Move is to comply with state law passed by Governor Ron DeSantis that prohibits public funding of DEI programs
Archived version: https://archive.ph/2NkY3
“Higher education must return to its essential foundations of academic integrity and the pursuit of knowledge instead of being corrupted by destructive ideologies,” Florida’s commissioner of education, Manny Diaz Jr, said. The actions, he added, would ensure taxpayer money won’t be spent on DEI and “radical indoctrination that promotes division in our society”.
This is coming from a commissioner of education? Wow I am glad I don’t live in the US.
Appointed position. Which was a change that voters voted for. It’s all stupid all the way down.
I agree. I fully support DEI programs. But what I don’t understand is how some of these positions end up being filled by rabid lunatics that end up saying the most bizarre shit, that ends up fueling these kind of changes.
We need to fix the system, but a the people that enjoyed the actual benefits of the privilege are not the ones affected by the current changes. And the goal should be to lift all, and not push some down.
Well, it is a rather divisive ideology, simply as a matter of fact.
Here’s New Jersey, not exactly a Republican stronghold:
Overall, 42% of employed New Jersey adults considered diversity among their peers “essential,” 29% said it was “important but not essential,” and 28% said “not essential.” While 64% of employed Democrats regarded it as “essential,” only 42% of employed independents and a mere 17% of employed Republicans echoed this sentiment; 52% of Republicans say it is “not important,” compared to 9% of Democrats.
71% of all adults say DEI is important but your take is that it’s a divisive topic?
I found another poll specifically about DEI programs:
A majority of workers (56%) say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing; 28% say it is neither good nor bad, and 16% say it is a bad thing. Views on this vary along key demographic and partisan lines.
And a poll specifically about the Florida ban:
- Do you support or oppose laws banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs from colleges and universities?
- Support 39%
- Oppose 50%
- Neither support nor oppose 7%
- Unsure 4%
So you do have a point. Apparently even the average Republican doesn’t have strong negative feelings against DEI programs, with only 30% calling them a bad thing. In Florida, opposition to DEI is stronger than average, but even there more people oppose the ban than support it. I would still say that 30% to 40% opposition makes the issue relatively divisive, especially since the opposition is so concentrated in one political party. However, I admit that it apparently isn’t as divisive as I thought it was before going through these polls more carefully.
(I’m not sure how to reconcile the results of these polls with the way Republicans actually vote.)
I think the devil is in the details. Most people support DEI as a concept; very few people believe diversity, as a concept, is bad. I’m personally supportive of DEI in general, but I have mixed feelings about it in practice.
My employer has a pretty broad and active program. They hold informational sessions hosted by the different DEI groups throughout the year. Those sessions provide visibility for the groups, but the content is pretty shallow. I assume it feels good to have those sessions for you if you belong to one of the groups though.
The actual things the DEI program effects are a mixed bag of results. Women and some racial minority groups have increased representation in the company since the groups were created. That’s good. But if you’re a white cishet male, you’ll never encounter any of our recruiters. Recruiting works with the DEI groups to target their special-interest recruiting events. There aren’t any inclusion groups that allow white cishet males, so we end up not going to any events they’re allowed to attend. Of course, anyone can apply through public channels, but direct recruitment gets priority over web applicants. This effectively means we will only consider a white cishet male if there’s nobody else. This structure would be wildly illegal if it were any other group that was excluded in that way, but instead we see that situation lauded as a good thing.
I don’t have access to any career coaching or employee support groups because those things are all offered through DEI groups, and I’m not welcome to join any of the groups (I’m only allowed to attend virtual webinars as an ally). There are lots of outside of work team building events as well, but I’m not invited to those either.
I keep hearing that equity isn’t a zero-sum game, but it sure feels like it is from where I’m sitting. I want to speak up and say I should have access to the same resources and benefits as everyone else instead of being excluded based on my race, gender, and orientation. But DEI programs have taught me that whites, males, and cishets take up too much air in the room and I should always yield to literally anyone else in the name of equity.
