If we were really to have equality we'd start with our public school system and the schools would 1) have teachers hired on the basis of their competency not ethnicity, and 2, demand the best from all students regardless of their ethnicity. Right now DEI is nothing but ideological b.s. from what Thomas Sowell brilliantly called “the anointed” class in his book “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as the Basis for Social Policy.” And that book should be required reading for any school teacher or school board member.
It is a fallacy that diversity intrinsically strengthens our society. The assumption that, in and of itself, diversity is by it's very nature good and enriching to our society and therefore it should be embraced in unlimited quantities is contrary to experience. An immigrant population of small size that is assimilable can benefit and enrich society. Hoards of barbarous invaders sequestered into communities that share neither language or culture with the rest of America is destructive to the stability and prosperity of our culture. It dilutes the cohesion that unites a people with a shared will to defend the status quo and renders an easily defeated foe. This is plausibly the intention of mass immigration and the effort to legitimize this population through DEI initiatives. Just as iron can be strengthened by the addition of a small amount of carbon to form carbon steel, the addition of too much carbon and the alloy is weakened. What we have here is closer to a lump of coal than to steel alloy.
Most opened, fair minded people want to see minorities succeed and share in the blessings of this country. We all benefit as a society when we are integrated with others from varied backgrounds and perspectives. Yes, I believe in recruiting guidelines and hiring goals for well qualified applicants.
That said, what we have now is a bizarre and disturbing iteration of LBJ’s “Great Society.” Yes, forcing certain “groups” into high acuity positions can be unworkable, even disastrous in the case of commercial pilots. Which “groups” have benefited the most? Clearly, Black, Hispanic and apparently, LBGQT have now evolved into positions which were once traditionally held by white males. Are we better off as a society as a result? Depends who you talk to. Was putting a lesbian as LA Fire Chief the right call?…look at the results.
Too often, DEI was weaponized against others. For example, would you rather have a marginal Heart Surgeon who is Black, or a more experienced surgeon who is typically White, Asian, Indian or Jewish? Bottom line is people do what best for themselves, first and foremost, despite race.
The end result is DEI was weaponized illegally, used against white males and perpetrated by white liberals for transgressions against people of color who are no longer here by persons who similarly, are no longer here.
How does this move our society forward? Ask yourself, would having Transgenders storming the beaches at Iwo Jima improved the outcome?
Jeeze. Another crazy and ignorant to the subject matter post.
"For example, would you rather have a marginal Heart Surgeon who is Black, or a more experienced surgeon who is typically White, Asian, Indian or Jewish?" That is trying to paint a picture that the black surgeon is marginal. Why not write it this way? "For example, would you rather have a marginal Heart Surgeon who is White, Asian, Indian or Jewish, or a more experienced surgeon who is Black?
"Was putting a lesbian as LA Fire Chief the right call?…look at the results." Argh. Another completely ignorant statement because it fits an agenda.
She was EXTREMELY qualified. Let's see, top 50 out of 16,000. Been with the LAFD for over 20 years.
DB: Time served inside the government employment cocoon is not a qualification for the next level up job. But it is proof of highly-honed government bureaucracy survival skills.
Big Government has lost its way. Which is why most Americans know something has gone wrong. Help fix it; don't justify its continuance.
Thank you for this excellent history using tax dollars to socially engineer vague and highly subjective mandates.
Silly me, I thought taxpayers paid government employees to carry out a specific and necessary, defined tasks. Not pay government employees for how they "feel" about getting steady paychecks, signed off our taxpayer accounts.
Productive work on its own is so soul-enhancing. I am sorry this has been taken out of the equation. DEI sounds like a collection derby of on the job resentments. "Our morale is bad" so pay us more money. What kind of incentivizing is that?
Please dear God, save the old-fashioned work ethic in America. An employee brings that to the job on their own; it is not later bought or sold for cash.
Agree JL. As a result of 1965 major immigration changes into a country of origin quota system, combined with 1986 Reagan Amnesty plus open border realities, there’s mass entitlement to benefit programs, university admission, and jobs regardless of qualifications.
After gender/ sex added in 1972, I became a 1978 recipient of a high paying, big exec job post grad school at age 25, as the first female hire in that position in CA. (It was newsworthy.)
The difference from current DEI was 1) my hire was not mandated or rewarded, and 2) the CEO who hired me kept me at his side traveling the country for 3 years on “a short rope” while he personally trained me, gradually releasing his hold as I proved myself.
On multi-million dollar projects, he’d hire blacks and females — at his direct added expenses — to pair 1:1 with bond counsel, bankers, architects, contractors, fiscal pros, etc. The purpose was to train. We need more like him.
Race Baiting is the major platform of the Democrat party. Maybe it is the only platform. They will use this in 2026. The party that invented the KKK is still at it. We are in a Civil War now as well as then. We must not let the KKK win this time either.
Author writes "[DEI]...is a movement to 'globalize' our culture." I have always been confused by what anglo-Americans consider to be "our culture." Unlike a geographic region where culture evolved over the centuries, similar evolved cultures in America were eradicated or forbidden to continue while immigrants from Europe brought their unique cultures with them. I hesitate to tell you this, since I thought everyone was already aware of it, but America's "culture" has been "globalized" since the first Dutch, Swedes, English, French, and Spanish colonizers stepped off their boats and onto America's shores. This weekend I will be wearing green and singing Irish songs of resistance in English with my African-American friends while eating Mexican tacos and drinking green-hued Lagerbier. America is a much better place because of its unique globalized hybrid culture. After the party maybe my wife and I will go out for some Italian tiramisu, or a glass of wine made from grapes brought to America from France! Erin go bragh! Slava Ukraini! AH! It is all "as American as apple pie"! (Even though there were never any apples in America until the Dutch arrived).
Stephen, you summed up why I love being an American. Cultures were brought here by immigrants who chose to learn and assimilate into America wherever they settled. That all changed in 1965 Nationality Act. Santa Barbara Native Margaret Sands Orchowski wrote a nationally acclaimed 5-star book on topic.
Of course, DEI was also a problem with regards to hiring highly technically competent people, such as aircraft controllers that help prevent air traffic accidents. Some things we simply need to hire the best people for the job ... period. Not waiting around for the politically correct person to come on the scene to satisfy these critical jobs. I recall woman six or seven engineers being hired out of UCSB in the early 80's. They all became project engineers, the task of keeping track of work. None could use a soldering iron <g>.
Goo, well laid out article, Brent, on the failed program of DEI into our government. My response to the negative naysayer commenters is simple. It DID NOT WORK. It created animosity and negativity across the board. As the old saying goes, :"the proof is in the pudding". It is not rocket science. Let the best and most qualified person get the job.
