I do not understand the acquiescence of Black and Hispanic (and other minorities) stake holders to "trans" identity patients, who are often promoted as if they were not middle aged men with a sexual fetish. My ex-husband catapulted (all the while claiming he was just a data entry clerk) to the Guggenheim Museum, then to COO of Gallery Systems, where, due to his "female status" and equity contract, Gallery Systems had General Services Agency "minority or female owned" status. All of their executives were white males. When I tried to get information in a FOIA request because he committed financial fraud in court to get out of paying child support (while in contract to own 51% of Gallery Systems) and I was denied. He retired last year, their website scrubbed his very existence, as well as the "pronouns page" they used to have on their website. This company serves world class museums around the world, and for 8 years, they were teaching museum educators to brainwash visiting classes. Something like "well, we don't really know if Rembrandt was a man . . ."
Loved this video as a representation of someone who advocates for DEI that does a more people-driven approach. I rarely see others in this field that share the same approaches. I would even add that some practices I think are harmful that I have excluded from my work is the over-emphasis on biases as part of the education. Instead I’ve found the most impactful topics that help people in my sphere include cultural empathy and perspective shifting. Also, merit should always be the basis of DEI practices and I believe that AA shouldn’t form the basis to why people get certain roles or opportunities. I think that’s a harmful practice to DEI. Just overall a very amazing video as always highlight some alternate perspectives, we need more examples of some of the positive outcomes and perspectives that can occupy DEI methodology. It shouldn’t be a church or ideological warehouse. I believe it should be a tool to help us navigate these polarizing times if done properly and not in such a divisive manner.
“ Or maybe it’s a white person’s concept and it’s unfair to expect darker skinned peoples to be held to the same standards as whites. (Or even whites to be held to the same standards as Asians.)”
This is an insane (and racist) argument. First of all it’s implying that one race is not capable of the same standards as another. But more so standards aren’t a “white person concept”. They are objective measures of ability and knowledge. An airplane doesn’t fly because it meets “white person standards” neither does the power stay on or medicine cure someone.
Think about this - other countries have the same standards. The ones that don’t also don’t have the same standards of living.
I agree, but this is what we continuously see, “being on time is white,” “decolonize the curriculum of time constructions,” etc. There is no “white math,” there’s just math. But that doesn’t stop people from making these insane arguments.
DEI does not have good intentions. The majority of Americans are starting to see through the ruse. The goal of woke ideology is to destroy everything that exists, including free nations like the U.S., and replace them with a global totalitarian regime. I suggest reading "NextGen Marxism: What it is and how to combat it" by Mike Gonzalez.
“Starting”. It never ceases to amaze me how many people were hoodwinked by something so idiotic. Hopefully, lessons will be learned, but for that to happen the people who fell for this madness need to be honest about what they believe(d).
People are susceptible to lies and propaganda, especially if they're sugarcoated with euphemisms--and especially when the lies are coming from your own tribe. It's much easier to recognize propaganda from your political opponents.
And yet, huge numbers of people and organizations have been sold on it. It fits the image of who they are, or who they want to be, or they are surrounded by like-minded people whose approval and acceptance they seek. Or they have been so invested - emotionally and/or intellectually - in the concept, that no amount of logic or statistics or common sense are able to break through the deception of their defense mechanisms. Just some random thoughts. I've been receiving your posts in my inbox and have been meaning to start responding. Fred CRISIS
DEI doesn't have "good intentions". Certainly not moreso than competing ideologies.
Left-wing movements function by claiming a monopoly on good intentions; the fact that they do this makes it important to push back hard on every left-wing attempt to justify atrocities with "good intentions". At best, what they actually have is psychopathy, which enables them to believe that horrors are good. There is no moral high ground here; none at all.
DEI's merits are plainly negative, and there's no more need to find silver linings in it than there are needs to find silver linings in terrorist attacks.
They use the term DEI in the article but the poll used the phrase diversity and inclusion. They stated that the poll stated a majority of consumers supported DEI.
