant by the phrase "malicious compliance" in the context of actions being undertaken by the current administration. In my 35 years I don't think I've ever heard that phrase and now every MAGA apologist on the internet is using it.

It means that they doesn't like the FO after the FA. It's the eternal lament," why do you keep calling me stupid? I just failed to anticipate that."

 

[ZenMode]

But again this is tagged DEI by whatever process Defense implemented? If this is malicious compliance that keeps happening, why not issue clarifying directions or stop the info purge until they refine the human or AI review? Why does the Defense Department spokesman keep responding to specific inquiries with “DEI is dead at the Defense Department”?

Like I actually do believe there has been some malicious compliance meant to show how absurd and overly broad the directives are but the reporting and Administration responses on this DoD/Arlington purge hasn’t supported that.

We'll see how it all plays out. IMO, the correct course of action is to flag, but not take action on, things that are believed to be DEI and then ask for clarification.

I read that Enola Gay was flagged for removal because "gay" is in the name. It appears that someone had enough sense to question that and not remove references to Enola Gay because that would be obvious foolishness.

In other cases, there is a shoot first and ask questions later. Those "shots" make the news cycle on nearly a daily basis and fall into the malicious compliance category, IMO.

 

[ZenMode]

I suspect there will be many more corrections.

I suspect the corrections will get much less coverage than the mistake.

Pentagon blames ‘mistake’ for deletion of Navajo Code Talkers pages in DEI scrub, says content will be restored

Pentagon: ‘mistake’ to delete Navajo Code Talkers pages in DEI scrub

The Pentagon called the removal of Navajo Code Talker pages from its websites a “mistake,” vowing to restore content related to the Marines who helped win World War II.

cronkitenews.azpbs.org

 

[nycfan]

Would somebody mind explaining to me what is meant by the phrase "malicious compliance" in the context of actions being undertaken by the current administration. In my 35 years I don't think I've ever heard that phrase and now every MAGA apologist on the internet is using it.

It is a right wing phrase that means that deep state bureaucrats are over-complying with (in this case) broad and vague Trump Administration directives in ways the deep staters know are more extreme than Trump’s directive intends to generate public outrage and distract from the true intent of their policies. The removal of info about the Tuskegee Airmen was the first case I recall of reading MAGA politicians cite malicious compliance as the problem.

I first noticed widespread use of the phrase in battles over removing library books from schools - DeSantis accused librarians of “malicious compliance” to remove everything challenged, however flimsy the challenge, rather than follow the know it when you see it inappropriate sexual content intent.

It has been a clever turn of phrase on the right (and there may be some truth to it), but now it has become cover for Trump supporters — everything embarrassing must be malicious compliance, even if Trump Administration officials refuse to directly address (even if they reverse) the alleged erroneous over-compliance.

Background:

‘Malicious Compliance’ Is Not the Issue With Trump’s Executive Orders​

The president’s decrees are deliberately sweeping and chaotic.

GIFT LINK —> ‘Malicious Compliance’ Is Not the Issue With Trump’s Executive Orders


Counterpoint:

The Democratic Party’s malicious compliance strategy

The Democratic Party's malicious compliance strategy

Liberal bureaucrats have mastered the art of sabotaging GOP policies by purposefully misinterpreting them at the expense of people who don't know better.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[CFordUNC]

It is a right wing phrase that means that deep state bureaucrats are over-complying with (in this case) broad and vague Trump Administration directives in ways the deep staters know are more extreme than Trump’s directive intends to generate public outrage and distract from the true intent of their policies. The removal of info about the Tuskegee Airmen was the first case I recall of reading MAGA politicians cite malicious compliance as the problem.

I first noticed widespread use of the phrase in battles over removing library books from schools - DeSantis accused librarians of “malicious compliance” to remove everything challenged, however flimsy the challenge, rather than follow the know it when you see it inappropriate sexual content intent.

It has been a clever turn of phrase on the right (and there may be some truth to it), but now it has become cover for Trump supporters — everything embarrassing must be malicious compliance, even if Trump Administration officials refuse to directly address (even if they reverse) the alleged erroneous over-compliance.

Background:

‘Malicious Compliance’ Is Not the Issue With Trump’s Executive Orders​

The president’s decrees are deliberately sweeping and chaotic.

GIFT LINK —> ‘Malicious Compliance’ Is Not the Issue With Trump’s Executive Orders


Counterpoint:

The Democratic Party’s malicious compliance strategy

The Democratic Party's malicious compliance strategy

Liberal bureaucrats have mastered the art of sabotaging GOP policies by purposefully misinterpreting them at the expense of people who don't know better.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

My brain hurts.

 

[ZenMode]

Morgan Stanley Went Big on DEI, and No One Is Happy About It​

Black and white employees say the efforts added to a divisive culture. Now, as political pressure rises, the bank is watering down initiatives.​

https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/morgan-stanley-corporate-dei-what-happened-4a61427c

 

[nycfan]

I suspect there will be many more corrections.

I suspect the corrections will get much less coverage than the mistake.

Pentagon blames ‘mistake’ for deletion of Navajo Code Talkers pages in DEI scrub, says content will be restored

Pentagon: ‘mistake’ to delete Navajo Code Talkers pages in DEI scrub

The Pentagon called the removal of Navajo Code Talker pages from its websites a “mistake,” vowing to restore content related to the Marines who helped win World War II.

cronkitenews.azpbs.org

How many such mistakes do you tolerate before you correct the process giving rise to the mistakes?