Excellent historical summation; an article worth sharing. I do wish Biden’s Exec Order was included or linked. Like too many government mandates, Biden’s DEI Exec Order failed in its overly bureaucratic, costly implementation and did not address the need for high quality mentorships, internships, and direct 1:1 training programs. Where the EO succeeded was reminding us again of the importance equal opportunity/fair play in admissions and hiring; the need for unserved citizens, zip codes, communities to be given opportunities which we collectively ignore. (CA offers limitless opportunities depending on where you live.)
Wrongly, too many universities, government and other employers, interpreted DEI as an ‘all-comers accept and tolerate’ mandate to admit or hire. This version of DEI must end.
As an attorney, why you chose to cherry pick situations and call them DEI instead of reading the EO boggles my mind. It is as if you already had an answer, that was hunting for a question.
DEI is NOT like what you mentioned. It is not like what you mentioned in the 1960s after the Civil Rights law was passed. DEI is about an opportunity to BE interviewed. It is about removing the barriers to even being interviewed. Ask yourself why does the author of the Harry Potter novels go by JK Rowling instead of Joanne Rowling? It was because no one would read her manuscripts before because they didn't want women authors. Ask yourself why resumes went from names like, "Shawanda Smith" to S. Smith. It was because it was a means to identify what the employer thought was a 'black' sounding name and thus never interview them. DEI made that illegal. DEI allowed people to know that they would at least get a 'fairer' shot.
The federal government mission is to serve all citizens of the United States. So there should be NO “under served communities” at all if they’re doing the job they’re supposed to. I would argue that many communities have been overserved with preferential treatment for over 60 years now. Look how well that’s turned out for those communities. Everyone should be treated the same/equally. This way everyone has the opportunity to succeed based on how willing they are to improve themselves. It is not the rest of our responsibility to make sure they improve themselves by giving.(by way of taxes.) our hard earned money to make sure that they do improve themselves. That is up to each individual. A merit based system will achieve the highest possible outcomes. The government should not be the arbiter of fairness as they cannot be, should not be everywhere all at once. if they stick their noses in to make things “fairer” then they are not. This simply means they are tipping the scales for this person or that person or this race or that race or this sex versus that sex. I believe you’re thinking is flawed and you should look deeper into the results.
Ok, try creating paragraphs. It is a lot easier to read.
You contradict yourself. If you believe the mission of the government is to serve all citizens, then that should be the policy that is implemented. It has not been though.
Here, let me illustrate a very simple situation that did occur. Gays in the military. Are there not gay US citizens? Did they get into the military because they were gay? No, they got into the military based on merit. What happened under Clinton? The "don't ask, don't tell' policy. Prior to that policy, a gay person felt that they could not even apply. After that policy, some more applied. Then under Obama, the repeal of that law, it brought the US, as the LAST developed nation, to allow openly gay members in the military. Yes, THE LAST.
Now you state that a merit based system will achieve the highest possible outcome. What makes you think that DEI ignores that? You are believing that someone is HIRED because they are in a marginalized class. That is NOT DEI. DEI is not a quota system. DEI is not a guarantee that a black, double amputee, blind woman, without a JD is hired as an attorney for the DOJ over someone who is white, has a jd, and 30 years of experience. This is what it sounds like you believe happens. The merit system exists. Well, sort of. Want to talk about Trump's cabinet picks? Who is in charge of HHS? What is HIS qualifications? Who is in charge of the pentagon? What is HIS qualifications. There is your proof that the system is rigged.
OK, again your first paragraph states the government does not implement a policy that serves all. Exactly! My point precisely. It overserved some at the expense of others.
Paragraph two. For your reading ease. Again, you illustrate my point brilliantly. The army lowered standards to allow women into the armed forces, gay, or not, which helps to overserved such persons. I don’t believe that it’s a problem for gays to be in the military and never was. As long as they adhere to the military codes, there would never be a problem with it. being openly, gay,(I’m assuming this means showing sexual preferences towards others) would be breaking military code. Just keep it in your pants and don’t creep out others is all they would have to do to join the military if they’re calling was to protect the United States. just a question because I don’t know, does China or Russia allow “openly
Gay” persons in their military? I don’t see being last as a big problem. Our military has been first in so many other things.
Yes, DEI is exactly a quote system designed to add more minorities into whatever organization that is utilizing it. it does promote hiring a marginalized class over someone that is more qualified. That is the whole point of it. otherwise, what would it accomplish?
Your last point is just low hanging fruit brought to us by all the liberal talking points. You see regurgitated by the lame stream media. President Trump was duly elected by the people of the United States of America. He is entitled to hire whoever he wants to these positions along with The advise and consent authority of Congress. Are you a lawyer you sound more like a schoolgirl with an ax to grind.
I would advise anyone looking to hire a lawyer to look elsewhere. You do not seem to understand even the basics of how our government is set up. What I’m seeing here is an ambulance chaser.
You are also making a HUGE assumption and neglecting to see the difference. Allowing someone into the military does not equal them being in a combat position. There is one requirement to be possibly put in combat and that is you are in the military. The second, that is up to the branch and what they do to the person. There are plenty of cooks, MPs, truck drivers, pencil pushers, etc. that are in the military that are men. They didn't pass the PHYSICAL test to get into the combat roles, they are in support roles.
When you ignore the concept of merit to allow for non-merit based people to be in charge of the largest employer in the world, your argument about DEI and non-merit based hiring is shot out the window. This is not a principle belief of yours. Either you believe that the best person be hired or not. Thanks for proving the point that you don't believe in merit, you believe in something else.
"Are you a lawyer you sound more like a schoolgirl with an ax to grind.
I would advise anyone looking to hire a lawyer to look elsewhere. You do not seem to understand even the basics of how our government is set up. What I’m seeing here is an ambulance chaser."
That is what you wrote. You are disingenuous.
If you want to stay civil, you discuss the topic, not the person. You chose to discuss the person.
I will point out that the points that you are making are not backed up by written policies or by actions of people, in large. Sure, there will be some isolated cases where someone is hired because of some reason you do not like. But again, ONE does not mean the same as ALL. Just like there is one immigrant who over stayed his/her visa, that got a gun and shot someone. That does not mean all are that way.
I read the EO. I linked the EO. I posted from the EO. It is NOT utter nonsense.
DEI is not saying I am hiring you because you are in some marginalized or underrepresented class. That is the biggest fallacy that people have about it. It is about stating I will at least not exclude you from the hiring process.