I doubt that most in the country believes diversity and inclusion or as SHRM the human resources professional society calls inclusion and diversity is what's undermining merit (what I would rather state as qualified) hiring or acceptance.
The part of DEI that is the problem is the "E" - i.e. Equity. Kendi created DEI specifically as a refocus of Affirmative Action on Equity verses Equality. He stated that until society sees all ivtersectionalities as equal on measures like participation and pay, systematic racism is the reason it's not.
From my perspective equity using Kendi's definition is illogical.
Example questions:
Is there an equity issue in the NBA since the majority of players are Black people? Is there an equity issue in men's golf since a majority of the players are of European descent (I don't use "white")?
Does a Chinese restaurant have a diversity issue if they don't have the balance of race in the community? City? State? Country?
Is a business a problem
Is Harvard a problem if they don't have a perfect balance of race as measure by the community, city of Boston, State of MA, or the country?
Is the Military a problem if they don't have a perfect balance of race and sex?
Is a business a problem if they don't have a perfect balance of race and sex as measured by the community of the business, the state where the business is, the target customers, the country?
Merit is a general term that applies to specific qualifications that an organization is targeted. Colleges traditionally targeted students based on SAT measures and activities. Is there a better way to determine whether someone is qualified to get an engineering degree?
Sports targets athletes based on their performance in the sport.
Business have various measures of qualifications based on the business?
Merit defined as qualifications is easy. Race or sex are not an elements of whether someone is qualified to perform in the what the institution is focusing on. Except if the concept is focused on sex - e.g. women's and men's sports.
Race and sex are only meaningful if the organization is targeting some diversity. Why would an organization target diversity? Because they believe the business case justifies it. Yet Kendi spent millions and never produced any data showing the business case for his DEI proposal. One wonders whether Kendi was qualified based on merit to lead the work he did at Boston University. Was Claudine Gay qualified to be president of Harvard. My view no. She couldn't joust with Congress about Antisemitism and come out on top. The president of the most prestigious institution in the country should be able to win a joust with Congress people. Let alone that is questionable whether she was really qualified to get tenure at Harvard given what others had to achieve (e.g. Merit) to get tenure.
Affirmative Action made sense. If two people were equally qualified, select that one that increases diversity. Equity as a forcing measure to determine whether their is racial bias never made sense. That's what has brought down DEI and unfortunately Affirmative Action with it. Kendi because he was never qualified to really talk about practicality in achieving diversity brought down everything in the country that made sense. Because of the irrationality of the country in 2020, organizations moved from Affirmative Action to DEI because it was the right look, not because they really understood what Kendi implied by DEI.;
Kendi was the pied piper of trying to increase diversity leading the country over the edge of a cliff. As was Claudine Gay who lead the DEI research at Harvard. I have yet to see Claudine publish a study on the business case for DEI. The last study by Rudgers on DEI stated it just increased division in an organization.
Maybe, next time you write an article, you focus on the details instead of meaningless comparison of Merit vs DEI.
Here’s what’s already happening… they’re changing their terms to further obfuscate and hide what they’re actually doing from the public. And yes, people are still not wise to it. In these cases, their lingua franca is lawsuit.
"DEI's merits are plainly negative, and there's no more need to find silver linings in it than there are needs to find silver linings in terrorist attacks."
This is absolutely brilliant by JDFree. DEI is the Progressive foolishness in trying to destroy our free society with their BS mandates; "reverse racism ". it is the latte capucchino swilling buffoons at their worst.
I’m a genXer and at first I couldn’t believe how many people bought into this DEI bs but then i realized how much of a bubble people live in and a lot has to do with the dumbing down of the American education system over decades. Too many people don’t know much about American history let alone world history.
