Harvard University announced it will not comply with orders from Donald Trump to cut DEI programs and expel students in involved in pro-Palestinian protests.
I don’t agree with Harvard (DEI & Pro-Palestinian protests), but I support them defying this order. They’re a private institution, the government is overstepping here.
I don’t agree with Harvard (DEI & Pro-Palestinian protests), but I support them defying this order.
Wait, so you… both think they should not have DEI programs and should expel pro-palestinian protestors, but you also think they should defy the government order telling them to do what you think they should do?
I’m not sure what the guy you’re responding to’s actual position is.
But from an objective standpoint, he could disagree with Harvard’s DEI policies but still support Harvard’s defiance of Trump because the DEI policies should be Harvard’s choice to make, not Trump’s.
Basically a variant of the saying “I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it.”
Yes, because the order is an abuse of power. I don’t agree with their policies, but private institutions shouldn’t be bullied by the government. I support their autonomy.
How about a not hiring example: A class in Urban Ecology and Planning will have a component on equity and inclusion. Historically, marginalized people were subjected to more pollution, more waste, and even evicted to create services and goods for other people. The notion that everyone is a citizen and deserves thoughtful design, access to public services, and equal burden of pollution is a relatively recent idea.
These orders make those discussions go away. Those considerations in planning and design are “divisive” and support “anti American values”. Although that is not the real reason, the real reason is to go back to the way it was before.
Wheelchair access is DEI. Services for the deaf is DEI. Understanding the impact of diesel corridor pollution is DEI. They do not want you to waste resources and time on trying to do better, because it is not better for them.
The fact that DEI sounds good in theory but in practice it’s just systematic discrimination. Similar to Affirmative Action but that’s already been settled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
I’ve managed and hired in workplaces that have employed DEI for years. It’s not a hiring quota, like Affirmative Action. It’s a training course and cultural adoption to increase awareness around unconscious bias and microagressions. It’s a way to help identify discrimination, and bring it out into conversation. It also focuses on the benefits of diverse perspectives when approaching a problem.
That’s MAGA’s definition of DEI because Affirmative Action was repealed, so they needed a new way to rally the racists and bigots.
The only hiring guideline is equal representation in interviewing. There are no quotas in DEI as there were under Affirmative Action. No one gets hired to fulfill a requirement.
You have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to DEI, like so many others you have just gobbled up the view points of the right propaganda machine. But let me ask one thing, where is the evidence os all this supposed discrimination that took place because of DEI?
Evidence is just talking with people in person about their lived experiences with the DEI hiring process/work life. Easily accessible to everybody. May I know how what I posted is part of the “right propaganda machine” when it’s literally on Harvard Business School’s website?
I’m sorry, but I believe employment should be merit based only.
Maybe the problem lies with your interpretation? Inclusion means to include a thing. You can still hire based on merit while being inclusive. The whole point of DEI is to make sure a company isn’t missing out a massive talent pool because they’re focusing on a singular demographic.
I deleted it because it’s written poorly. It implies requirements. There are none. Affirmative Action had metricized hiring quotas that must be met. DEI does not.
This is a better explanation from Forbes on how quotas are not just bad for the majority, but also cause resentment within minority groups.
Although DEI quotas can help level the playing field for historically marginalized groups, and help to send a message that a company is committed to diversity and inclusion, they may also be seen as discriminatory. When a company sets aside a certain number of positions for members of a particular group, it can send the message that these groups are not qualified to compete on their own merits. Quotas can lead to resentment among employees who feel that they were not hired based on their qualifications, and they can be difficult to implement and enforce. It can be challenging to determine who is eligible for a quota position and how to measure the effectiveness of a quota program.
There may be some poorly implemented DEI policies that are just quotas in disguise, but that seems like its own punishment, when you get unqualified people.
I’ve worked for several companies that have gotten it right: hired and promoted the best qualified people from all cultures, nationalities, religions, skin color, preferences, genders, etc. it’s not a matter of hiring based on those characteristics, but putting a little effort into ensuring that you can find the best person and they can thrive, even if they otherwise have many obstacles
I don’t understand how fixing existing discrimination is in itself discrimination. People are not being oppressed because they aren’t being given special treatment anymore. DEI policies have absolutely nothing to do with quotas or giving protected classes special treatment.