Hello David Bergenson, those rights are already protected. You do not need
to have an EO which is going beyond those rights and create additional rights for a
special class. If EVERYONE is all that concerned go into CONGRESS and PASS THAT DEI LAW. Also placing, for example, women in combat roles is not working.
See the Navy Proceedings I weblinked and I can give you alot more. In fact, the first
women they placed in the Ohio Class Submarines up and Bangor they had real problems and kept it quiet, same in the Air Force.
So you are going to keep going to prove your point while ignoring the reality of the situation. Hmm. At what point will you admit that your point is incorrect?
The Civil Rights act gave us protected classes. Those classes were protected from discrimination. Now, read the EO. Hopefully, you can understand it and be objective. The EO stated that 'recruitment' should be everywhere, not just specific locations. Do you even know what that means? In essence, it means, do not exclude applicants from Compton, while only taking them from Beverly Hills. You are correct, that is not codified in the CRA, but think about that simple action. It means that a person in Compton, has an opportunity to present themselves and be hired on merit, whereas in the past, they were never given an opportunity.
Women in combat roles. Are you !@%@ing serious? You want to remove all women from combat because two women committed fraud? That is so incredibly absurd. I don't even have to GOOGLE anything. By YOUR logic, there should be NO men in the military because I know someone committed fraud.
Let me help you with some English.
Some does not equal all. There, it is that simple. Will there be some _____ that do things wrong? Of course. Fill in the blank with any sex, religion, age, color, etc. There is no perfect _____.
Again, you are moving the goal posts. You wanted all women removed because 2 committed fraud. That is absurd.
Now you want to remove them from physically demanding roles. Ok, how many of those are there?
And, speak for yourself, do not speak on behalf of others. I think the whole concept of a gold star family is wrong. The family didn't sacrifice their child. The child chose to go into the military knowing the risks of going into the military. If anything, it should be the children of fallen military that took the hit. I am one of those. My father died in the military while I was extremely young. That is the sacrifice. I can tell you that as a 'military' family, I don't agree with your take. Thus, speak for yourself, do not bring in others.
And your comments about women in the military are completely absurd and sexist. It fails to give credit to all the women who have served in militaries in our country's long history over various conflicts.
What you post is true to my life experiences. Resumes can hide gender and race, which face to face interviews cannot. Interviews can assess an applicants potential, eagerness, determination, and work standard. The challenge is getting thru the door to be judged for the position in totality! A lesson my mom taught me well.
Lacking a high school Hollywood studios would not hire my 1914 era mom as a seamstress, despite her sewing from age 7 in L.A. sweatshops. Determined a neighbor got her through a back door. The rest history as her work Oscar acclaimed via costumer Edith Head, Walt Disney and others including Bob Mackie, who she trained. “Get thru the door” — sadly and wrongly, locks and roadblocks remain in 2025. However, institutionalized ‘entitlement’ is not the answer.
I agree! I do not think many want an automatic job because they are the black, double amputee, blind woman. Most, even those in those classifications, just want an even playing field to be looked at.
The NFL saw this and did it with the Rooney Rule. The irony to this whole DEI argument is those that support the NFL, seem to have no problem with the Rooney Rule, but have problems with DEI. The irony is that the principles are the same, just the name is different.
Apparently written by Kamala Harris' speech writer, the EO is composed of vague, feel good bullcrap. How is the EO executed in practice? To hire unqualified candidates on the basis of skin color, sexual identity or other irrelevant qualities.
Remove the word HIRE. That is your fallacy. NOWHERE, that is in policy or practice, does it mean that you HIRE. It means that you do not exclude from the process.
DB: Just like FEMA recently claimed there was "no policy" to avoid providing disaster relief to homes with Trump signs. Weak sauce claiming there was no "policy". Yet the actual practice can provide plenty of examples there was a de facto polity after all.
This is now our reality check after 60 years of "equal opportunity" policy which did clear out the obvious and wrongful superficial barriers. However, a policy mandate to change all of society into a perfect human form is best left to one's personal religious choices and individual moral and ethical codes. It fails as a top down taxpayer driven government operation.
We have come a long way baby from the frank and literal discrimination of the 1950s. I contend this may be as far as we can ever go using government mandates or tax dollar dependent expenditures. Government cannot and should not act as Big Brother either.
You are using something that has been debunked over and over as a tie into something that is completely different. The FEMA situation is not as you are implying.
The last 60 years has not created equal opportunity. To me, I think you have an assumption that there is equal opportunity now. Studies show that is not the truth.
I think you are also mistaken in the role of Government. Government has and always will be big brother. Government drives behavior. I often tell people, the best way to understand life is to learn about the IRS. They look at me confused. I state, the IRS tells you everything. They reward you for behavior that they want and penalize you for behavior they do not want.
Our laws act the same way. You are free to murder someone. You are not free of the consequences for murdering someone. Our laws act as best as they can to induce you to NOT murder, because the consequences are known.
To steal a way of thinking that I always find funny . . . If you state that there is no discrimination and that these laws are not needed, then what is the harm of having them if everyone complies? I mean . . . jeeze, if you aren't breaking the law, it doesn't matter . . . does it? /end sarcasm.
DB: Please define a "systemic barriers" without resorting to superficial quota systems. That was the first weak link in the chain. Since we now have 60 years of "equal opportunity", let's reverse engineer the expectations and outcomes so we can be on the same page.
I myself support the recent SCOTUS rulings. To paraphrase, the way to mitigate past discrimination is to finally eliminate present discrimination. Correct me if I am wrong but your arguments appear to favor continuing discrimination and institutionalizing perpetual discrimination.
Here is a very simple illustration of how systemic barriers exist, again, this is a real life situation, now you can see how barriers exist and thus apply it to this topic.
Are you aware that lending rates are tied to a zip code? It is because of math. Math is being used as a form of discrimination. If you reside in Harlem, your rate will be higher than if you reside in Manhattan. What does that do?
These are things that are applied in hiring as well. DEI eliminates that. No longer will my resume be rejected based on my zip code. I now can be judged on merit.
See, your argument is interesting. I find it so interesting that people, yourself included, have not thought it through. Your argument is to return to a time prior to the CRA. The argument is that racism is over, discrimination is over, etc. If it is over, why is it over? Prior to the CRA, the vast majority of people agreed racism and discrimination existed. Why do you want to go back to that time?
Do you support micromanaging every aspect of the private sector until it reaches your version of nirvana?
I believe in businesses being allowed to make their own best business decisions, until the market choose not to support them. And the government not creating artificial barriers to formation of any business using artificial and superficial criteria. A conservative fundamental is free and competitive markets.