TL;DR DEI feels divisive when there is no inclusion group that includes you
Be glad you don’t live in Florida. The U.S. has sane States.
promotes division
You just gotta love that “we’re trying to have everyone be treated equally” gets spun as promoting division. It’s the exact fucking oppost
Just curious which part of this statement makes you happy that you are not in US?
The part where he calls diversity and inclusion a destructive ideology or radical indoctrination. I wouldn’t want my education officials saying stuff like that.
radical indoctrination that promotes division
It’s just bizarre.
“Inclusivity promotes division!”
He did not call it that. Don’t bent his words. And there are problems in American universities from both sides. When researchers in universities are forced to write essays how their physics or chemistry research advances diversity and inclusion, there is something wrong with that too.
I believe you are in the EU, where Viktor Orban has run Hungary for 13 years. You have no room to talk.
If the US has to answer for its constituent states, so does the EU.
The US is a country of its own with internal states, like Germany also has internal states.
The EU is not a country. You cannot compare the EU and US like this.
You mean that you don’t want to compare them, not that it can’t be done.
US citizens outside of Florida have no impact on electing Florida’s government officials. Federal law doesn’t affect their elections because they have a state constitution. In many ways the EU is similar to the federal system in the US. Where do you think they got the idea?
Lol and florida calls itself the “education state”
As an autist i am not explicitly targeted by facism but i have always been aware of how these dominoes fall.
After lgbt and people of color i am next in line.
Fuck this Nazi scum
Fucking Nazis.
I am about as far away as one can be from Florida while still residing in the US, and it’s just not far enough.
Washington here. And I’m inclined to agree. Though I used to live in FL, so it’s very conflicting for me. I miss friends and places, but simultaneously want it to be sent out into the ocean and sunk like Atlantis.
No, no… just kick them all out of the land.
Hawaii?
jesus christ this is vile
Christians: “#Hegetsus! Jesus had a diverse group of friends and loved everyone!”
Also Christians:
The crazy thing is how they don’t see how this will only make the view of those educated in Florida as less than that of say NY. Companies like, Google, are pretty selective and if this part of their education is gone this isn’t going to give anyone a leg up in the selection process but rather will explain why graduates from FL have a harder time getting along with, relating to, and working with their team members.
Not going to lie, if I had an application on my desk that came from a Floridian, I’d check them very closely to see if they’re sane. Besides potentially having a lacking education.
Florida and Texas need to be thrown out.
I sometimes look at the states that constituted the CSA and realize I wouldn’t really miss much if were kicked them all out
What problem does that solve? You’re effectivelty advocating for them to be free to make their own laws and decisions like is already being done here.
They’re no longer a drain on American resources at that point, all of those states take more resources from the fed than they give
There are people in these states who have called it their home for their entire lives, they can’t get out and have no family anywhere else. Sane people who are terrified of what’s happening and are literally begging for help but all anyone sees is this shit so they think we are all the same. I’m literally begging the US or Europe to come and fucking help the southern US, do fucking ANYTHING at this point, please.
Soo let me get this right. These programs made it easier for people of certain races or gender to apply to the university? And they got rid of that? How is it bad in any way?
Privilege is a thing you know. Being fair doesn’t mean letting the one with the headstart just run and wait for others to catch up.
Instead you give people a head start based on the color of their skin or the genitals that they posses. Both things irrellevant to academic progress.
They’re not irrelevant though and thinking they are shows that you don’t understand the issue.
In the case of gender, DEI programs should actually be helping men at this point because women are attending and graduating college at a much higher rate than men. But the programs haven’t caught up.
As for race, imagine a foot race where a white runner and a black runner are competing. The white runner starts 50 feet ahead of the black runner because the white runner isn’t dealing with the effects of socal inequities (things such as school funding, quality of teachers, extracurricular activities availability, stable home life, jobs, etc). So a black student of equal talent, but worse grades on paper has had to work much harder than the white student to get ahead. DEI programs are trying to make up for the fact that a black student has had poorer access to proper education.
Because without DEI, those white kids who statically have access to better schools would always come out ahead when strictly comparing test scores.
These programs also affect white students in poverty by helping them out too.
The entire thing is based on their refusal to think anything other than the starting point is equal. When you base your view on that, everything they are crying about makes sense. It explains a lot. They think being gay or Trans is a choice too.
