UF has fired all staff in positions related to DEI.

Who the hell are you to try to speak for Emmitt Smith or to suggest he doesn't know what DEI is? He's knows exactly what it means and how this move has tarnished the image and reputation of UF.

 

I suspect that the poster that you are responding to is the one that doesn’t understand DEI

 

DEI also covers BLIND people and disabled veterans.

Disgusting. But Desantis is losing the culture wars.

VOTE BLUE IN NOVEMBER!

 

Why be so defeatist? Perhaps you can share your thoughts about why DEI does or does not belong in FL universities? Such opinions will naturally depend upon one's understanding of what DEI actually is in a university setting. Here's my belief:

D - valuing the presence, thoughts, and opinions from a variety of people with different backgrounds, races, religions, political beliefs, etc.

E - The provision of equitable opportunity for all to experience and succeed in the environment, with accommodations for people who face unique challenges.

I - The provision of a welcoming environment for all, while granting opportunities for all to participate/make their own unique contributions.

Too many think that DEI is all about quotas / affirmative action, which is a limited perspective. What say you?

 

To follow up . . . in another thread a poster referred to DEI as "Disgusting Exclusionary Intolerance." I don't wonder what that person's level of familiarity is with DEI on college campuses. It's transparent. Previously, I operationalized the terms from my perspective. These are some of the initiatives higher ed DEI offices take up:

• Guest speakers sharing knowledge about global cultures
• Student activities involving food, clothing, and games from a variety of cultures
• Student orgs for LGBTQ and people of color
• Study abroad
• The provision of space for all students to gather
• Conferences promoting actual DEI

This is based upon my 15 years teaching at two universities, including UF. Do you have first-hand knowledge that would counter these initiatives? If not, do you see anything wrong with them?

 

I will attempt to reply to both of you posts in one.

For background, I did not grow as a “child of privilege” in any way, shape, or form other than to be fortunate enough to have two unbelievable parents who had their shit together. They both grew up poor, and through hard work and a lot of sacrifice( my father enlisted in the Army and served in the Korean War just to get the GI Bill) made great lives for themselves and their five children). We lived in a working class neighborhood and when it came time to integrate Orange County schools our area was one of the first. My first day of intermediate school in 7th grade was also the first day that school was integrated. I lived on a daily basis what most people can only read about today, with much of what is available to read slanted towards the rough parts of those times, and ignoring how both sides learned to put aside their biases and become friends.

I was asked in the early 90’s to take training to teach Diversity classes as a young junior manager. This was, I believe a result of my ability to relate to all of my co workers, regardless of their sex, race, religion, or anything else based on my experiences growing up.

It was a great experience and the progress that we made was tremendous. Real people talking to each other about real life experiences really worked. I loved it and the results were outstanding. The Diversity culture was engaged and getting wound into every fiber of the organization.

In the early part of the 2000’s the Diversity program took a hard turn. Instead of real managers from different backgrounds running the program we had “Diversity Professionals” come in and start to manage us. These people had no credentials and also had no standing or respect among the workforce. Instead of respected leaders within the organization putting their money where their mouth was we had a bunch of people who had never accomplished anything sitting in on the sessions and taking over. For those who already knew what great looked like, they stopped attending.

To make a long story short, I resigned from the program when it became counterproductive.

My disdain for DEI “offices” is not limited to universities. I see first hand that a program that myself and six other young managers successfully implemented over thirty years ago in our “spare time”, has now evolved into a 20 person team under HR with its own director and staff. Where we had waiting lists for voluntary participation in the monthly events, we now have mandatory participation that all but the naive and unproductive dread attending.

Not only do I not have any issues with the initiatives that you listed above, I support them. I just know from over forty years in the workforce that you do not need a full time staff in a DEI office to accomplish them.

These “offices” that exist to exist are a tremendous waste of organizational resources, regardless of whether that organization in a university or a company. Those salaries, offices, computers and staff Travel$ could be much more beneficially spent.

 

Well the good news, the RNC is now in GREAT new hands, with Lara Trump co-chairing the leadership

For a platform that loathes nepotism and cherishes merit-based engagement, she leads the pack.

Lara is the exemplar of why DEI is out-dated and no longer has a place in our meritocracy.

 

Sounds like you think it should be an informal “shooting the breeze” process and based on your own already established and personal experience, whereas the DEI people would do a more top down and structured approach and try to get people to think outside the box (or even address shortfalls they found in hiring data).

When you say the DEI people had “no credentials” and “no respect”, what was this based on? You saying they had no formal education? No experience with what they do? This sort of comes off as hostility to their approach or hostility to “outsiders” coming in to disrupt the status quo. Which is actually common in many areas of business (think when restructuring or process engineers come in, usually means layoffs, and having worked through a few financial software migrations I’ve been on both sides of that table). I’m sure I’ve said many times DEI I think is fluff for the most part (almost like PR). However I’d say a top down approach to DEI can find some things that a silo’d bottom up approach might not. The most obvious is that not all managers are as open minded as you claim to be or not aware of their biases. I think there’s value in an organization looking at it from the top down. Obviously any entity should try to limit it’s administrative costs, but the HR functions must be done.

 

My bad. I should have said “no professional credentials and therefore had no standing or respect from the workforce”

 

Fair enough on your last point. But you do not need a DEI Office and large staff to look over the managers running the program. The feedback from the participants will give an excellent opinion on the approach and/or biases of the facilitators and presenters.

 

Spoken like a true HR pro and experienced auditor….lmao.
Your posts make perfect sense now that you’ve shared your background with the board.

 

Say what? I’ve never worked in HR.

I worked in finance and also spent a few years consulting with an ERP software firm, that happened to come I’m to mind. I only pointed that one out, because when you have a group coming in from outside basically “studying job roles”, of course you can sense the tension from the people who liked the status quo. Some because they are worried they might get downsized, but you also realize some people don’t like change at all. Some people liked their outmoded mainframe based systems I guess. It just struck me as a parallel to the way you reacted to the DEI people coming in. It disrupted your status quo.

 

Sad when FSU has a stronger moral compass than UF.
Amid public push by DeSantis, FSU quietly dismantled its DEI office

 

Perhaps disliking some folks of a certain race while liking others is really about something other than skin color. Perhaps it is about integrity or industry or reciprocal respect and has nothing to do with melanocyte prevalence?

 

Perhaps when my grandfather described the Black people he liked (the ones that were his friends) as the "good ones," it was about something other than skin color. Maybe all the other Black people were the problem?

 

Did your Pops explain or infer what made him consider some black folk as good (friends) versus others, or do you otherwise know what his reasons were for making such determinations? If skin tones were similar then didn’t he have to have another reason(s)?

 

He made his thoughts very clear on Black people as a race. It just so happened the Black people he got to know weren't like the "others." The idea that a person can't be racist against Black people unless they hate every Black person is so farcical. It's like some folks think the only way to be a racist is to walk around in KKK garb calling every Black person you see the n-word.

 

So was Sammy Davis Jr a good one?

 

There had to be a reason that led him to appreciate some black folk as friends. Or perhaps they weren’t actually friends and were just thought of as acceptable to associate with. I cannot refute that he was a racist. I had a boss that shared similar disdain for black folk in general but got along fine in public with some, even to the point of offering praise on occasion. I have met several white folk, primarily of a generation prior to mine, that exhibited similar behavior. My point is not that they are not racist but that not everyone that has reason to dislike someone of another race is racist. You seem to lean heavily into the assumption that they are. I’m no Pollyanna but I tend to try to give folks the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

 

Hell no. He was Jewish.

I kid! I kid!