My argument and apparently SCOTUS agrees, it is time to move on beyond the CRA. Why did you instantly turn this argument into an automatic personal slur. You are not dealing the The View panelists.
We all want a better America, not for jus some but for all. Government micromanaging and vaguely defined outcomes is not the way to get there. So we move on; not backwards. Now go wash your mouth out with soap and get back into the game.
Do you support allowing every aspect of the private sector to do as it wishes, until it reaches your version of nirvana?
'I believe in businesses being allowed to make their own best business decisions, until the market choose not to support them. And the government not creating artificial barriers to formation of any business using artificial and superficial criteria. A conservative fundamental is free and competitive markets.'
I don't believe that is what you believe. As written, you are asking for anarchy. There is no such thing as a free market. This concept is something that a lot of people scratch their head about. We have no free markets! The day government was invented, free markets ended. The day that currency was invented, free markets ended.
The government always puts in barriers. They have to. Ask yourself, how many times has the government have to step in regarding business being too powerful? The Sherman anti-trust law was put in place because of what you claimed you want. Are you stating that you want monopolies?
Here is an anecdotal story to help illustrate a point you are trying to make. About 25 years ago I did a lot of work with Phillip Morris. These people were some of the smartest people I have ever met in my life. I spent time talking to them about the master settlement agreement (MSA) that was being put in place for the tobacco industry. What surprised me was that PM wanted it. They were at the table negotiating it with the government. I asked them why they wanted it. They stated, "It will be equal rules for all of us in the business. Once we know the rules, we feel confident that we can beat our competitors." The government became the official rule writer and PM became a player in the arena using those rules. I belive your argument is that you feel that PM should have never had those rules.
I agree, it is time to move beyond the CRA. It should be expanded. It should not be nullified. Our country had almost 200 years of history without the CRA to show how human behavior acts. We have had nearly 60 years to see it progress to not suppress classes that are not white men.
I think you are also misguided in generalizing what the government's role is. Do you want them micromanaging nuclear or do you want a free for all? I think the quote, your rights end at the tip of your nose, applies here :)
I have no idea what you mean regarding making this a personal slur. I have not done that.
Conservative fundamentals: Limited government; protection of private property, free and competitive markets and rule of law. Play your devils advocate games from those starting points; not one you use to skew your arguments upfront. BTW: I hope you are not pounding your computer right now on taxpayer time.
Limited government. What the heck does that mean? This is where the crux of the argument is. What you deem to be limited may not be what I deem to be limited. Who is right? What is the role of government to determine what is limited or not?
Protection of private property. Again, what does that mean? Does government protect you from bears? Does government protect you from airborne chemicals? Does government protect you from a noisy neighbor?
Free markets - I pointed out that is not an option. It can not be.
Competitive markets - so you want to have Walmart and Amazon go away? Both companies have done more destruction to businesses than anything else. They didn't compete, they used wall street to get where they are.
Rule of law - this is such a low hanging fruit and I tried hard to not go here. Are you happy or upset that Trump never went to trial? Are you happy that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders were pardoned?
And to expand on that concept, what about laws that change? And, what about laws that target specific classes/races? Do I need to bring up the crack vs. cocaine laws?
I read this article titled "Legal Perspective DEI Comes and Goes in Employment" by
Brent E. Zepke, Esq. I quote from same > "During his tenure, social media activity of Air Force recruits was screened for “extremist tendencies,” which raised concerns about weeding out conservatives. Meritocratic standards were diminished in favor of racial quotas, including modifying pilot training prerequisites to boost racial diversity at the expense of flight experience."
New Title "They Did Not Give A Damn About Competence or Performance"
Compare two most recent Commanders of the Airforce & Their Military Records>
Do you believe that teachers are hired based on ethnicity over competency? That sounds delusional. Well, actually, no it sounds accurate. There is only one sector of teaching that does not require credentials: PRIVATE. You can teach at a private school, regardless if it is religious or not without having any teaching credentials. The teaching credentials are requirements by the state. You know . . . to test competency.
And to demand a student do something. Yeah, good luck with that. You can lead a horse to water, you can't force the horse to drink.
If we were really to have equality we'd start with our public school system and the schools would 1) have teachers hired on the basis of their competency not ethnicity, and 2, demand the best from all students regardless of their ethnicity. Right now DEI is nothing but ideological b.s. from what Thomas Sowell brilliantly called “the anointed” class in his book “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as the Basis for Social Policy.” And that book should be required reading for any school teacher or school board member.
It is a fallacy that diversity intrinsically strengthens our society. The assumption that, in and of itself, diversity is by it's very nature good and enriching to our society and therefore it should be embraced in unlimited quantities is contrary to experience. An immigrant population of small size that is assimilable can benefit and enrich society. Hoards of barbarous invaders sequestered into communities that share neither language or culture with the rest of America is destructive to the stability and prosperity of our culture. It dilutes the cohesion that unites a people with a shared will to defend the status quo and renders an easily defeated foe. This is plausibly the intention of mass immigration and the effort to legitimize this population through DEI initiatives. Just as iron can be strengthened by the addition of a small amount of carbon to form carbon steel, the addition of too much carbon and the alloy is weakened. What we have here is closer to a lump of coal than to steel alloy.
Wow Jeff - e-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t !
DEI was the opposite of equal opportunity. Good riddance!
Most opened, fair minded people want to see minorities succeed and share in the blessings of this country. We all benefit as a society when we are integrated with others from varied backgrounds and perspectives. Yes, I believe in recruiting guidelines and hiring goals for well qualified applicants.
That said, what we have now is a bizarre and disturbing iteration of LBJ’s “Great Society.” Yes, forcing certain “groups” into high acuity positions can be unworkable, even disastrous in the case of commercial pilots. Which “groups” have benefited the most? Clearly, Black, Hispanic and apparently, LBGQT have now evolved into positions which were once traditionally held by white males. Are we better off as a society as a result? Depends who you talk to. Was putting a lesbian as LA Fire Chief the right call?…look at the results.
Too often, DEI was weaponized against others. For example, would you rather have a marginal Heart Surgeon who is Black, or a more experienced surgeon who is typically White, Asian, Indian or Jewish? Bottom line is people do what best for themselves, first and foremost, despite race.
The end result is DEI was weaponized illegally, used against white males and perpetrated by white liberals for transgressions against people of color who are no longer here by persons who similarly, are no longer here.
How does this move our society forward? Ask yourself, would having Transgenders storming the beaches at Iwo Jima improved the outcome?
