Social University of Florida fires all DEI employees, halts contracts

[BFoe]

Yeah, you gotta get that fixed-it’s broken. Yea, I know what they claim it means, but it is basically “anyone but white people.”

My wife has been interviewing for university president/provost jobs and that is always one of the questions-“what have you done for dei in your university?” And my wife is like “hello, I am a female” and someone pointed out “yes, a white female.”

I welcomed her to the bottom a few years ago

Ohhh that’s what it means, “anyone but white people.” Got it.

Except it doesn’t. Not at my company. My gf is in HR, it doesn’t mean that for her or her company either. But I understand: white conservatives got tired of hearing about how many things needed to be fixed for other people, and probably sick of people questioning why they never try to make anything better for those people, and thought:
“Hey, we can out-victim them! We’re the *real* victims! Woe is us, for the hard path we must walk as a (white, cisgendered, heterosexual, Christian, fill in the blank….) person!”

Yawn. Carry on.

 

[nhbbear]

Ohhh that’s what it means, “anyone but white people.” Got it.

Except it doesn’t. Not at my company. My gf is in HR, it doesn’t mean that for her or her company ðffefe defer

If more diversity is your goal through dei, than by definition,
You don’t want the most over represented group to be hired. In this country, that is white people. In order to not declare war on an entire race, you have to creat a totem pole type of scenario in which you rank while you want to hire and who your don’t want to hire.

If you are trying to increase diversity, you want to avoid the mode in statistics-the most reoccurring number, in dei, that Means that it is straight white males on the bottom of the totem pole.

It is debatable whether Asian males or white females come next on the bottom of the pole. Then you have your gay white males, gay females, and so on. The current golden unicorn is black females with trans black female being the optimal result.

So, yo sum up, if you don’t hire a certain group because you want to avoid that group (straight white males) therefore, avoiding hiring straight white males in order to add diversity makes hiring white males the last thing you would want to do, so you avoid hiring white males, making dei discriminatory in nature.

Dei is discriminatory pure and simple

 

[shockaholic12]

What offends me is you blatantly lying about what I said again. Thanks for not letting me down.

I quoted exactly what you said.

You bring this bullshit up in a thread about DEI but then throw your hands up and get all sensitive when I point out these associations are bullshit and claim to be misunderstood while failing to explain why you are bringing these things up in the thread about DEI if you aren't associating them with DEI.

Try and use your use words like a big boy and explain why you would post "Why would you think it would be a simple generalization to say that people want to work with others who actually do their jobs and do them well? Or that they want their supervisors to fire poor performers? How is that not something workers in the real world would support? What goes on in your head to make you think my comments are so far fetched?" in a thread about DEI if you aren't claiming DEI perpetuates hiring people who don't do their job and not firing them?

Have a spine and stand behind what you posted instead of whining I'm a liar.

 

[shockaholic12]

If more diversity is your goal through dei, than by definition,
You don’t want the most over represented group to be hired. In this country, that is white people. In order to not declare war on an entire race, you have to creat a totem pole type of scenario in which you rank while you want to hire and who your don’t want to hire.

If you are trying to increase diversity, you want to avoid the mode in statistics-the most reoccurring number, in dei, that Means that it is straight white males on the bottom of the totem pole.

It is debatable whether Asian males or white females come next on the bottom of the pole. Then you have your gay white males, gay females, and so on. The current golden unicorn is black females with trans black female being the optimal result.

So, yo sum up, if you don’t hire a certain group because you want to avoid that group (straight white males) therefore, avoiding hiring straight white males in order to add diversity makes hiring white males the last thing you would want to do, so you avoid hiring white males, making dei discriminatory in nature.

Dei is discriminatory pure and simple

The achieve a diverse workforce you can't exclude any one group in hiring, including white people. That would achieve the opposite of diversity. You're describing an environment where many white people successfully get a role in this hypothetical company and then claiming if the company recognizes the benefits of diversifying and also hires for different traits at times to diversify the team, then suddenly those previous white hires no longer count and white people are a victim on a team ....where they have achieved full representation.

