Dumb idea and unaffordable. I doubt it'll ever happen.
We had a thread with hundreds of examples in it just in K-12 education over a period of years in "It's not in schools." And these people act like it either never existed or that it was all washed away with Trump's election and now we are to believe that no one who championed these policies want them to come back. It's just lying at this point. Flat out dishonesty.@oneeyedundertaker It's incredibly odd phenom. They pretend these things don't exist. Defund? No no that never happened. DEI it's basically dead. No one is running on that. AOC? She only appears on YOUR feed. They must think they're all Jedis. And if you have to stretch so far to pretend these policies don't exist then why do you still support that Party?
My experience with "DEI"....
I was the chair of a national scientific organization about 10 years ago that recognized that we had a gender equity issue. In a nutshell, we were having research symposia where 90 to 100% of the speakers were male, whereas female membership in the organization was much higher (20 to 25% IIRC, this research field still tends to be male-dominated).
What was the DEI solution / corrective action? If we wanted to have a symposium on a particular topic, say advances in the development of drugs for treating glaucoma, we would ask the organizer to compile a list consisting only of highly qualified people, with the list containing both male and female speakers. There was never any hard "quota" but a symposium was unlikely to gain favor of our executive committee if 100% of the invited speakers were male. Some invited speakers would decline, so you couldn't plan on meeting any quota anyway, but you'd a least ask both male and female speakers.
So it was a "soft nudge" to organizers to not simply pick the biggest names or the ones with the most-cited papers (maybe skewed male), but to still pick very qualified high achievers with significant findings. For instance I recall one example where the biggest name was a male lab head but "his" impactful paper reflected the work of a female first author, and she was the be best person to summarize her own findings anyway, despite her current status as a grad student or junior faculty.
We nudged the speaker representation to be more aligned with the membership levels over my three year stint as chair. I think it was a perfectly reasonable way to provide opportunities to people being overlooked, without sacrificing excellence. I guess such efforts would be discouraged these days, or at least kept deep under wraps.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
@bradstevens I’m on the road today and not in a position to do my own AI searches, but if you’re not going to acknowledge that the federal government has drastically stripped away, DEI office policies and the countless colleges in universities have cut DEI offices and eliminated scholarships. I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve admitted that they’re outliers and they’re definitely are. And I don’t think DEI should go away entirely and I’m glad that there are offices out there.
and your Ohio post kind of proves my point. Mentioning the YWCA is kind of a joke Ohio’s anti-DEI are borderline draconian in impact funding in a lot of areas. You still haven’t proven the point that there are any legislators who are running campaigns who are actually dying on this hill in 2026.
if you want to play with AI some more why don’t you look up a comparison of DEI offices and practices during the Biden administration and then after Trump was inaugurated earlier this year.
if you want to play with AI some more why don’t you look up a comparison of DEI offices and practices during the Biden administration and then after Trump was inaugurated earlier this year.
This is a little like me saying Indiana basketball isn’t what it wants was since they haven’t won a championship in a while. Your countering with something like “that’s not true look here they just beat Kennesaw State!”
@bradstevens i’m traveling today and don’t have time to respond. I had a longer message typed out, but deleted it because I want to respond to all your messages. Just didn’t want you to think I was ignoring this.
@ohio-guy Youve missed the point entirely. Of course there are less under Trump. Trump wanted them removed. Republicans largely don't want them. Your premise was that they are dead and no longer desired which is absolutely absurd. What changed is the leftist cult is no longer calling the shots. Only a fool would believe that the second they aren't in power it won't be front and center again. Hell it is where they win, i.e. NYC, etc.
Sigh. There you you go again--being disingenuous and moving the goal posts.@bradstevens I’m on the road today and not in a position to do my own AI searches, but if you’re not going to acknowledge that the federal government has drastically stripped away, DEI office policies and the countless colleges in universities have cut DEI offices and eliminated scholarships. I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve admitted that they’re outliers and they’re definitely are. And I don’t think DEI should go away entirely and I’m glad that there are offices out there.
and your Ohio post kind of proves my point. Mentioning the YWCA is kind of a joke Ohio’s anti-DEI are borderline draconian in impact funding in a lot of areas. You still haven’t proven the point that there are any legislators who are running campaigns who are actually dying on this hill in 2026.
if you want to play with AI some more why don’t you look up a comparison of DEI offices and practices during the Biden administration and then after Trump was inaugurated earlier this year.
if you want to play with AI some more why don’t you look up a comparison of DEI offices and practices during the Biden administration and then after Trump was inaugurated earlier this year.
This is a little like me saying Indiana basketball isn’t what it wants was since they haven’t won a championship in a while. Your countering with something like “that’s not true look here they just beat Kennesaw State!”
First, you reference three times "playing with AI" in an attempt to minimize the evidence, while ignoring all the direct links to various K-12, city, and state racial-equity programs still in existence and being fought for by Dems and racial-equity proponents.
Second, you move the goal posts to comps between Biden and Trump offices and practices instead of your previous statement that all DEI programs, nationwide, were pretty much dead. Check out the Brookings link so you can educate yourself on how slowly this plays out in K-12 schools and see how much those schools in progressive areas are fighting.
Third, you move the goal posts by now trying to limit your ridiculously broad statement to only universities and higher ed. I gave you plenty of chances before launching into this for you to limit or revise it, but you decided to double down on it.
No AI search is going to disprove the direct links I've already provided. No AI search is going to show Brandon Johnson in Chicago is really not pushing racial equity programs or that CPS, et al. just rolled over and changed the entire K-12 system in all these blue states. Your statement was silly on its face.