Jeeze. Another crazy and ignorant to the subject matter post.
"For example, would you rather have a marginal Heart Surgeon who is Black, or a more experienced surgeon who is typically White, Asian, Indian or Jewish?" That is trying to paint a picture that the black surgeon is marginal. Why not write it this way? "For example, would you rather have a marginal Heart Surgeon who is White, Asian, Indian or Jewish, or a more experienced surgeon who is Black?
"Was putting a lesbian as LA Fire Chief the right call?…look at the results." Argh. Another completely ignorant statement because it fits an agenda.
She was EXTREMELY qualified. Let's see, top 50 out of 16,000. Been with the LAFD for over 20 years.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Crowley and https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-18/garcetti-names-new-lafd-fire-chief
The expansive view from the mountain top is missing in some posts here that display the writer’s outright bigotry, and tunnel vision.
DB: Time served inside the government employment cocoon is not a qualification for the next level up job. But it is proof of highly-honed government bureaucracy survival skills.
Big Government has lost its way. Which is why most Americans know something has gone wrong. Help fix it; don't justify its continuance.
Apparently they admitted morons to your law school, Counselor. Are you telling the rest of us standards have not been lowered by virtue of DEI?
https://www.outkick.com/analysis/ucla-medical-school-students-failing-thanks-dei-policies
Thank you for this excellent history using tax dollars to socially engineer vague and highly subjective mandates.
Silly me, I thought taxpayers paid government employees to carry out a specific and necessary, defined tasks. Not pay government employees for how they "feel" about getting steady paychecks, signed off our taxpayer accounts.
Productive work on its own is so soul-enhancing. I am sorry this has been taken out of the equation. DEI sounds like a collection derby of on the job resentments. "Our morale is bad" so pay us more money. What kind of incentivizing is that?
Please dear God, save the old-fashioned work ethic in America. An employee brings that to the job on their own; it is not later bought or sold for cash.
What did ya expect from that miserable Biden - what a complete fool.
I wonder what the Auto-Pen's pronouns were since he/she/it seemed to be the only one running the show.
Agree JL. As a result of 1965 major immigration changes into a country of origin quota system, combined with 1986 Reagan Amnesty plus open border realities, there’s mass entitlement to benefit programs, university admission, and jobs regardless of qualifications.
After gender/ sex added in 1972, I became a 1978 recipient of a high paying, big exec job post grad school at age 25, as the first female hire in that position in CA. (It was newsworthy.)
The difference from current DEI was 1) my hire was not mandated or rewarded, and 2) the CEO who hired me kept me at his side traveling the country for 3 years on “a short rope” while he personally trained me, gradually releasing his hold as I proved myself.
On multi-million dollar projects, he’d hire blacks and females — at his direct added expenses — to pair 1:1 with bond counsel, bankers, architects, contractors, fiscal pros, etc. The purpose was to train. We need more like him.
Wonder if City of Santa Barbara still has that DEI job opening?
Race Baiting is the major platform of the Democrat party. Maybe it is the only platform. They will use this in 2026. The party that invented the KKK is still at it. We are in a Civil War now as well as then. We must not let the KKK win this time either.
Author writes "[DEI]...is a movement to 'globalize' our culture." I have always been confused by what anglo-Americans consider to be "our culture." Unlike a geographic region where culture evolved over the centuries, similar evolved cultures in America were eradicated or forbidden to continue while immigrants from Europe brought their unique cultures with them. I hesitate to tell you this, since I thought everyone was already aware of it, but America's "culture" has been "globalized" since the first Dutch, Swedes, English, French, and Spanish colonizers stepped off their boats and onto America's shores. This weekend I will be wearing green and singing Irish songs of resistance in English with my African-American friends while eating Mexican tacos and drinking green-hued Lagerbier. America is a much better place because of its unique globalized hybrid culture. After the party maybe my wife and I will go out for some Italian tiramisu, or a glass of wine made from grapes brought to America from France! Erin go bragh! Slava Ukraini! AH! It is all "as American as apple pie"! (Even though there were never any apples in America until the Dutch arrived).
Stephen, you summed up why I love being an American. Cultures were brought here by immigrants who chose to learn and assimilate into America wherever they settled. That all changed in 1965 Nationality Act. Santa Barbara Native Margaret Sands Orchowski wrote a nationally acclaimed 5-star book on topic.
And my response did not even mention California's significant Asian and Pacific Islander contributions! Sushi, anyone? Kanpai! (乾杯)!!
You have a wife?
Yes, for more than 50 years. Her ancestors welcomed California's first "illegal aliens" in 1769 and survived the post-1848 anglo-American genocide.
I am just thankful you don't eat Russian dressing. I am told it is a favorite of Trump. Makes me wonder.
Of course, DEI was also a problem with regards to hiring highly technically competent people, such as aircraft controllers that help prevent air traffic accidents. Some things we simply need to hire the best people for the job ... period. Not waiting around for the politically correct person to come on the scene to satisfy these critical jobs. I recall woman six or seven engineers being hired out of UCSB in the early 80's. They all became project engineers, the task of keeping track of work. None could use a soldering iron <g>.
Merit vs. politics....?
Don't let the door hit you as you leave because of lousy decades old policies.
How about Docs who cannot match Med. School exams who are now determining what types of tests and med's you are supposed to get?
Goo, well laid out article, Brent, on the failed program of DEI into our government. My response to the negative naysayer commenters is simple. It DID NOT WORK. It created animosity and negativity across the board. As the old saying goes, :"the proof is in the pudding". It is not rocket science. Let the best and most qualified person get the job.
Excellent historical summation; an article worth sharing. I do wish Biden’s Exec Order was included or linked. Like too many government mandates, Biden’s DEI Exec Order failed in its overly bureaucratic, costly implementation and did not address the need for high quality mentorships, internships, and direct 1:1 training programs. Where the EO succeeded was reminding us again of the importance equal opportunity/fair play in admissions and hiring; the need for unserved citizens, zip codes, communities to be given opportunities which we collectively ignore. (CA offers limitless opportunities depending on where you live.)
Wrongly, too many universities, government and other employers, interpreted DEI as an ‘all-comers accept and tolerate’ mandate to admit or hire. This version of DEI must end.
FYI: Biden’s EO is the first link at the top of the story.
As an attorney, why you chose to cherry pick situations and call them DEI instead of reading the EO boggles my mind. It is as if you already had an answer, that was hunting for a question.