If white people were being regularly discriminated against in hiring, why you would you need to diversify your team from being mostly white? You're not making any sense.

If a white person can speak spanish fluently and has experience working with spanish speaking communities, working abroad, etc. Then hiring them to a team of white folks who aren't bilingual and don't have international work experience is adding diversity. If white folks want to compete with diverse folks, they should grab those bootstrings, pull themselves up by them, and go diversify their experience. Go learn a 2nd and 3rd language, go work abroad, make yourself a more attractive employee instead of crying victimhood on the internet.

My wife is white, speaks 3 languages fluently, has lived in worked in south america for years. Constantly gets jobs and promotions because the diversity in her background makes her an asset in LA where spanish is common. She didn't throw these bitch fits that her white east coast background wasn't an asset, she got to work and made herself a more attractive hire.

 

[spamking]

I quoted exactly what you said.

You bring this bullshit up in a thread about DEI but then throw your hands up and get all sensitive when I point out these associations are bullshit and claim to be misunderstood while failing to explain why you are bringing these things up in the thread about DEI if you aren't associating them with DEI.

Try and use your use words like a big boy and explain why you would post "Why would you think it would be a simple generalization to say that people want to work with others who actually do their jobs and do them well? Or that they want their supervisors to fire poor performers? How is that not something workers in the real world would support? What goes on in your head to make you think my comments are so far fetched?" in a thread about DEI if you aren't claiming DEI perpetuates hiring people who don't do their job and not firing them?

Have a spine and stand behind what you posted instead of whining I'm a liar.

Wow. You really do have issues.

 

[spamking]

If DEI is mired in constantly hiring people who can’t do the job they hired to do….why do the companies who use it find increases in productivity, employee retention, capturing new markets, etc?

If what you claimed was true they should be doing much worse, not better.

Yes, because every job and work environment is the exact same.

 

[shockaholic12]

Wow. You really do have issues.

I don’t have any isssues explaining and standing by anything I post here. You seem to have big issues there and run from it like you are here.

Yes, because every job and work environment is the exact same.

Never said they were. But again no one has posted a stitch of evidence to support DEI hiring people who can’t do the job, whereas I have posted evidence that diversified companies perform better.

So the reality seems to be a vast majority of the time when diversity is a part of hiring, the job is still getting done by those hired to do it. And done better.

The assertions you and others have made, that people don’t do their jobs do to DEI, doesn’t seem to have any evidence supporting it generally being true or common practice. That’s why @RoastBeast can’t answer the simple question

 

[RoastBeast]

If DEI is mired in constantly hiring people who can’t do the job they hired to do….why do the companies who use it find increases in productivity, employee retention, capturing new markets, etc?

If what you claimed was true they should be doing much worse, not better.

Because they don't. I know you found a study or two that says so but how long has DEI been around for and how much data can actually be captured? Correlation is not causation. Of course the people funding these studies are going to want to paint DEI in a positive light because it's the new left wing radical ideology that they need to force on people. Most companies in America are diverse by nature because America is diverse.

Common sense tells you that hiring based on immutable characteristics is not how you hire the best people for the job. You can show me studies all day long that say it's better but common sense wins out here. The best person for the job is what's best for the company and the color of their skin, their sexual orientation or whatever makes up their private parts is irrelevant as long as they're the best person for the job.

 

[Beechwood]

I'm glad that has happened here in Florida. I can remember reading in the past that Universities here in the sunshine state didn't seem to be all that excited about DEI anyway. When governor DeSantis pushed the issue to remove DEI the universities seemed happy to do so.

Would be nice if the military did away with DEI.