I do not understand the acquiescence of Black and Hispanic (and other minorities) stake holders to "trans" identity patients, who are often promoted as if they were not middle aged men with a sexual fetish. My ex-husband catapulted (all the while claiming he was just a data entry clerk) to the Guggenheim Museum, then to COO of Gallery Systems, where, due to his "female status" and equity contract, Gallery Systems had General Services Agency "minority or female owned" status. All of their executives were white males. When I tried to get information in a FOIA request because he committed financial fraud in court to get out of paying child support (while in contract to own 51% of Gallery Systems) and I was denied. He retired last year, their website scrubbed his very existence, as well as the "pronouns page" they used to have on their website. This company serves world class museums around the world, and for 8 years, they were teaching museum educators to brainwash visiting classes. Something like "well, we don't really know if Rembrandt was a man . . ."
It’s “questing” straight out of their playbook. James Lindsay has spoken about this and I think he’s spot on.
Loved this video as a representation of someone who advocates for DEI that does a more people-driven approach. I rarely see others in this field that share the same approaches. I would even add that some practices I think are harmful that I have excluded from my work is the over-emphasis on biases as part of the education. Instead I’ve found the most impactful topics that help people in my sphere include cultural empathy and perspective shifting. Also, merit should always be the basis of DEI practices and I believe that AA shouldn’t form the basis to why people get certain roles or opportunities. I think that’s a harmful practice to DEI. Just overall a very amazing video as always highlight some alternate perspectives, we need more examples of some of the positive outcomes and perspectives that can occupy DEI methodology. It shouldn’t be a church or ideological warehouse. I believe it should be a tool to help us navigate these polarizing times if done properly and not in such a divisive manner.
“ Or maybe it’s a white person’s concept and it’s unfair to expect darker skinned peoples to be held to the same standards as whites. (Or even whites to be held to the same standards as Asians.)”
This is an insane (and racist) argument. First of all it’s implying that one race is not capable of the same standards as another. But more so standards aren’t a “white person concept”. They are objective measures of ability and knowledge. An airplane doesn’t fly because it meets “white person standards” neither does the power stay on or medicine cure someone.
Think about this - other countries have the same standards. The ones that don’t also don’t have the same standards of living.
I agree, but this is what we continuously see, “being on time is white,” “decolonize the curriculum of time constructions,” etc. There is no “white math,” there’s just math. But that doesn’t stop people from making these insane arguments.
DEI does not have good intentions. The majority of Americans are starting to see through the ruse. The goal of woke ideology is to destroy everything that exists, including free nations like the U.S., and replace them with a global totalitarian regime. I suggest reading "NextGen Marxism: What it is and how to combat it" by Mike Gonzalez.
“Starting”. It never ceases to amaze me how many people were hoodwinked by something so idiotic. Hopefully, lessons will be learned, but for that to happen the people who fell for this madness need to be honest about what they believe(d).
People are susceptible to lies and propaganda, especially if they're sugarcoated with euphemisms--and especially when the lies are coming from your own tribe. It's much easier to recognize propaganda from your political opponents.
And yet, huge numbers of people and organizations have been sold on it. It fits the image of who they are, or who they want to be, or they are surrounded by like-minded people whose approval and acceptance they seek. Or they have been so invested - emotionally and/or intellectually - in the concept, that no amount of logic or statistics or common sense are able to break through the deception of their defense mechanisms. Just some random thoughts. I've been receiving your posts in my inbox and have been meaning to start responding. Fred CRISIS
DEI doesn't have "good intentions". Certainly not moreso than competing ideologies.
Left-wing movements function by claiming a monopoly on good intentions; the fact that they do this makes it important to push back hard on every left-wing attempt to justify atrocities with "good intentions". At best, what they actually have is psychopathy, which enables them to believe that horrors are good. There is no moral high ground here; none at all.
DEI's merits are plainly negative, and there's no more need to find silver linings in it than there are needs to find silver linings in terrorist attacks.
This “good intentions” schtick has been heightened by identity politics. And you know what they say about the road to hell…
Yes the conversations are beneficial.
Your title is from my perspective is an apples to oranges comparison.