If you bothered to post the EO that Biden signed, it would show integrity and honesty on your part. You neglected to do that. Here is the most relevant section of the EO. "This will include efforts to remove systemic barriers to and provide equal access to opportunities and benefits, identify communities the Federal Government has underserved, and develop policies designed to advance equity for those communities." source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01753/advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government
DEI is NOT like what you mentioned. It is not like what you mentioned in the 1960s after the Civil Rights law was passed. DEI is about an opportunity to BE interviewed. It is about removing the barriers to even being interviewed. Ask yourself why does the author of the Harry Potter novels go by JK Rowling instead of Joanne Rowling? It was because no one would read her manuscripts before because they didn't want women authors. Ask yourself why resumes went from names like, "Shawanda Smith" to S. Smith. It was because it was a means to identify what the employer thought was a 'black' sounding name and thus never interview them. DEI made that illegal. DEI allowed people to know that they would at least get a 'fairer' shot.
The federal government mission is to serve all citizens of the United States. So there should be NO “under served communities” at all if they’re doing the job they’re supposed to. I would argue that many communities have been overserved with preferential treatment for over 60 years now. Look how well that’s turned out for those communities. Everyone should be treated the same/equally. This way everyone has the opportunity to succeed based on how willing they are to improve themselves. It is not the rest of our responsibility to make sure they improve themselves by giving.(by way of taxes.) our hard earned money to make sure that they do improve themselves. That is up to each individual. A merit based system will achieve the highest possible outcomes. The government should not be the arbiter of fairness as they cannot be, should not be everywhere all at once. if they stick their noses in to make things “fairer” then they are not. This simply means they are tipping the scales for this person or that person or this race or that race or this sex versus that sex. I believe you’re thinking is flawed and you should look deeper into the results.
Ok, try creating paragraphs. It is a lot easier to read.
You contradict yourself. If you believe the mission of the government is to serve all citizens, then that should be the policy that is implemented. It has not been though.
Here, let me illustrate a very simple situation that did occur. Gays in the military. Are there not gay US citizens? Did they get into the military because they were gay? No, they got into the military based on merit. What happened under Clinton? The "don't ask, don't tell' policy. Prior to that policy, a gay person felt that they could not even apply. After that policy, some more applied. Then under Obama, the repeal of that law, it brought the US, as the LAST developed nation, to allow openly gay members in the military. Yes, THE LAST.
Now you state that a merit based system will achieve the highest possible outcome. What makes you think that DEI ignores that? You are believing that someone is HIRED because they are in a marginalized class. That is NOT DEI. DEI is not a quota system. DEI is not a guarantee that a black, double amputee, blind woman, without a JD is hired as an attorney for the DOJ over someone who is white, has a jd, and 30 years of experience. This is what it sounds like you believe happens. The merit system exists. Well, sort of. Want to talk about Trump's cabinet picks? Who is in charge of HHS? What is HIS qualifications? Who is in charge of the pentagon? What is HIS qualifications. There is your proof that the system is rigged.
OK, again your first paragraph states the government does not implement a policy that serves all. Exactly! My point precisely. It overserved some at the expense of others.
Paragraph two. For your reading ease. Again, you illustrate my point brilliantly. The army lowered standards to allow women into the armed forces, gay, or not, which helps to overserved such persons. I don’t believe that it’s a problem for gays to be in the military and never was. As long as they adhere to the military codes, there would never be a problem with it. being openly, gay,(I’m assuming this means showing sexual preferences towards others) would be breaking military code. Just keep it in your pants and don’t creep out others is all they would have to do to join the military if they’re calling was to protect the United States. just a question because I don’t know, does China or Russia allow “openly
Gay” persons in their military? I don’t see being last as a big problem. Our military has been first in so many other things.
Yes, DEI is exactly a quote system designed to add more minorities into whatever organization that is utilizing it. it does promote hiring a marginalized class over someone that is more qualified. That is the whole point of it. otherwise, what would it accomplish?
Your last point is just low hanging fruit brought to us by all the liberal talking points. You see regurgitated by the lame stream media. President Trump was duly elected by the people of the United States of America. He is entitled to hire whoever he wants to these positions along with The advise and consent authority of Congress. Are you a lawyer you sound more like a schoolgirl with an ax to grind.
I would advise anyone looking to hire a lawyer to look elsewhere. You do not seem to understand even the basics of how our government is set up. What I’m seeing here is an ambulance chaser.
Aww. I touched a nerve. You have to go to personal insults because your argument is weak and it has been exposed as a fraud.
I speak for my self. I have my own mind. I read. I look at things objectively.
The army lowering standards to allow women . . . are you @%^ing kidding me? The standards for the military have adjusted numerous times. It has been lowered to allow MEN into the military. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2024/April/Aligning-Recruiting-Standards-with-Evolving-Health-Trends/ That is just recent. There is a history of standards evolving.
You are also making a HUGE assumption and neglecting to see the difference. Allowing someone into the military does not equal them being in a combat position. There is one requirement to be possibly put in combat and that is you are in the military. The second, that is up to the branch and what they do to the person. There are plenty of cooks, MPs, truck drivers, pencil pushers, etc. that are in the military that are men. They didn't pass the PHYSICAL test to get into the combat roles, they are in support roles.
When you ignore the concept of merit to allow for non-merit based people to be in charge of the largest employer in the world, your argument about DEI and non-merit based hiring is shot out the window. This is not a principle belief of yours. Either you believe that the best person be hired or not. Thanks for proving the point that you don't believe in merit, you believe in something else.
No personal insult intended. Just merely an observation of your reasoning skills. If you took it as an insult, it must have hit Home.
"Are you a lawyer you sound more like a schoolgirl with an ax to grind.
I would advise anyone looking to hire a lawyer to look elsewhere. You do not seem to understand even the basics of how our government is set up. What I’m seeing here is an ambulance chaser."
That is what you wrote. You are disingenuous.
If you want to stay civil, you discuss the topic, not the person. You chose to discuss the person.
I will point out that the points that you are making are not backed up by written policies or by actions of people, in large. Sure, there will be some isolated cases where someone is hired because of some reason you do not like. But again, ONE does not mean the same as ALL. Just like there is one immigrant who over stayed his/her visa, that got a gun and shot someone. That does not mean all are that way.
Merit measures by tasks required and outcomes necessary to fulfill those tasks.
That does not seem to be the definition of employment. This is:
'A hiring philosophy that selects candidates based on their skills, experience, and qualifications'
WOW, Brian. That’s not what I read in David’s post. Rather, my take away was fairness of opportunity to be considered.
I apologize. My comment was written for Mr. Bergman, who took exception with the original post.
Respectfully, you are full of crap.
I am dumber for reading your highly intelligent response.
