L-O-L. You responded to a post from Slayer with an Independent Florida Alligator article in it. I see no reference in the article to any of the student orgs you identified. Are you now denying that you yourself determined those student orgs you listed to be part of what constitutes "DEI?"
givernor and state should lay out the basic guard rails for higher Ed to follow. But they should not micromanage how higher Ed does their work. Even people at the highest levels in higher Ed like BOG staff barely understand what happens on the ground. Really gotta let the experts at the university level handle the day to day otherwise you risk damaging the whole enterprise through ignorance.
You see nothing in common with the organizations I just shared with the organizations from the Student Organizational Operational Budget? Nothing at all?
I see plenty in common. I'm not sure how that helps your argument. If anything, it only supports my point that DeSantis is doing this to send a message to certain groups of people. But please, explain how this helps your argument.
You're saying that the organizations I mentioned to Slayer, I lumped in with DEI... as though I was the first one to ever make that connection. Then, I posted a link to a UF website where DEI is literally advertising similar organizations as DEI student groups. They have very similar names as the organizations I mentioned to Slayer, names like "Black Students in Business" or "Florida Hispanic Finance Association." I didn't see them listed under the SG Operational Budget, my guess is because they are direct affiliates of the university and are therefore directly funded by the university, but that is complete speculation on my part. I honestly don't know. Perhaps they just didn't ask for SG money for whatever reason. But the point is the same, these organizations and incredibly similar organizations are advertised as DEI. I was far from the first one to make the connection between equity and race/ethnicity. Higher education has been doing that on their own for a while now. You pretending like they haven't is either you being incredibly obtuse or dishonest. I think you're educated and sophisticated enough for me to gather which of the two.
I'm not the one pretending that these things aren't related to DEI. That's the crux of my point. DeSantis is targeting programs aimed at people of color and the LGBTQ community. You're the person who responded as griping that it's unfair to make that connection.
He's targeting programs aimed at equity. The left tethered equity programs to race/ethnicity so that they can cry bigot/racist when the equity programs are targeted.
This is like accusing "the left" of tethering civil rights laws to race and ethnicity. Equity programs are necessarily tethered to race and ethnic (among other things).
Equity is not “necessarily” tethered to race. It can be tethered to all sorts of traits: IQ, height, income, etc. They chose race because you can simultaneously signal virtue for spreading Marxist ideas by putting them under the banner of “anti-racism” while simultaneously shielding them from criticism by labeling all criticism “racist.” Race is unique in that regard due to its history as an issue. It’s a lot harder to find a boogeyman label for people opposed to equity based on IQ or height.
In years past there were groups and movements that were much more prominent to support women’s rights. These were equity based and they worked. Were they “Marxist” too? saying equity can be tied to height or iq is stupid. No one has been prevented access to school specifically for either issue unless bad grades are now discriminatory lol. we have programs devoted to first time in college students. Those are equity based programs. Are they “Marxist?” But oh snap all of a sudden we have race based equity programs and it’s a leftist conspiracy………
If you don’t see how equity as applied by people like Ibram X. Kendi and Nikole Hannah-Jones is tied to Marxist principles I really don’t know what to tell you. They just put “race” between “critical” and “theory” and “critical theory” is a self-proclaimed Marxism-inspired philosophy and movement.
The same thing is true of civil rights laws. Yet, they're generally tied to immutable characteristics. Why do you think that is? Yeah, I'm not going to take you seriously when you start up with the Marxism stuff. Race/ethnicity are unique in our society due to past and present discrimination. Makes you wonder if that might have something to do with why those are two things tethered to equity. Hmm...
If the idea that your race should have no bearing on your chances of being successful in this country is "Marxist," consider me Leon Trotsky.
A former UF assistant professor in African American Studies said that capitalism can never be separated from racism. They’re not even hiding the ball. You’re just either lying or choosing to dig your head in the sand. Then you minimize all of it by saying “well we offer courses exclusively for first year students as well.” Yes that is a special privilege to try and achieve an equitable outcome, I guess that can be incredibly loosely tied to Marxism. There are gradations of how alarming, harmful, and ironically unjust equity programs can be. I think calls to remedy past discrimination by present and future discrimination, redefining racism to only apply to certain races based on historical power structures, and tethering capitalism to racism is full on Marxist lunacy. If that doesn’t spark a red flag, I really don’t know what does. As far as past movements, generally when they strive for proportional representation for a suspect class, regardless of input, that cause has gone too far in that specific regard. When that movement strives for equality in rights, equal consideration under the law, essentially a “Justice is Blind” system… that is the sort of thing that gets widespread praise across both sides of the political aisle.
Because they are uncontrollable, but it is not enough for a characteristic to be immutable for it to become a protected class. So a lot more goes into that, it's largely to entirely based on historical politics where certain groups were discriminated against based on an immutable characteristic. And I'm not going to take you seriously when you lie. You're assuming that equity-based initiatives and Marxist-based policy is the only (or even an effective and just) remedy to discrimination when it is not. It is a blunt instrument and a bandaid that artificially makes things look better than they really are without solving the underlying problems. And they often-times make matters worse because they stoke racial resentment. When you remedy past discrimination through present discrimination, you're going to be punishing a lot of people who had nothing to do with that past discrimination and they're going to rightfully become bitter and resentful, especially considering the CRA was passed almost 60 years ago. Most Black people who lived under Jim Crow America are either dead or retired. "But 715, racism didn't end when the CRA was passed." And that's the rub, I don't see any endgame to equity policy rationales that doesn't end in Socialism or Communism. If the logic is "Black people were victims of systemic racism from 1964 going back, and any desirable outcomes where Black people are underrepresented is evidence of ongoing racism," then the only answer is somebody (government) playing daddy and distributing these outcomes proportionally in a statistically clean fashion. No prosperous society in the history of the world has had completely proportional outcomes everywhere based on immutable characteristics, including race. It doesn't exist. We should strive for a colorblind system where all races, colors, and creeds play by the same exact rules and ban discrimination in certain contexts (which we already have) and that is the best policy remedy for past discrimination. The rest is mostly culture and education regarding behaviors that help people move up the socio-economic ladder.
Last I checked, in America, we have free speech and associational rights. If Ibram Kendi wants to be a socialist or a communist, that's his right. I'm not sure what points you think you're scoring griping about his personal philosophies. To quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic." To quote Thurgood Marshall: "Obviously, I too believe in a colorblind society; but it has been and remains an aspiration. It is a goal toward which our society has progressed uncertainly, bearing as it does the enormous burden of incalculable injuries inflicted by race prejudice and other bigotry, which the law once sanctioned, and even encouraged. Not having attained our goal, we must face the simple fact that there are groups in every community, which are daily paying the cost of the history of American injustice. The argument against affirmative action is but an argument in favor of leaving that cost to lie where it falls. Our fundamental sense of fairness, particularly as it is embodied in the guarantee of equal protection under the law, requires us to make an effort to see that those costs are shared equitably while we continue to work for the eradication of the consequences of discrimination. Otherwise, we must admit to ourselves that so long as the lingering effects of inequality are with us, the burden will be borne by those who are least able to pay."
Really? That must be why our civil rights laws protect race. It also explains why policies directed at equity are tethered to race (among other things). That's not a remedy. That doesn't repair any harm done. It leaves the costs of discrimination where they lie.
The point that I was making in the post you quoted is that sort of philosophy is Marxist. Would you agree? As far as the MLK quote, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the case for affirmative action was much better in the 60s than it is now, and the further we are removed from Jim Crow and slavery, the less justified such policy will be. What does "eradication of the consequences of discrimination" look like?
