Republicans vs. DEI

IMO…this is the most important video that explains why Republicans are right here. DEI should be opposed everywhere, and James Lindsey explains why if you take the time to listen.

 

I'd love to see him walk up to a group of black people and give them his usual "Race relations are better than they've ever been. You guys have it great in America, there's nothing to complain about" spiel. Would love to see how that goes for him LOL

 

The sad reality is many will not spend an hour of their time listening to the material. They will however spend an hour of their time or more on this board or their phone or watching TV.

 

Isnt James Lindsay the conspiracy theorist that said CRT will lead to white genocide? I will save my hour and do something else

 

I didn't see that word, white supremacy, in his post. You make it sound like we've reached our limit being inclusive and diverse.

 

You mean people would prefer to spend an hour of leisure time doing something they enjoy than spend that hour watching a right-wing conspiracy theorist tell right-wingers what they want to hear? Shocking.

 

America is inclusive. This discussion is for butthurt libbies who want to keep their jobs as social justice fiction heroes.

 

Diversity advocates for hiring and appointing people with a uniformity of ideology within an organization. You must capitulate to critical theory as an overarching ideology to be the right kind of diversity...i.e. one must acknowledge oppressed identity categories along the multiple axes of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. And one's acknowledgement of the oppression along those axes must completely conform to an understanding in line with critical theories. The application of Karl Marx's conflict theory (zero sum game between oppressor and oppressed) to culture and identity is assumed here.

Inclusion involves speech codes to be implemented that accord with enforcing the ideology one must conform to in order to be part of an organization. Any speech that is deemed objectionable by the ideology is banned. Violators of the commandments of the ideology must reeducated, not too dissimilar to the type of reeducation governments require in communist countries for violation the state's ideology. Inclusion protects people with ideological conformity in oppressed classes from feeling uncomfortable or offended. Liberal values such as free speech and freedom of thought are jettisoned when DEI is implemented.

Equity = Forced equality of outcome that turns a blind eye to qualifications and merit. The oppressed, as viewed and understood in the singular ideological lens allowed in the organization, are privileged above those who belong to oppressor classes.

That is a good summary of what James Lindsey explains in the video. You are looking at a movement that aims to make everyone who does not conform to its ideology unemployable in every organization in America. You might be able to flip burgers or something if you don't capitulate to the ideology, but this about privileging people who exhibit the traits of ideological conformity, while pushing those who don't to the margins. DEI should be resisted due to its totalitarian nature. If you understand that the CCP wants a communist party member with veto power in every Chinese company, then it is not hard to understand that Democrats want someone loyal to their party with veto power in every company in America. DEI is about circumventing the Constitution to project political power via political ideology in the corporate world. It definitely is the government's business when governmental organizations are enforcing a political/worldview ideology in a government institution.

 

If that's a "good summary" of what Lindsey explained, you perfectly demonstrated why watching that video is a waste of time. Because just about everything you said is incorrect. In fact, I had to chuckle at this particular accusation:
"Inclusion involves speech codes to be implemented that accord with enforcing the ideology one must conform to in order to be part of an organization. Any speech that is deemed objectionable by the ideology is banned. Violators of the commandments of the ideology must reeducated, not too dissimilar to the type of reeducation governments require in communist countries for violation the state's ideology."

Because a federal judge (a Gator grad, in fact) literally just called out Ron DeSantis and his cronies in the Florida Legislature for trying to do that in this state with the Stop WOKE Act. I'll quote the court decision for you:
“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen,” and the powers in charge of Florida's public university system have declared the State has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of “freedom.” To confront certain viewpoints that offend the powers that be, the State of Florida passed the so-called “Stop W.O.K.E.” Act in 2022—redubbed (in line with the State's doublespeak) the “Individual Freedom Act.” The law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints. Defendants argue that, under this Act, professors enjoy “academic freedom” so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the State approves. This is positively dystopian. It should go without saying that “if liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

^^^That's a genuine speech code. Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty, eh?

 

Lawyer tactics...your response is a red herring. It was relevant because the OP talked about having DEI offices on college campuses.

Also...if we were talking about education, then you would agree with the concept of educational standards. And that is another way of saying the government gets to decide what government institutions teach. Certain things are supposed to be taught in classrooms, and certain things are not supposed to be taught in classrooms. It is the government's prerogative to regulate the educational content of government institutions. There is nothing unconstitutional or antiliberal about that. It is democratic actually if the people voted for the government officials regulating the educational content of government education. If professors want to work in educational institutions where they can teach something different than the government curriculum, then they can go work for a private university, or they can start their own privately funded college where they are free to teach whatever they want.

I am a Christian, and that is what I did. I taught what I wanted, and I did it in a private institution. Government institutions are not a playground for your ideology. A lot of leftist, Trump-hating, social justice types need to wrap their mind around that concept.

 

My response is calling out the falsehoods in your claims and pointing out that the people enacting actual speech codes are Republicans like yourself.

Within reason.

Content, yes. Viewpoints, no.

There is something very unconstitutional about regulating which viewpoints they can teach in college.

Good thing we have the Constitution to protect us when the people representing the majority decide to attack free speech rights.

Yes and no. Professors can't force a university to offer a specific course or force the state to offer a certain area of study. But if the state offers an area of study and the university asks the professor to teach the course, neither has the power to tell the professor which viewpoints are acceptable within that course.

If a university offers a course on Black History in America, it cannot tell the professor tasked with teaching it that they must teach the viewpoint that Malcolm X was an evil Black militant, that the Black Panther Party was a terrorist organization, or that critical race theory is the work of Marxists seeking to engage in white genocide.

The First Amendment protects academic freedom at our public universities and colleges. The Supreme Court has made that quite clear:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences, where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolutes. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.
Sweezy v. State of N.H. by Wyman, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957)

Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. The classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas. The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.
Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967)

 

The moron factor is flushing this country right down the toilet.

 

I’ll help

I mean, going all in on white supremacy has to becomedetrimental to their cause at some point.

 

Exactly this.

 

America was default non-DEI for most of its history.

Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was coded into law.

There’s a cruel irony that conservatives oppose any such practices.

 

Ok, so I'm confused. Are the white supremacists on the right or the left?

 

That you cannot see the problem with practices that benefit ones preferred gender or race is downright frightening.
Do you see any problem whatsoever with the govt counting race colors to fill their govt institution seats?
We are handicapping ourselves and some can’t see it. Instead you cheer it on.
We are creating an environment that fosters inequity because it’s based on superficiality. You libbies will tear the country apart if it’s the last thing you do. The past is the past. Look around, all people are doing great.

 

LOL, the owner should somehow add that into the forum name.