If possible
Ok Jeff and David give some concrete examples because I just
did and have actual experience in Naval Operations of same.
See my posts above.
Jeff, it was great to read your comments during my seven weeks in Cottage Hospital. Please keep it up.
David Bergerson. You are an Attorney? Yes please do read Biden's EO
it is legal nightmare > "identify communities the Federal Government has underserved"
I have been there in the Federal Government back in the 1980s and everyone
got a chance because I worked right next to them.
What utter Nonsense.
Also Please comment on these Naval Proceedings?
https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/01/us/female-submariners/index.html
And It Works Both Ways>
https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/navy-commander-prostitution/
I read the EO. I linked the EO. I posted from the EO. It is NOT utter nonsense.
DEI is not saying I am hiring you because you are in some marginalized or underrepresented class. That is the biggest fallacy that people have about it. It is about stating I will at least not exclude you from the hiring process.
Hello David Bergenson, those rights are already protected. You do not need
to have an EO which is going beyond those rights and create additional rights for a
special class. If EVERYONE is all that concerned go into CONGRESS and PASS THAT DEI LAW. Also placing, for example, women in combat roles is not working.
See the Navy Proceedings I weblinked and I can give you alot more. In fact, the first
women they placed in the Ohio Class Submarines up and Bangor they had real problems and kept it quiet, same in the Air Force.
So you are going to keep going to prove your point while ignoring the reality of the situation. Hmm. At what point will you admit that your point is incorrect?
The Civil Rights act gave us protected classes. Those classes were protected from discrimination. Now, read the EO. Hopefully, you can understand it and be objective. The EO stated that 'recruitment' should be everywhere, not just specific locations. Do you even know what that means? In essence, it means, do not exclude applicants from Compton, while only taking them from Beverly Hills. You are correct, that is not codified in the CRA, but think about that simple action. It means that a person in Compton, has an opportunity to present themselves and be hired on merit, whereas in the past, they were never given an opportunity.
Women in combat roles. Are you !@%@ing serious? You want to remove all women from combat because two women committed fraud? That is so incredibly absurd. I don't even have to GOOGLE anything. By YOUR logic, there should be NO men in the military because I know someone committed fraud.
Let me help you with some English.
Some does not equal all. There, it is that simple. Will there be some _____ that do things wrong? Of course. Fill in the blank with any sex, religion, age, color, etc. There is no perfect _____.
David I gave you a few examples on misconduct and sexual misconduct
in the Military Service. There are many many more. The Point, there is
a HUGE problem in Military Service where say women are in combat
roles, not quasi combat but in physically demanding combat roles
and creating an EO to supposedly skim over these problems is not going
to work. Also many Military Families now want nothing to do with DEI
or it's real-life problems so they leave, and they do not plan to come back.
I am in that category and so are many of my friends. There are very real exceptional cases here is one>https://coffeeordie.com/shannon-kent
There are very very few women like Shannon Kent. They literally referred
to her as "The Legend" as the article states.
Again, you are moving the goal posts. You wanted all women removed because 2 committed fraud. That is absurd.
Now you want to remove them from physically demanding roles. Ok, how many of those are there?
And, speak for yourself, do not speak on behalf of others. I think the whole concept of a gold star family is wrong. The family didn't sacrifice their child. The child chose to go into the military knowing the risks of going into the military. If anything, it should be the children of fallen military that took the hit. I am one of those. My father died in the military while I was extremely young. That is the sacrifice. I can tell you that as a 'military' family, I don't agree with your take. Thus, speak for yourself, do not bring in others.
And your comments about women in the military are completely absurd and sexist. It fails to give credit to all the women who have served in militaries in our country's long history over various conflicts.
What you post is true to my life experiences. Resumes can hide gender and race, which face to face interviews cannot. Interviews can assess an applicants potential, eagerness, determination, and work standard. The challenge is getting thru the door to be judged for the position in totality! A lesson my mom taught me well.
Lacking a high school Hollywood studios would not hire my 1914 era mom as a seamstress, despite her sewing from age 7 in L.A. sweatshops. Determined a neighbor got her through a back door. The rest history as her work Oscar acclaimed via costumer Edith Head, Walt Disney and others including Bob Mackie, who she trained. “Get thru the door” — sadly and wrongly, locks and roadblocks remain in 2025. However, institutionalized ‘entitlement’ is not the answer.
I agree! I do not think many want an automatic job because they are the black, double amputee, blind woman. Most, even those in those classifications, just want an even playing field to be looked at.
The NFL saw this and did it with the Rooney Rule. The irony to this whole DEI argument is those that support the NFL, seem to have no problem with the Rooney Rule, but have problems with DEI. The irony is that the principles are the same, just the name is different.
"As an attorney, why you chose to cherry pick situations and call them DEI instead of reading the EO boggles my mind.."
It's because he's an attorney.
Apparently written by Kamala Harris' speech writer, the EO is composed of vague, feel good bullcrap. How is the EO executed in practice? To hire unqualified candidates on the basis of skin color, sexual identity or other irrelevant qualities.
Remove the word HIRE. That is your fallacy. NOWHERE, that is in policy or practice, does it mean that you HIRE. It means that you do not exclude from the process.
DB: Just like FEMA recently claimed there was "no policy" to avoid providing disaster relief to homes with Trump signs. Weak sauce claiming there was no "policy". Yet the actual practice can provide plenty of examples there was a de facto polity after all.
This is now our reality check after 60 years of "equal opportunity" policy which did clear out the obvious and wrongful superficial barriers. However, a policy mandate to change all of society into a perfect human form is best left to one's personal religious choices and individual moral and ethical codes. It fails as a top down taxpayer driven government operation.
We have come a long way baby from the frank and literal discrimination of the 1950s. I contend this may be as far as we can ever go using government mandates or tax dollar dependent expenditures. Government cannot and should not act as Big Brother either.
Mr. Livingston,
You are using something that has been debunked over and over as a tie into something that is completely different. The FEMA situation is not as you are implying.
The last 60 years has not created equal opportunity. To me, I think you have an assumption that there is equal opportunity now. Studies show that is not the truth.
I think you are also mistaken in the role of Government. Government has and always will be big brother. Government drives behavior. I often tell people, the best way to understand life is to learn about the IRS. They look at me confused. I state, the IRS tells you everything. They reward you for behavior that they want and penalize you for behavior they do not want.
Our laws act the same way. You are free to murder someone. You are not free of the consequences for murdering someone. Our laws act as best as they can to induce you to NOT murder, because the consequences are known.
