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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 735
  • Views: 12K
  • Politics 
I read my South Carolina statehouse representative's "progress report" in the local newspaper this morning. He went on and on about how he and his brethren were going after DEI to end preferences and to restore "a fair merit driven system". YET, in the same article, he mentions preserving "veteran preferences".

If the goal is a merit-driven system with no preferences, how do veteran preferences factor into that system?
 
I read my South Carolina statehouse representative's "progress report" in the local newspaper this morning. He went on and on about how he and his brethren were going after DEI to end preferences and to restore "a fair merit driven system". YET, in the same article, he mentions preserving "veteran preferences".

If the goal is a merit-driven system with no preferences, how do veteran preferences factor into that system?
Looked at as an earned benefit, I'd guess. I don't have a real problem with that.
 
Looked at as an earned benefit, I'd guess. I don't have a real problem with that.
I suppose race, gender, and economic status are earned drawbacks? If the object is to develop a "merit-driven system", it seems to me that no one would get a "benefit" over another based on a potentially irrelevant set of skills.
 
The federal government has a policy that , I believe, 10% of purchases have to be done from a veteran owned company. That might only apply to technology, I don't remember exactly.

Anyway, recognizing the fact that the federal government was "picking winners" again, some former co-workers of mine started a company and picked some random veteran to be the so-called owner, that way they would qualify.

It was a very small company to start and the person that they picked to run their entire order fulfillment was a barely functioning alcoholic that had made a very good name for herself at the company where we both worked. Upon checking online, it looks like that company is no longer around.

Anyway.. I wouldn't really label this as DEI. This, as I mentioned above, is the government picking winners.
 
Last edited:
Correct, based on ridiculous and superficial physical characteristics. I don't put military service in the category of DEI.
1. Military service is no more relevant for most jobs than those "ridiculous" characteristics;
2. If military service makes people more qualified, then there would be no need for set-asides;
3. So you are interfering with the labor market, putting less qualified people in place over more qualified, all in the name of a "qualification" that has nothing to do with the job in question.

The reason that you don't think it's DEI is entirely personal preference: you like veterans more than you like minorities and women.
 
1. Military service is no more relevant for most jobs than those "ridiculous" characteristics;
2. If military service makes people more qualified, then there would be no need for set-asides;
3. So you are interfering with the labor market, putting less qualified people in place over more qualified, all in the name of a "qualification" that has nothing to do with the job in question.

The reason that you don't think it's DEI is entirely personal preference: you like veterans more than you like minorities and women.
Right. We agree. It's all the government picking winners. The only difference is that the veteran policy doesn't fall under DEI, so I can't call it DEI.
 
The only difference is that the veteran policy doesn't fall under DEI, so I can't call it DEI.
Most DEI programs include veterans. There are likely hundreds of links. Here are three ChatGPT gave me.



 
Most DEI programs include veterans. There are likely hundreds of links. Here are three ChatGPT gave me.



Ok. I don't agree with it, but the fact that veterans actually DID something for the country makes it less offensive than my original view of DEI.
 
Ok. I don't agree with it, but the fact that veterans actually DID something for the country makes it less offensive than my original view of DEI.
lololololol.

most of what the vast, vast majority of veterans did was collect a paycheck.

only @ 10% of the military ever sees combat. about half of them are never even deployed to a combat zone.

there are TONS of jobs that our country/society depends on that are significantly more dangerous on average and get none of the benefits or hero worship.
 
Ok. I don't agree with it, but the fact that veterans actually DID something for the country makes it less offensive than my original view of DEI.
On the other hand, people sign up for the military knowing the risks -- not just the risk of death in combat, but the risk of having difficulty with employment after service for a number of possible reasons. So unlike people who were merely born with darker skin, veterans made their choices. Why not let them lie in the bed they made?

Or we could just be empathetic to everyone and try to make the best America we can.
 
lololololol.

most of what the vast, vast majority of veterans did was collect a paycheck.

only @ 10% of the military ever sees combat. about half of them are never even deployed to a combat zone.

there are TONS of jobs that our country/society depends on that are significantly more dangerous on average and get none of the benefits or hero worship.
Just volunteering to put their lives on the line, if needed, is still doing more.
 
On the other hand, people sign up for the military knowing the risks -- not just the risk of death in combat, but the risk of having difficulty with employment after service for a number of possible reasons. So unlike people who were merely born with darker skin, veterans made their choices. Why not let them lie in the bed they made?

Or we could just be empathetic to everyone and try to make the best America we can.
I agree that they know the risks, but at least they are doing something that they decided to do and didn't just luck into government favoritism.
 
So this is not a DEI-based scholarship? Correct?

"Eligibility
In order to be eligible for the ACCESS program, a student must be a first-time freshman at Appalachian, attend full time (12 semester hours or more each semester), be a resident of North Carolina, and their guardians' adjusted gross income (AGI) cannot exceed 100% of the federal poverty guidelines set forth by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services each year. Additionally, a student's EFC (expected family contribution) must be zero after Verification of the student's filing of the FAFSA."

 
Just volunteering to put their lives on the line, if needed, is still doing more.
whoooooooosh.

again, the vast majority of them never put their lives on the line and are well aware that they never will when they join up.

it is far more dangerous to work in various sectors of construction, logging, trucking, commercial fishing, oil/gas/mining, etc. etc. than it is to join the military.
 
I read my South Carolina statehouse representative's "progress report" in the local newspaper this morning. He went on and on about how he and his brethren were going after DEI to end preferences and to restore "a fair merit driven system". YET, in the same article, he mentions preserving "veteran preferences".

If the goal is a merit-driven system with no preferences, how do veteran preferences factor into that system?


 
Back
Top