[ternaryoperator]

It reads as reasonable but is really saying: no diversity hires. That’s more significant in universities than in the job market. In general, the most educated Americans are the children of the wealthy. So without DEI, the faculty, which is thereby a product of the economic elite, will be teaching primarily the children of that elite. Universities recognized the problem with this closed system long ago and used DEI as a way to address it. That’s what the Trump administration is targeting in part with these compacts.

[jasonlotito]

They do push DEI, just for conservative voices. Remember, DEI is good when it's for conservatives. Just see how many people are complaining about the Super Bowl halftime show. A bunch of anit-DEI people asking for DEI is crazy.

[Levitz]

>Universities recognized the problem with this closed system long ago and used DEI as a way to address it.

That's preposterous. It's obscenely disingenuous to now pretend that DEI was about class and economic status. Are women just poorer? Are Asians just richer? Please.

[patagurbon]

> are women just poorer?

Within living memory absolutely 100%.

[Levitz]

College-aged women are poorer than college-aged men?

Wealthier families have male children at such a disparate rate that they warp the statistics or something?

[IAmBroom]

College-aged men and women are typically employed, pay taxes, and there is a well-known salary difference between those two groups.

[ternaryoperator]

You are literally arguing against history, not me. The history I described is playing out even today as more universities abandon preferential admissions for children of alumni.

[Levitz]

>You are literally arguing against history, not me.

I'm not arguing against history, you are arguing against reality.

University of Pennsylvania, which I picked because it was the literal first university mentioned in the article in the OP:

https://www.ese.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ESE-Sta...

And I quote:

>We face many challenges as a community, including entrenched bias, both conscious and unconscious; self-reinforcing cycles of preferential treatment towards people with particular characteristics; limited awareness of the impediments faced by our colleagues that stem from racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia

It goes on to talk about actions taken to deal with this:

>We will provide resources - including time, materials, financial support, and facilities - to promote education about diversity, equity, and inclusion within our department and to support our engagement on these themes with external communities

>An atmosphere of trust and accountability is a prerequisite for complete and honest reporting. Discrimination in academic settings can be subtle and complex, and it is not always recognized immediately. Even when racism, gender discrimination, and harassment are overt, victims can have a legitimate perception of powerlessness to address it.

There's LITERALLY not a single one mention of wealth, or money, or class in the entire document. There is about bias, about race, about sex. It ends with this:

>We ask that all community members pledge: >● To seek out knowledge on the forms, causes, and impacts of bias

>● To acknowledge that we are all susceptible to bias, and to strive to be anti-discriminatory with respect to race, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, national origin, religion, disability, socioeconomic status, citizenship, and cultural background

>● To engage constructively and respectfully with people of varied backgrounds and perspectives

>● To prioritize empathy and consideration, and to avoid making assumptions or judgements

>● To be alert for instances of injustice or discrimination, and to intercede by speaking out against injustice

Pray tell, what part of all of this is supposed to be about dealing with wealth disparities? And again, how can you possibly argue about wealth disparities in terms of gender for college-aged people? It's insane.

[hypeatei]

DEI is about expanding the talent pools and considering more people for something. If you have problems with specific implementations of DEI, that's fine, but to pretend it's all bad is disingenuous. Please list a specific program that you have an issue with so that people can actually discuss substance.

[FridayoLeary]

No it isn't. It's about filling in quotas ignoring talent and objectifying people based on their ethnicity, race and gender. It exists in order to assuage the guilt of elite white liberals. You just moved the goalposts to include things that nobody can argue against in order to make it sound resonable. My issue is that it's racist because it discriminates for people based on the colour of their skin.

[hypeatei]

> It's about filling in quotas ignoring talent and objectifying people based on their ethnicity, race and gender.

That's illegal[0]. If this is going on, then enlighten us or the EEOC.

> You just moved the goalposts to include things that nobody can argue against

What? You said: "disingenuous to now pretend that DEI was about class and economic status" when it clearly is about those things. Again, please show one example of a program that you think isn't doing that. I understand that you think DEI is a sinister initiative, but bickering over a conservative boogeyman is unproductive.

0: https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

[FridayoLeary]

Yes, DEI is racist so i'm glad it's being called out. DEI anyway benefits primarily upper class people of colour rather then helping out a community. What help is it to most black people that Obama is black, for example? What kind of people send their kids to universities anyway? It's not disadvantaged working class, so positive discrimination in universities won't help them.