He didn't miss the point and this isn't just an example of him being confused. He's intentionally moving the goal posts because he got caught red-handed in a lie. It's obvious what he wrote and why he wrote it--which you just clearly summarized.@ohio-guy Youve missed the point entirely. Of course there are less under Trump. Trump wanted them removed. Republicans largely don't want them. Your premise was that they are dead and no longer desired which is absolutely absurd. What changed is the leftist cult is no longer calling the shots. Only a fool would believe that the second they aren't in power it won't be front and center again. Hell it is where they win, i.e. NYC, etc.
Of course, the other hilarious inconsistency in the entire argument is this: Dems never ran on implementing these programs into K-12 schools in the first place. Biden didn't run on lax border control or defund the police in 2020, either. Then what happened? So why would they now run on it in campaigns now that it's known and obviously not desired by the public? His whole argument is a red herring.
@bradstevens It's an approach/tactic consistently applied by the left that is entirely frustrating. It's like when Biden got into office, took xyz measures and inflation spiked, then was blocked by manchin and lost the house and he couldn't get anything else through and Dems said look inflation is improving/stabilizing. Dems are doing good! No shit in spite of Dems. Their endless give aways were blocked! Give them power and see what happens. Same with DEI and all the rest. Let them have power and it'll be what we see with Mamdani - the locus of the Dem Party.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
My point is I think ohio guy is falling into the trap of denying something exists because the label has been given such negative connotations that he can't possibly argue otherwise and sound reasonable.
I think there is a lot of truth to your point about bad messaging and I think you’re right about a good bit of what I’m commenting on.
That said, there are countless universities and colleges that cut their DEI offices and fired their DEI staffs. Scholarships were discontinued or redefined. There are companies and organizations that scaled their DEI measures way back and most certainly stopped lifting it up or highlighting it publicly as they once did. Of course there are remnants of it, but for all intents and purposes DEI is dead in a lot of places.
And the calvary isn’t coming by way of politicians promising to build back or reaffirm those diversity programs. I primarily know the agendas of Ohio politicians but I’ve talked to people around the country on this stuff. I’d suspect some lawmakers/potential lawmakers would like to make it a part of their campaign strategies, but no one really is. It’s not a hill to die on politically right now.
A good amount of what DEI offices used to be is literally now illegal in a lot of states in this country. I don’t see anyone campaigning on turning that tide and making it important again. It’s a shame because as you said there was a lot of worthwhile initiatives lumped in with the ominous meaning DEI had thrust upon it.
You have a good point, there, too. It's not entirely messaging. It's also the fact that society has shifted away from DEI generally, and outside the vocal left, the Dems aren't really making reversing course a priority.
My point is I think ohio guy is falling into the trap of denying something exists because the label has been given such negative connotations that he can't possibly argue otherwise and sound reasonable.
I think there is a lot of truth to your point about bad messaging and I think you’re right about a good bit of what I’m commenting on.
That said, there are countless universities and colleges that cut their DEI offices and fired their DEI staffs. Scholarships were discontinued or redefined. There are companies and organizations that scaled their DEI measures way back and most certainly stopped lifting it up or highlighting it publicly as they once did. Of course there are remnants of it, but for all intents and purposes DEI is dead in a lot of places.
And the calvary isn’t coming by way of politicians promising to build back or reaffirm those diversity programs. I primarily know the agendas of Ohio politicians but I’ve talked to people around the country on this stuff. I’d suspect some lawmakers/potential lawmakers would like to make it a part of their campaign strategies, but no one really is. It’s not a hill to die on politically right now.
A good amount of what DEI offices used to be is literally now illegal in a lot of states in this country. I don’t see anyone campaigning on turning that tide and making it important again. It’s a shame because as you said there was a lot of worthwhile initiatives lumped in with the ominous meaning DEI had thrust upon it.
You have a good point, there, too. It's not entirely messaging. It's also the fact that society has shifted away from DEI generally, and outside the vocal left, the Dems aren't really making reversing course a priority.
Why has “society” shifted away from DEI policy? What leads you to believe reversing course isn’t a priority?
My point is I think ohio guy is falling into the trap of denying something exists because the label has been given such negative connotations that he can't possibly argue otherwise and sound reasonable.
I think there is a lot of truth to your point about bad messaging and I think you’re right about a good bit of what I’m commenting on.
That said, there are countless universities and colleges that cut their DEI offices and fired their DEI staffs. Scholarships were discontinued or redefined. There are companies and organizations that scaled their DEI measures way back and most certainly stopped lifting it up or highlighting it publicly as they once did. Of course there are remnants of it, but for all intents and purposes DEI is dead in a lot of places.
And the calvary isn’t coming by way of politicians promising to build back or reaffirm those diversity programs. I primarily know the agendas of Ohio politicians but I’ve talked to people around the country on this stuff. I’d suspect some lawmakers/potential lawmakers would like to make it a part of their campaign strategies, but no one really is. It’s not a hill to die on politically right now.
A good amount of what DEI offices used to be is literally now illegal in a lot of states in this country. I don’t see anyone campaigning on turning that tide and making it important again. It’s a shame because as you said there was a lot of worthwhile initiatives lumped in with the ominous meaning DEI had thrust upon it.
You have a good point, there, too. It's not entirely messaging. It's also the fact that society has shifted away from DEI generally, and outside the vocal left, the Dems aren't really making reversing course a priority.
Why has “society” shifted away from DEI policy? What leads you to believe reversing course isn’t a priority?
Granted, the campaign hasn't really gotten into full swing yet, but I'm hearing most Dems talk about economic issues, and pretty much ignoring social ones. Not the left, of course. But mainstream Dems.
But we'll see how things are going in a few months.
@bradstevens These are the doctors we’re supposed to repose our trust in regarding minor gender care etc. Dr doesn’t mean squat. Dumb is dumb.