And yet in the end, someone with worse grades gets the job because of the color of their skin. Fuck that. Reward people based on their achievements, test scores and grades. You wouldn’t let me into the olympics on the basis of the fact that I wasn’t a runner for 99% of my life. You wouldn’t give me a gold medal when I come in last, just because I was never a runner.
It’s not about someone coming last making first place. It’s about recognizing that grades and school performance is very much a function of the opportunities you’re afforded, the quality of education that’s available to you, and the support you receive. Hundreds of years of institutional oppression have prevented that kind of quality and support from reaching POC communities.
Except it is about giving prefferential treatment based on some arbitrary set of rules to silence the collective guilt. Nothing more. It’s good that the thing is outlawed now.
Just go away. You’re either a troll or someone who is incapable of seeing beyond their little bubble.
Grades aren’t the only thing that determine your potential. Being in a diverse school with others from different backgrounds helps expand your viewpoints and actually prepares you for a larger life after academia.
One of the many problems with our rural states and towns.
You wouldn’t let me into the olympics on the basis of the fact that I wasn’t a runner for 99% of my life
Of course not, but we’re more likely to put you on a Wheaties box over someone with similar results because you’ve overcome more adversity. It was more difficult for you. You achieved more.
We also might be more likely to start up a running program in your town, because clearly we’re missing out on great runners, who were never able to succeed because they were never able to get off the starting block.
Yes, and starting a new program, investing in poorer schools is fine. What doesn’t need to happen, is someone going over the map, circling predominately black neighborhoods, investing in just schools there, and adding points to applications of black people.
Simply don’t look at factors like race, gender to determine who can go into a university or not. Look at skills, look at a person that comes in now. I mentioned in a different thread Finland, where they need Swedish speaking doctors and lawyers. So they prioritize those people. The choice is based on an additional skills that are required to the betterment of society. They gain more points for something more that they can do that’s needed.
So, that’s the actual problem. If you don’t look at factors like wealth, race, primary language or gender, you can congratulate yourself in your process not being biased, but you will see biased results. Like it or not, people start in different places and face different obstacles, and the goal is to try to adjust for these so the results will be merit based or at least fair, and not racist or sexist.
If we’re playing baseball and I start off third base and score, is that the same merit as you getting up to bat, getting on base, working your way around the bases, and also scoring? Any coach would judge you to have shown higher merit despite our scores being the same
No, you even the field for everyone so that academic progress can happen based on talent and work.
Sure, but that isn’t going to happen overnight. School DEI programs are the best we have until schools are funded equally across the board. But that’s never going to happen, especially not if the Republicans get their way with Project 2025 and the school voucher program they want to implement.
Sooo achieving higher scores and being overall more deserving of a position isn’t a level playing field, because the other person is a different race. There isn’t any talk of talent or work here. It’s prefferential treatment based on stuff that isn’t possible to be controlled.
You’re very silly.
Guess we don’t fix racism with more racism. Meritocracy FTW. It is already illegal to discriminate by race, Federally. Smart people can come from any race.
If I am reading the source right, it is not stopping people from applying for jobs. It is getting rid of DEI departments. Which could or likely have white hires, too.
In Harvard, they were making up lies about Asian applicants and their characters in order to prop up black student’s lower scores via personality traits, which was well, DEI in action. This part did not make the news much.
This was found in the court case through discovery, everyone should read it. It was wild, and seemingly the main reason and drive why Affirmative Action was cancelled and overturned.
Road to hell paved with good intentions and all that jazz.
The sad part is, people here seem to not agree with that, instead supporting what essentially is racism and prefferrential treatment.
It’s not about preferential treatment. Because if it was preferential treatment, well, white folks have had that for centuries.
It’s about leveling things up. Yes, smart people come from all backgrounds. But if that smart person has a cognitive burden of worrying about basic stuff that other smart people don’t have too, he/she will be at disadvantage when seeking opportunities to advance.
I’m not saying I’m an expert, and that you’re totally wrong and I’m totally right. It’s just that the topic is not that simple as black and white (heh.)