DEI Destroys Excellence, Military Cohesion at Service Academies​

DEI Destroys Excellence, Military Cohesion at Service Academies | The Gateway Pundit | by Guest Contributor

This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire By Bruce Fleming Real Clear Wire This is an excerpt from Bruce Fleming’s new book, Saving Our Service Academies (Post Hill Press). Applicants who self-identified as a member of a race the Academy wished to privilege—at the time I was on the...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[spamking]

I don’t have any isssues explaining and standing by anything I post here. You seem to have big issues there and run from it like you are here.

I've already address this . . . I've explained several times EXACTLY what I said and meant in my comments. YOU choosing to infer things not said and insert your own take on my comments is a YOU problem.

Never said they were. But again no one has posted a stitch of evidence to support DEI hiring people who can’t do the job, whereas I have posted evidence that diversified companies perform better.

So the reality seems to be a vast majority of the time when diversity is a part of hiring, the job is still getting done by those hired to do it. And done better.

The assertions you and others have made, that people don’t do their jobs do to DEI, doesn’t seem to have any evidence supporting it generally being true or common practice. That’s why @RoastBeast can’t answer the simple question

How many freaking times do I need to tell you that you made this up in your head because you are a biased person when it comes to DEI. You most definitely believe that your stance applies across the board to all work environments or you'd be able to grasp the validity of what I've actually said and not what you THINK I've said. There are cases where DEI hiring might be perfectly acceptable and the right decision for a particular job. Just as there are cases where a more skilled "non-DEI hire" would be better.

For the 100th time, I didn't say people don't do their jobs do to DEI. I said people want to work with individuals who do their job and those who don't do the job to get fired. Most of us don't focus on the DEI aspect of our team until it becomes a problem. My comments are based on my experience of when it has presented a problem. That's it. Then you got all butthurt about how my experience is different than yours and decided to ramble on for page after page completely ignoring what I've actually said. So just stop . . . please.

 

[RoastBeast]

I've already address this . . . I've explained several times EXACTLY what I said and meant in my comments. YOU choosing to infer things not said and insert your own take on my comments is a YOU problem.



How many freaking times do I need to tell you that you made this up in your head because you are a biased person when it comes to DEI. You most definitely believe that your stance applies across the board to all work environments or you'd be able to grasp the validity of what I've actually said and not what you THINK I've said. There are cases where DEI hiring might be perfectly acceptable and the right decision for a particular job. Just as there are cases where a more skilled "non-DEI hire" would be better.

For the 100th time, I didn't say people don't do their jobs do to DEI. I said people want to work with individuals who do their job and those who don't do the job to get fired. Most of us don't focus on the DEI aspect of our team until it becomes a problem. My comments are based on my experience of when it has presented a problem. That's it. Then you got all butthurt about how my experience is different than yours and decided to ramble on for page after page completely ignoring what I've actually said. So just stop . . . please.

Don't waste your time. I've already had this same conversation, as well as plenty others with Shock. He's not capable of having an honest conversation and will just strawman the hell out of you until you give up.

 

[shockaholic12]

Because they don't. I know you found a study or two that says so but how long has DEI been around for and how much data can actually be captured? Correlation is not causation. Of course the people funding these studies are going to want to paint DEI in a positive light because it's the new left wing radical ideology that they need to force on people. Most companies in America are diverse by nature because America is diverse.

Common sense tells you that hiring based on immutable characteristics is not how you hire the best people for the job. You can show me studies all day long that say it's better but common sense wins out here. The best person for the job is what's best for the company and the color of their skin, their sexual orientation or whatever makes up their private parts is irrelevant as long as they're the best person for the job.

Companies have been focusing on diversifying for decades. The studies come from everywhere snd are not just companies focusing funding research on themselves. When you get to the point you’re arguing research and studies aren’t of value you know you’re coming from a weak point.

The best person for the job is the one who makes said company the most competitive. Adding diversity it’s a trait companies find valuable and studies prove it so it will be valued in hiring. This is capitalism. You want companies to ignore the big picture in hiring, that’s dumb.