From your link:

“… Pentagon press secretary John Ullyot defended the deletions on Monday, telling Axios that as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had said, “DEI is dead at the Defense Department. … We are pleased by the rapid compliance across the department with the directive removing DEI content from all platforms.”

A day later, the press office called the deletions a “mistake” that would soon be rectified. …”

First they said hell yeah, we’re pleased by this result, then after enough blowback they said oops, we’ll fix it. That is not an allegation of or otherwise indicative of a malicious compliance issue, it is either a broken process or let’s call it malicious enforcement with selective retractions only when a specific deletion gets enough negative press.

 

[ZenMode]

How many such mistakes do you tolerate before you correct the process giving rise to the mistakes?

From your link:

“… Pentagon press secretary John Ullyot defended the deletions on Monday, telling Axios that as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had said, “DEI is dead at the Defense Department. … We are pleased by the rapid compliance across the department with the directive removing DEI content from all platforms.”

A day later, the press office called the deletions a “mistake” that would soon be rectified. …”

First they said hell yeah, we’re pleased by this result, then after enough blowback they said oops, we’ll fix it. That is not an allegation of or otherwise indicative of a malicious compliance issue, it is either a broken process or let’s call it malicious enforcement with selective retractions only when a specific deletion gets enough negative press.

It's hard to tell if the "DEI is dead...' comment was used in response to questions about a specific deletion or was just a general statement. The article isn't clear.

The general approach of shoot first and ask questions later seems like malicious compliance to me.

 

[dukeman92]

“Before Tuesday, there was a story dedicated to the Army history of Jackie Robinson, who defiantly opposed racism in the military before breaking baseball's color barrier, on the website of the Department of Defense.

As of Tuesday evening, it was no longer there.

As KSBW and ESPN's Jeff Passan noted, the webpage has been scrubbed and the URL now features "dei" before the story's headline, indicating it was potentially taken down as part of President Donald Trump's administration's efforts to remove diversity, equity and inclusion programs from everything with ties to the federal government.

… [the removed link, still available via the Wayback Machine, described his early life and] the incident that nearly derailed the MLB legend's military career:

Disgusting. Embarrassing. Infuriating.

There's your DEI.

 

[nycfan]

It's hard to tell if the "DEI is dead...' comment was used in response to questions about a specific deletion or was just a general statement. The article isn't clear.

The general approach of shoot first and ask questions later seems like malicious compliance to me.

Shoot first, ask questions later is the Administration plan. Malicious compliance would be a career employee or holdover political appointee intentionally selecting a famous case (like Navajo Code Talkers) to delete as proof of the impact if you intentionally distort the directive.

 

[ChileG]

Would somebody mind explaining to me what is meant by the phrase "malicious compliance" in the context of actions being undertaken by the current administration. In my 35 years I don't think I've ever heard that phrase and now every MAGA apologist on the internet is using it.

It’s when government workers do exactly as told but then those actions make the administration look bad in retrospect.
It is a phrase used to absolve this administration from the negative aspects of their actions.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

We'll see how it all plays out. IMO, the correct course of action is to flag, but not take action on, things that are believed to be DEI and then ask for clarification.

I read that Enola Gay was flagged for removal because "gay" is in the name. It appears that someone had enough sense to question that and not remove references to Enola Gay because that would be obvious foolishness.

In other cases, there is a shoot first and ask questions later. Those "shots" make the news cycle on nearly a daily basis and fall into the malicious compliance category, IMO.

This is a perfect corollary to DOGE cuts and no one has accused DOGE of malicious compliance. In fact, any hint of resistance such as “hang on, those guys keep the reactors from melting down, we can’t fire them” is met with the person suggesting reconsideration being canned.

Trump owns this. All of it.

 

[Healing]

It. Is. Never. Their. Fault.

Ever.

 

[nrsair]

It’s when government workers do exactly as told but then those actions make the administration look bad in retrospect.
It is a phrase used to absolve this administration from the negative aspects of their actions.

I’m quite sure the administration doesn’t give a damn which articles are being removed or re-instated, they just want to be seen as strongly anti-DEI.

And I’m also sure that there’s no malice among the compliance with the anti-DEI executive order, only some communications manager somewhere struggling to interpret what they’re supposed to do and scared to lose their job if they don’t go far enough.

 

[ZenMode]

This is a perfect corollary to DOGE cuts and no one has accused DOGE of malicious compliance. In fact, any hint of resistance such as “hang on, those guys keep the reactors from melting down, we can’t fire them” is met with the person suggesting reconsideration being canned.

Trump owns this. All of it.

Last I heard, Elon has no power to make any cuts and they are all approved by Trump before any changes are made.

That is how it should be for any questionable cuts related to DEI.

 

[superrific]

^^^^^It's actually pretty amusing to see DC beurocrats pretending to not know what is meant by DEI ^^^^^

Jackie Robinson is a DEI hire now?

He was the epitome of a non-DEI hire. He, more than anyone that comes to mind, had to earn his way onto the field and there was clearly nothing DEI about him getting into the military any more than any other black American.

More malicious compliance.

1. Again, do you think maybe you're not understanding what dei is all about? It's not a fucking quota system. It's not about giving minorities a leg up.
2. I wonder when you will realize that most of today's GOP uses DEI as a derogatory term for minorities in general, without discrimination. It's not exactly the n-word, but it's meant to be stigmatizing.