Most dei policies are designed to prevent people from using bias in the hiring process, and encouraging diversity. This can include removing name/gender/etc from the process.
I have always thought affirmative action had some issues but DEI was originally conceived by corporations to get better talent that would have otherwise not been hired due to racism, sexism, or any form of nepotism. Diversity of any kind has helped corporations make fuck loads of money for decades on top of helping veterans, old people and disabled people get jobs.
The inclusion part of DEI includes assisting children and adults with disabilities across a variety of classes, both educational and recreational. What part of that is systematic discrimination? Should high functioning adults with trisonomy 21 not be allowed to attend certification classes to help them receive employment? When they are children, do you think they shouldn’t be allowed at basketball camp?
Just wanted to stop by and express my disappointment for the down votes. I disagree with you strongly on the policies, but I deeply respect your commitment to actual free speech, and I hope you hold that same energy when it comes to due process rights.
This type of “we must tolerate the intolerant” energy is how Reddit became neo-fascist. First being against DEI and Palestinians is a heinous political position. Second of all people who are against DEI believe it’s racism, if he’s okay with private institutions using what he believes are racist policies, that’s a heinous position.
What you’re basically reading is: “I’m a racist, and I think private institutions should be able to have policies I think are racist”
Wow that isn’t in good faith AT ALL. Downvotes aren’t bans.
You don’t have a right to an audience, if people don’t like what you have to say, they don’t have to listen. They can also let you know if you’re a shit person. Maybe give you an opportunity to reflect and have personal growth.
I don’t agree with Harvard (DEI & Pro-Palestinian protests), but I support them defying this order. They’re a private institution, the government is overstepping here.
Wait, so you… both think they should not have DEI programs and should expel pro-palestinian protestors, but you also think they should defy the government order telling them to do what you think they should do?
I’m not sure what the guy you’re responding to’s actual position is.
But from an objective standpoint, he could disagree with Harvard’s DEI policies but still support Harvard’s defiance of Trump because the DEI policies should be Harvard’s choice to make, not Trump’s.
Basically a variant of the saying “I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it.”
Yes, because the order is an abuse of power. I don’t agree with their policies, but private institutions shouldn’t be bullied by the government. I support their autonomy.
Fair enough. We disagree on the policy, but definitely agree on it being an abuse of power.
Person wants to ride all the highs, no consequences.
How about a not hiring example: A class in Urban Ecology and Planning will have a component on equity and inclusion. Historically, marginalized people were subjected to more pollution, more waste, and even evicted to create services and goods for other people. The notion that everyone is a citizen and deserves thoughtful design, access to public services, and equal burden of pollution is a relatively recent idea.
These orders make those discussions go away. Those considerations in planning and design are “divisive” and support “anti American values”. Although that is not the real reason, the real reason is to go back to the way it was before.
Wheelchair access is DEI. Services for the deaf is DEI. Understanding the impact of diesel corridor pollution is DEI. They do not want you to waste resources and time on trying to do better, because it is not better for them.
What dei policies do you object to?
The fact that DEI sounds good in theory but in practice it’s just systematic discrimination. Similar to Affirmative Action but that’s already been settled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
I’ve managed and hired in workplaces that have employed DEI for years. It’s not a hiring quota, like Affirmative Action. It’s a training course and cultural adoption to increase awareness around unconscious bias and microagressions. It’s a way to help identify discrimination, and bring it out into conversation. It also focuses on the benefits of diverse perspectives when approaching a problem.
Removed by mod
That’s MAGA’s definition of DEI because Affirmative Action was repealed, so they needed a new way to rally the racists and bigots.
The only hiring guideline is equal representation in interviewing. There are no quotas in DEI as there were under Affirmative Action. No one gets hired to fulfill a requirement.
Your own link (https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-dei) that you’ve now deleted states the opposite. I’m sorry, but I believe employment should be merit based only.