 

[RoastBeast]

Companies have been focusing on diversifying for decades. The studies come from everywhere snd are not just companies focusing funding research on themselves. When you get to the point you’re arguing research and studies aren’t of value you know you’re coming from a weak point.

The best person for the job is the one who makes said company the most competitive. Adding diversity it’s a trait companies find valuable and studies prove it so it will be valued in hiring. This is capitalism. You want companies to ignore the big picture in hiring, that’s dumb.

Again for the eleventeenth time, it's illegal for companies to hire based on immutable characteristics.

Do these studies do a comparison of companies whose hiring practices are unlawful vs. companies who are hiring legally? If so, are the companies that are breaking the law more successful than the companies that are not?

Common sense also tells you that hiring based on immutable characteristics, which is what DEI is, will get you candidates that are not the best for the job because no part of DEI is about hiring on merit, it's solely about hiring on immutable characteristics.

Either companies are breaking the law and hiring based on immutable characteristics or they are not breaking the law and your studies are just correlating the normal amount of diversity you see in the workforce as the driving cause for success.

 

[shockaholic12]

Again for the eleventeenth time, it's illegal for companies to hire based on immutable characteristics.

Do these studies do a comparison of companies whose hiring practices are unlawful vs. companies who are hiring legally? If so, are the companies that are breaking the law more successful than the companies that are not?

Common sense also tells you that hiring based on immutable characteristics, which is what DEI is, will get you candidates that are not the best for the job because no part of DEI is about hiring on merit, it's solely about hiring on immutable characteristics.

Either companies are breaking the law and hiring based on immutable characteristics or they are not breaking the law and your studies are just correlating the normal amount of diversity you see in the workforce as the driving cause for success.

The point is DEI was never just about immutable characteristics. That’s why diversifying makes companies more successful. DEI helps locate qualified candidates who also add diversity. They don’t just say check box yes or no if you’re in this demo and you’re hired. You have to pretend it’s doing something it doesn’t to justify being offended by it.

 

[RoastBeast]

The point is DEI was never just about immutable characteristics. That’s why diversifying makes companies more successful. DEI helps locate qualified candidates who also add diversity. They don’t just say check box yes or no if you’re in this demo and you’re hired. You have to pretend it’s doing something it doesn’t to justify being offended by it.

Diverse from what exactly? If a company has two candidates, one is considered diverse while the other is not. What makes candidate A diverse and candidate B not diverse?

 

[shockaholic12]

Diverse from what exactly? If a company has two candidates, one is considered diverse while the other is not. What makes candidate A diverse and candidate B not diverse?

You are not diverse from any one demographic. That’s not how the word works. That implies excluding a group which is the opposite of diversifying.

You diversify from a state homogeneity. What is making said work place homogenous can be any number of traits. If I have a team of white folks and I add another who has the unique trait of speaking fluent Spanish then I have added diversity.

 

[nhbbear]

The achieve a diverse workforce you can't exclude any one group in hiring, including white people. That would achieve the opposite of diversity. You're describing an environment where many white people successfully get a role in this hypothetical company and then claiming if the company recognizes the benefits of diversifying and also hires for different traits at times to diversify the team, then suddenly those previous white hires no longer count and white people are a victim on a team ....where they have achieved full representation.

If white people were being regularly discriminated against in hiring, why you would you need to diversify your team from being mostly white? You're not making any sense.

If a white person can speak spanish fluently and has experience working with spanish speaking communities, working abroad, etc. Then hiring them to a team of white folks who aren't bilingual and don't have international work experience is adding diversity. If white folks want to compete with diverse folks, they should grab those bootstrings, pull themselves up by them, and go diversify their experience. Go learn a 2nd and 3rd language, go work abroad, make yourself a more attractive employee instead of crying victimhood on the internet.