It is that simple. In the other comment you made, I brought up Europe as an example on how to do things right. You are trying to argue semantics, when the thing is very simple. You don’t call it prefferential treatment, you try to make it sound better to the reader, when it is exactly that. Prefferring candidates that are of a specific background, decided by people arbitrairly choosing the amount of leeway someone gets, or who those people are. It’s downright immoral.
If I would complain, that my company failed when making a product because I went bankrupt, and then pointed a finger at a millionaire, saying “give me this contract instead of him because I come from a poorer upbringing”, I would be laughed at everywhere. And this is exactly what this is.
Europe is not some utopia in which discrimination does not exist and everyone is equal.
But it is better than the US when it comes to giving someone an advantage based on race or gender.
In which contexts? Because I’m sorry, you seem to be against affirmative action, and affirmative action definitely gives more advantages to minorities in the U.S. than Europe, which has none of that.
You’re now contradicting yourself. Is preferential treatment the problem or not? (and it’s spelled preferential with one f.)
So clearly you’re talking about something else. Please elaborate, if you’d like.
Stop lying, you know full well that’s not what’s happening
Just read the comments. It’s full of people arguing that universities should preffer people based on their race.
I’m okay with them considering things other than strictly academics. It should be up to the uni to decide what kind of institution they want to be.
Would you be okay when they said “whites only” then?
If someone wants to doom their university, I wouldn’t support using force to stop them. I don’t think that means I’m okay with it.
I feel like there’s a limit in there somewhere that I’d change from meh to “fuck those guys” on the racism front. A degree from a uni that doesn’t focus on academics should warrant a reduction in the perceived value of their degrees.
I kind of think we’ve been distracted here, though. We’re not talking about DEI or the ideologies that drive their activities. We’re talking about AA. You can have AA policies without DEI staff or their question begging theories.
Well I technically said “if they said whites only”, while it could be clothed in “you get -30 points out of 100” with the bar being 65 or something.
Except for the fact that affirmative action isn’t all that nice and dandy either. Like, quotas are straight up bullshit and often are banned in countries in Europe. The only affirmative action that makes sense for the community, is when they have a skill that is in demand in the market. Like, reading wiki, in Finland, they let Swedish speaking people have worse grades to advance in legal and medical, because the country has a need of Swedish speaking lawyers and doctors.
I was referring to any amount of racism from 0-100. I’d just consider them all pieces of shit at 100 and only a little misled towards the other end.
I guess I feel like I’m willing to let peeps experiment a bit with their own shit so we can see the outcome. When what you’re doing leads to more kids failing, that’s obviously a bad policy.
I mostly take issue with the ideology that leads us to use AA that harms pretty much everyone, including the people it’s designed to help.
The thing is - there are usually people who have done better. I don’t mean “fail everyone, don’t fill the seats”. The entry bar gets naturally lowered when nobody can join. What I am saying, is that if there are 30 candidates for a spot, and a person gets in because of their race or background, and someone who scored higher gets rejected, then that’s plain wrong.
In state funded schools I agree. Oh. That’s the context of this post and I should have been more clear on that. For private institutions I don’t think it matters much.
Do you think that people’s behaviour is due to culture or genetics?
Both, actually. Genes and experiences are both responsible for elements inside human behaviour.
That doesn’t have to do with the topic at hand. Universities should be meritocracies, with the best of the best earning doctorates / degrees / positions. There shouldn’t be a situation where someone goes “well, your scores are better, but he is black so he gets the position”
Your theory does not account for systemic racism, history of oppression, and socio-economic disadvantages that minorities face in America.
If the only race who gets a fair shake in America is white people, albeit rich white people, then those will be the only ones to get into College based on meritocracy.
Why would it account for those things?
Maalus sees uni as a place to learn and expand human knowledge.
You see it as a tool of social and political change.
What a giant load of right wing bullshit you’re spewing.
You know full well what’s wrong with this, stop lying, stop pretending
The “Marketplace of Ideas” in action
/s
Meatball Ron, now with extra salt
deleted by creator
Might as well have Brendan Small and his cadre of death metal musicians be governor of Florida now.
Let’s all focus on DEI instead of making everyone prosperous and educated.
