UF has fired all staff in positions related to DEI.

Objection. The pain study did not determine anything about non-white patients getting better care from non-white doctors. It only found that white folk can sometimes underestimate pain in black patients. I was disappointed in the study because it was so poorly designed. The rest can remain in evidence.

 

Here's what the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board thinks of this move at UF: (hint - they like it, and they have a particular issue with the "E" in "DEI")

https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-florida-diversity-equity-inclusion-ben-sasse-03fa2109

 

What barriers would those be?

 

The MOS program, for starters. I’m the first in my lineage to get a degree and I had to work and get small Pell grants and take out loans that I had to pay back.

 

So I took personal responsibility to support/protect my staff and it lead to complications for my career. I did what is right for others by trying to address a barrier. I suffered a little as a result, but I am a simply and (mostly) humble man, so I took my medicine and endured and I have no regrets. Not everyone is only out for themselves and we have to be careful about generalizations. It is a shame that more folk don’t take personal responsibility and recognize that decisions have consequences.

 

Pre-college: Standardized testing, emphasis on co-curricular activities, economic bias (includes complexity of financial aid).

In-college: Access to social groups (eg. fraternities/sororities), transition issues (eg. schedule structuring/preparedness), school/work balance - students with greater financial need must rely more upon employment while studying, and language barriers . . . these are but a few.

 

I posted the pain study to demonstrate why DEI training can be important. There were multiple other studies in my post that supported the point that Black patients do better with Black doctors and patients tend to believe they receive better care from doctors of their own race (which leads to better health outcomes).

 

Shocker that right-wingers support reactionary right-wing politics.

 

Good. That's how people should act. I'm glad you did that. And it's wrong that you suffered a little for it.

 

That is the magic of capitalism my friend.

No other system more effectively acknowledges that human beings are inherently selfish, then channels that selfishness into altruism in the form of consensual transactions.

Bill Gates and Elon Musk have done more for the benefit of humanity than all of the posters here combined, and they both may very well be selfish people.

 

reductionist, but even if we fully accept your premise and ignore the possible downsides of having so much wealth in the hands of so few, none of that means we can’t have diversity offices in universities. Imo we can do both. Having rich people and capitalism and freedom and discussing the d the e and the i are not all mutually exclusive.

 

There is only one downside to “disproportionate wealth” and that is envy from those with less of it.

Why? Disproportionate wealth says nothing about the quality of life or standard of living for even the poorest Americans.

It’s easier to raise the economic floor in this country by raising the ceiling through entrepreneurship, innovation, and attracting global businessmen and job creators than it is to raise the economic floor via redistributive programs so everyone ends up in the same place, which taken to its logical extreme generally ends moreso with everyone being worse off than the poorest being better off.

That’s not to say we should view this as dichotomous. We shouldn’t be asking ourselves “capitalism” or “socialism,” but rather what level of social programs optimizes outcomes for the greatest number of Americans while not leaving the ones struggling the most behind; in an otherwise generally capitalist system. And that’s a challenging balance, but viewing things through a lens of “wealth inequity” completely misses the problem. It’s not a problem at all. Poverty is a problem. Unemployment is a problem. Artificial market manipulation and corporatism are problems. High housing and healthcare costs are problems. But none of them directly come from inequity. They come from something else. Trying to solve these problems by curing “inequity” would be sort of like trying to catch a thief who just fled into a forest by burning the forest. Is it worth it?

 

While I’d say prioritizing diversity is in contrast of pure capitalist principles, it is not completely out there with respect to the the US mixed system.

So I would agree it’s not necessarily “mutually exclusive” if executed appropriately. But I think DEI programs typically are not executed appropriately. They’re typically meant to improve outcomes for “minority” groups (everyone who isn’t a straight white male) and provide platforms for progressive voices and influences, none of which is the same thing as “promoting diversity.”

And even if it’s just a marginalization calculus, you get a similar case to Harvard and UNC where they simply prioritized it so greatly, it’s effectively racial/ethnic discrimination because an Asian applicant needs to perform far better than a Hispanic applicant (for example) to get the same letter of admission.

 

The opposite is the case.
The numbers don’t lie: Diverse workforces make businesses more money

Mark Cuban agrees:

 

More than a little debatable.

I can see how boardrooms diverse in management approach and background would be helpful, but skin color is at best a secondary characteristic, at worst a mere cosmetic difference for business purposes (ignoring the PR that comes with promoting diversity if you buy into that sort of thing).

A boardroom with a Black guy, an Asian, a white woman, and a gay white guy who think exactly the same… is just as valuable as a boardroom with 4 straight white males who think exactly the same… all else being equal.

 

Yet, it is far, far more likely if you have a diverse group of people in a room making decisions, they'll represent diverse perspectives. So I'm comfortable playing the odds here.

 

Why even bother playing odds?

Just hire people who complement the people you currently have, regardless of race, gender, sex, etc.

If the goal is diverse perspectives, why not use that as the criteria, as opposed to traits you were born with?

 

Is this a serious question? If I'm trying to market my products to Cubans in Miami, who is likely to offer a more useful perspective to my team, a white guy from Wyoming or a Cuban American man from Miami?

You can try to divorce perspective from race and ethnicity, but that ignores cultural realities in this country. Like I said, I'll play the odds.

 

If your whole market is Cubans, you probably don’t want “perfect diversity,” you want a whole bunch of Cubans.

Most businesses don’t market towards every demographic simultaneously. They pick and choose which ones to focus on.

 

Is this woke? Pandering? DEI? All of the above?

Trump vows to nominate a woman for US supreme court vacancy within a week

After conducting what he joked was a “very scientific poll” of the Fayetteville crowd as to whether supporters wanted a man or a woman, he declared the choice would be “a very talented, very brave woman”.

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”