UF has fired all staff in positions related to DEI.

And? That wasn't my question.

 

Hmmm....the only way you'd know that is if you were a loyal watcher of The View. Interesting.

 

You don't have to cave to lunacy. But you also shouldn't swing the other direction completely either. The numbers I posted are real. And with the college student population percentage of white men shrinking, the last thing a school should be looking to do is to be DEI adverse. Even if the DEI is just a dog and pony show, it gives off the perception of caring, and college demographics will take care of itself. But again, if the perception is your schools is anti-DEI, you might be losing out on some of the better and brighter students who are either non-white and female, or white guys who don't want at least the dog and pony diversity show.

 

I wish I had peons that don't know me, ever met me or know what kind of person I am, defend me when I did something wrong or questionable.

 

Nope, just like browsing the hundreds of YouTube videos that are making fun of them.

 

The tide is turning…

 

While I realize @AzCatFan is more than capable of answering on his or her own, the answer to your question is "no."

Btw, those were real numbers.

 

2014 study. I feel like Trumpism has moved some of that around as high income educated folk have fled the GOP. So does this author:

Polarization of the Rich: The New Democratic Allegiance of Affluent Americans and the Politics of Redistribution | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core

Empirically, I show that the voter coalitions of the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties have changed significantly in the past couple of decades. The three prominent publications from the early-mid 2000s that aimed to assess the degree that “class politics are alive and well” (Bartels Reference Bartels2008, 96) in America (which all used income as the primary marker of class) include Stonecash (Reference Stonecash2000), McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal (Reference McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal2006), and Bartels (Reference Bartels2008). All three of those publications concluded that partisan conflict in the United States was increasingly class-based: from the 1950s to the 1990s, Republicans gained more and more support from the rich (and higher-educated), and Democrats won votes from lower-income (and less-educated) voters. In this paper, I first replicate and extend all three of their analyses through the present moment. While those authors were largely correct about the 1950s through the 1990s, their conclusions—traditionally believed to be conventional wisdom—no longer accurately depict contemporary politics. In today’s America, both political parties largely split the support of higher-income voters.

 

Red tide.

 

I mean a conservative board of trustees appointed by a conservative governor hired a former conservative senator from Nebraska and anyone is shocked the dei staff is gone? Lol. I’m just surprised it took so long. But again, it’s pretty clear sasse has been underwater for a while now. This ain’t midland with a Few thousand people. The size of the endeavor appears to be burying him.

 

Are you magnetic?

 

Possibly, but I believe that your concern ignores that DEI represents more than just a dog and pony show to a lot of people. Many of them boosters/donors, I'm sure.

 

So, basically you believe that those people are, or at least believe they are, not intelligent or capable enough to be successful without DEI?

 

I bet he glows in the dark.

 

Sounds like what has been taking place within our universities for decades, except usually by members of a different political party.

 

It was obviously done to make a statement. It's a bad look and could possibly effect UF's rankings which may already take a hit from the governor's previous actions. I can also see black enrollment dropping off. It's already a bit low compared to the state's population.

 

I think the issue is that most everyone agree that "Diversity and Inclusion" is an important goal when it comes to equality of OPPORTUNITY. The problem is that "Equity" implies guaranteed equality of OUTCOME, and that is a terrible idea.

 

First, organizations are much more inclusive and conscious of bias than they ever have been before in my opinion due to the movement from the Floyd injustice - coincidently profits are at all time highs.

We eliminated the organization dedicated to inclusivity of suppliers this year mostly because we have a solid program in place and it doesn't need dedicated support, education, and recruitment anymore. Our management team didn’t go unwoke, just made a ton of progress in the last several years.

Right wing butthurt backlash from the progress in palpable.

 

Here's another example of how people on the Left purport to hate Dictatorships and Authoritarian regimes; but, in their discourse they imply that this how government is - as if the Florida Surgeon General could wave his hand and make measles go away. Trump had the inclination to stay in power but the Righties around him appropriately shut him down. Don't believe the Left would be so inclined - if there's power to obtain they will grab it and grab it hard.

 

If you're school is anti-DEI (either in reality or perception) isn't the school helping itself with a percentage of high achieving HS seniors who realize that DEI is a "dog and pony show" focused the terrible idea of guaranteeing equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity (which is an important goal)? As you noted, the college student population of white men is shrinking (which I'm totally fine with), and I think that shows that equality of opportunity already exists to a large extent although not universally by any means.