Recently, I have seen the DEI acronym morph into some fuzzy concept primarily focused on diversity and inclusion. This article from Morning Consult is one example: https://pro.morningconsult.com/analysis/corporate-dei-public-opinion-2025
They use the term DEI in the article but the poll used the phrase diversity and inclusion. They stated that the poll stated a majority of consumers supported DEI.
I doubt that most in the country believes diversity and inclusion or as SHRM the human resources professional society calls inclusion and diversity is what's undermining merit (what I would rather state as qualified) hiring or acceptance.
The part of DEI that is the problem is the "E" - i.e. Equity. Kendi created DEI specifically as a refocus of Affirmative Action on Equity verses Equality. He stated that until society sees all ivtersectionalities as equal on measures like participation and pay, systematic racism is the reason it's not.
From my perspective equity using Kendi's definition is illogical.
Example questions:
Is there an equity issue in the NBA since the majority of players are Black people? Is there an equity issue in men's golf since a majority of the players are of European descent (I don't use "white")?
Does a Chinese restaurant have a diversity issue if they don't have the balance of race in the community? City? State? Country?
Is a business a problem
Is Harvard a problem if they don't have a perfect balance of race as measure by the community, city of Boston, State of MA, or the country?
Is the Military a problem if they don't have a perfect balance of race and sex?
Is a business a problem if they don't have a perfect balance of race and sex as measured by the community of the business, the state where the business is, the target customers, the country?
Merit is a general term that applies to specific qualifications that an organization is targeted. Colleges traditionally targeted students based on SAT measures and activities. Is there a better way to determine whether someone is qualified to get an engineering degree?
Sports targets athletes based on their performance in the sport.
Business have various measures of qualifications based on the business?
Merit defined as qualifications is easy. Race or sex are not an elements of whether someone is qualified to perform in the what the institution is focusing on. Except if the concept is focused on sex - e.g. women's and men's sports.
Race and sex are only meaningful if the organization is targeting some diversity. Why would an organization target diversity? Because they believe the business case justifies it. Yet Kendi spent millions and never produced any data showing the business case for his DEI proposal. One wonders whether Kendi was qualified based on merit to lead the work he did at Boston University. Was Claudine Gay qualified to be president of Harvard. My view no. She couldn't joust with Congress about Antisemitism and come out on top. The president of the most prestigious institution in the country should be able to win a joust with Congress people. Let alone that is questionable whether she was really qualified to get tenure at Harvard given what others had to achieve (e.g. Merit) to get tenure.
Affirmative Action made sense. If two people were equally qualified, select that one that increases diversity. Equity as a forcing measure to determine whether their is racial bias never made sense. That's what has brought down DEI and unfortunately Affirmative Action with it. Kendi because he was never qualified to really talk about practicality in achieving diversity brought down everything in the country that made sense. Because of the irrationality of the country in 2020, organizations moved from Affirmative Action to DEI because it was the right look, not because they really understood what Kendi implied by DEI.;
Kendi was the pied piper of trying to increase diversity leading the country over the edge of a cliff. As was Claudine Gay who lead the DEI research at Harvard. I have yet to see Claudine publish a study on the business case for DEI. The last study by Rudgers on DEI stated it just increased division in an organization.
Maybe, next time you write an article, you focus on the details instead of meaningless comparison of Merit vs DEI.
Here’s what’s already happening… they’re changing their terms to further obfuscate and hide what they’re actually doing from the public. And yes, people are still not wise to it. In these cases, their lingua franca is lawsuit.
"DEI's merits are plainly negative, and there's no more need to find silver linings in it than there are needs to find silver linings in terrorist attacks."
This is absolutely brilliant by JDFree. DEI is the Progressive foolishness in trying to destroy our free society with their BS mandates; "reverse racism ". it is the latte capucchino swilling buffoons at their worst.
UGH..
Respectfully.
100%. But the spell is finally breaking!
I’m a genXer and at first I couldn’t believe how many people bought into this DEI bs but then i realized how much of a bubble people live in and a lot has to do with the dumbing down of the American education system over decades. Too many people don’t know much about American history let alone world history.