DEI MAKES a position merit-based
You have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to DEI, like so many others you have just gobbled up the view points of the right propaganda machine. But let me ask one thing, where is the evidence os all this supposed discrimination that took place because of DEI?
Evidence is just talking with people in person about their lived experiences with the DEI hiring process/work life. Easily accessible to everybody. May I know how what I posted is part of the “right propaganda machine” when it’s literally on Harvard Business School’s website?
Maybe the problem lies with your interpretation? Inclusion means to include a thing. You can still hire based on merit while being inclusive. The whole point of DEI is to make sure a company isn’t missing out a massive talent pool because they’re focusing on a singular demographic.
I deleted it because it’s written poorly. It implies requirements. There are none. Affirmative Action had metricized hiring quotas that must be met. DEI does not.
This is a better explanation from Forbes on how quotas are not just bad for the majority, but also cause resentment within minority groups.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2024/08/25/dei-backlash-4-legitimate-concerns-to-avoid/
There may be some poorly implemented DEI policies that are just quotas in disguise, but that seems like its own punishment, when you get unqualified people.
I’ve worked for several companies that have gotten it right: hired and promoted the best qualified people from all cultures, nationalities, religions, skin color, preferences, genders, etc. it’s not a matter of hiring based on those characteristics, but putting a little effort into ensuring that you can find the best person and they can thrive, even if they otherwise have many obstacles
Won so hard the mods had to ban you to maintain their illusions
More like he lied so hard mods decided to stop the spread of disinformation, and then followed up with a comment explaining exactly why he was wrong.
Unfortunately I get the feeling that you aren’t interested in the truth.
I don’t understand how fixing existing discrimination is in itself discrimination. People are not being oppressed because they aren’t being given special treatment anymore. DEI policies have absolutely nothing to do with quotas or giving protected classes special treatment.
Well, when you discriminate, either positively or negatively, it’s discrimination.
Glad to help clear that up!
But it’s explicitly not discrimination. It’s inclusion. Meaning “in addition to”. No one is left out by it lol.
Despite what they claimed, they were discriminating.
And that claim is based on what? Anecdotes?
The article
I always find it amazing that people fail to understand such a basic concept.
Most dei policies are designed to prevent people from using bias in the hiring process, and encouraging diversity. This can include removing name/gender/etc from the process.
What policies do you object to?
Just simply not true.
Can you elaborate on this? I’ve known DEI policies and Affirmative Action to be commonly confused with each other, but distinctly different.
I have always thought affirmative action had some issues but DEI was originally conceived by corporations to get better talent that would have otherwise not been hired due to racism, sexism, or any form of nepotism. Diversity of any kind has helped corporations make fuck loads of money for decades on top of helping veterans, old people and disabled people get jobs.
In practice? Can you prove that?
The inclusion part of DEI includes assisting children and adults with disabilities across a variety of classes, both educational and recreational. What part of that is systematic discrimination? Should high functioning adults with trisonomy 21 not be allowed to attend certification classes to help them receive employment? When they are children, do you think they shouldn’t be allowed at basketball camp?
Just wanted to stop by and express my disappointment for the down votes. I disagree with you strongly on the policies, but I deeply respect your commitment to actual free speech, and I hope you hold that same energy when it comes to due process rights.
This type of “we must tolerate the intolerant” energy is how Reddit became neo-fascist. First being against DEI and Palestinians is a heinous political position. Second of all people who are against DEI believe it’s racism, if he’s okay with private institutions using what he believes are racist policies, that’s a heinous position.
What you’re basically reading is: “I’m a racist, and I think private institutions should be able to have policies I think are racist”
Yeah that’s a no from me.
Exactly let’s ban a dude for giving his opinion that doesn’t make us fascists at all you see his opinion was wrong
Wow that isn’t in good faith AT ALL. Downvotes aren’t bans.
You don’t have a right to an audience, if people don’t like what you have to say, they don’t have to listen. They can also let you know if you’re a shit person. Maybe give you an opportunity to reflect and have personal growth.
Ban? The fuck are you talking about?