To steal a way of thinking that I always find funny . . . If you state that there is no discrimination and that these laws are not needed, then what is the harm of having them if everyone complies? I mean . . . jeeze, if you aren't breaking the law, it doesn't matter . . . does it? /end sarcasm.
DB: Please define a "systemic barriers" without resorting to superficial quota systems. That was the first weak link in the chain. Since we now have 60 years of "equal opportunity", let's reverse engineer the expectations and outcomes so we can be on the same page.
I myself support the recent SCOTUS rulings. To paraphrase, the way to mitigate past discrimination is to finally eliminate present discrimination. Correct me if I am wrong but your arguments appear to favor continuing discrimination and institutionalizing perpetual discrimination.
I will correct your assumption about my argument.
Here is a very simple illustration of how systemic barriers exist, again, this is a real life situation, now you can see how barriers exist and thus apply it to this topic.
Are you aware that lending rates are tied to a zip code? It is because of math. Math is being used as a form of discrimination. If you reside in Harlem, your rate will be higher than if you reside in Manhattan. What does that do?
These are things that are applied in hiring as well. DEI eliminates that. No longer will my resume be rejected based on my zip code. I now can be judged on merit.
See, your argument is interesting. I find it so interesting that people, yourself included, have not thought it through. Your argument is to return to a time prior to the CRA. The argument is that racism is over, discrimination is over, etc. If it is over, why is it over? Prior to the CRA, the vast majority of people agreed racism and discrimination existed. Why do you want to go back to that time?
Do you support micromanaging every aspect of the private sector until it reaches your version of nirvana?
I believe in businesses being allowed to make their own best business decisions, until the market choose not to support them. And the government not creating artificial barriers to formation of any business using artificial and superficial criteria. A conservative fundamental is free and competitive markets.
My argument and apparently SCOTUS agrees, it is time to move on beyond the CRA. Why did you instantly turn this argument into an automatic personal slur. You are not dealing the The View panelists.
We all want a better America, not for jus some but for all. Government micromanaging and vaguely defined outcomes is not the way to get there. So we move on; not backwards. Now go wash your mouth out with soap and get back into the game.
Ok, let me play opposites with you.
Do you support allowing every aspect of the private sector to do as it wishes, until it reaches your version of nirvana?
'I believe in businesses being allowed to make their own best business decisions, until the market choose not to support them. And the government not creating artificial barriers to formation of any business using artificial and superficial criteria. A conservative fundamental is free and competitive markets.'
I don't believe that is what you believe. As written, you are asking for anarchy. There is no such thing as a free market. This concept is something that a lot of people scratch their head about. We have no free markets! The day government was invented, free markets ended. The day that currency was invented, free markets ended.
The government always puts in barriers. They have to. Ask yourself, how many times has the government have to step in regarding business being too powerful? The Sherman anti-trust law was put in place because of what you claimed you want. Are you stating that you want monopolies?
Here is an anecdotal story to help illustrate a point you are trying to make. About 25 years ago I did a lot of work with Phillip Morris. These people were some of the smartest people I have ever met in my life. I spent time talking to them about the master settlement agreement (MSA) that was being put in place for the tobacco industry. What surprised me was that PM wanted it. They were at the table negotiating it with the government. I asked them why they wanted it. They stated, "It will be equal rules for all of us in the business. Once we know the rules, we feel confident that we can beat our competitors." The government became the official rule writer and PM became a player in the arena using those rules. I belive your argument is that you feel that PM should have never had those rules.
I agree, it is time to move beyond the CRA. It should be expanded. It should not be nullified. Our country had almost 200 years of history without the CRA to show how human behavior acts. We have had nearly 60 years to see it progress to not suppress classes that are not white men.
I think you are also misguided in generalizing what the government's role is. Do you want them micromanaging nuclear or do you want a free for all? I think the quote, your rights end at the tip of your nose, applies here :)
I have no idea what you mean regarding making this a personal slur. I have not done that.
Conservative fundamentals: Limited government; protection of private property, free and competitive markets and rule of law. Play your devils advocate games from those starting points; not one you use to skew your arguments upfront. BTW: I hope you are not pounding your computer right now on taxpayer time.
I am a taxpayer, it is my time.
Limited government. What the heck does that mean? This is where the crux of the argument is. What you deem to be limited may not be what I deem to be limited. Who is right? What is the role of government to determine what is limited or not?
Protection of private property. Again, what does that mean? Does government protect you from bears? Does government protect you from airborne chemicals? Does government protect you from a noisy neighbor?
Free markets - I pointed out that is not an option. It can not be.
Competitive markets - so you want to have Walmart and Amazon go away? Both companies have done more destruction to businesses than anything else. They didn't compete, they used wall street to get where they are.
Rule of law - this is such a low hanging fruit and I tried hard to not go here. Are you happy or upset that Trump never went to trial? Are you happy that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders were pardoned?
And to expand on that concept, what about laws that change? And, what about laws that target specific classes/races? Do I need to bring up the crack vs. cocaine laws?
I read this article titled "Legal Perspective DEI Comes and Goes in Employment" by
Brent E. Zepke, Esq. I quote from same > "During his tenure, social media activity of Air Force recruits was screened for “extremist tendencies,” which raised concerns about weeding out conservatives. Meritocratic standards were diminished in favor of racial quotas, including modifying pilot training prerequisites to boost racial diversity at the expense of flight experience."
New Title "They Did Not Give A Damn About Competence or Performance"
Compare two most recent Commanders of the Airforce & Their Military Records>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Q._Brown_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Goldfein
If you know what you are looking at Goldfein is more experienced than Brown.
Look at Their Hours in the Cockpit. There were alot more Aviators more Experienced than Brown.
My Grandfather, Colonel Howard Z. Bogert had more Air Hours than both Brown and Goldfein
Combined and reported Directly to our first three Amy Air Corp Commanders.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0982thunderbolt/
There has been an overall reduction in flight hours and experience as time has progressed
resulting in a loss of combat readiness. Anyone flying knows this. We have serious problems.
Not to diminish General Brown's Record, which is admirable.
Howard Walther Member of a Military Family
Mr. Zepke,
So it looks like we’re headed back to where whites are hired first, even if they aren’t as qualified as a minority? trump will be happy with that.
Do you believe that teachers are hired based on ethnicity over competency? That sounds delusional. Well, actually, no it sounds accurate. There is only one sector of teaching that does not require credentials: PRIVATE. You can teach at a private school, regardless if it is religious or not without having any teaching credentials. The teaching credentials are requirements by the state. You know . . . to test competency.
And to demand a student do something. Yeah, good luck with that. You can lead a horse to water, you can't force the horse to drink.