My wife is white, speaks 3 languages fluently, has lived in worked in south america for years. Constantly gets jobs and promotions because the diversity in her background makes her an asset in LA where spanish is common. She didn't throw these bitch fits that her white east coast background wasn't an asset, she got to work and made herself a more attractive hire.

Yeah, we have had this same conversation several times. So, rather than make It so you can’t discriminate against white people or anyone else, your answer is to make myself too good to pass up-to make it so they want me more than they want that window dressing. So, I need to be well overqualified and speak a bunch of languages to give me an edge to compete against others that don’t speak additional languages. Just grab them little bootstraps and pull.

If someone brings something different to the table such as new skills or abilities, fine-hire them. But looking at you team and saying “we have too many white people-we are not hiring any more of those” or “you know what we need? A black person in the office.” These conversations should never happen. Race shouldn’t matter. You hire the best people and if the best person for the job is a white person every time, you shouldn’t have to not hire that person because you’re afraid someone might say your company is too Lilly white.

Personally, I am completely fine with race/gender blind hiring practices up until the interview. Judge me on my achievements and work experience. Dont judge me or anyone else based up race for the sake of diversity.

It wasn’t right 60 years ago when a company would and could say “I don’t want to hire a black guy
or a female.” But now, it’s fine to say “I don’t want to hire any more white people” but they phrase it like “let’s only look for “diverse candidates.”

 

[shockaholic12]

Yeah, we have had this same conversation several times. So, rather than make It so you can’t discriminate against white people or anyone else, your answer is to make myself too good to pass up-to make it so they want me more than they want that window dressing. So, I need to be well overqualified and speak a bunch of languages to give me an edge to compete against others that don’t speak additional languages. Just grab them little bootstraps and pull.

If someone brings something different to the table such as new skills or abilities, fine-hire them. But looking at you team and saying “we have too many white people-we are not hiring any more of those” or “you know what we need? A black person in the office.” These conversations should never happen. Race shouldn’t matter. You hire the best people and if the best person for the job is a white person every time, you shouldn’t have to not hire that person because you’re afraid someone might say your company is too Lilly white.

Personally, I am completely fine with race/gender blind hiring practices up until the interview. Judge me on my achievements and work experience. Dont judge me or anyone else based up race for the sake of diversity.

It wasn’t right 60 years ago when a company would and could say “I don’t want to hire a black guy
or a female.” But now, it’s fine to say “I don’t want to hire any more white people” but they phrase it like “let’s only look for “diverse candidates.”

White people aren’t being discriminated against. The examples you use yourself detail companies that have constantly hired white folks. You’re describing teams who have been hiring mostly white folks in practice…as being discriminatory against white folks in practice. You have say “no no no don’t consider these examples of their hiring” to make a point. That means it’s a weak point.

These companies aren’t saying “no white people” when hiring. They’ve been saying yes to white people constantly. Sometimes they are investing in identifying candidates who are qualified and can also add the benefits of diversity. A white person can add diversity beyond race.

You’re claiming the benefits of diversity are just window dressing. There’s mountains of research that show that’s wrong and just an emotional response. Racial minorities are more likely to be bilingual. Yes I’m saying you need to get off your ass put in the work to gain similar skills. that’s capitalism. You feel entitled to now have to become bilingual because what? You shouldn’t have to? Why not? Too much work?

When it comes to hiring, you are judged by the overall value you provide to company. You can wish upon a star as hard you want that offering a company diversity isn’t of value to it, but all the research shows it clearly is. Your schooling and prior jobs don’t entitle you to much of anything in the professional world.

 

[RoastBeast]

You are not diverse from any one demographic. That’s not how the word works. That implies excluding a group which is the opposite of diversifying.

You diversify from a state homogeneity. What is making said work place homogenous can be any number of traits. If I have a team of white folks and I add another who has the unique trait of speaking fluent Spanish then I have added diversity.

It's exactly how the word works. Punch it in to any grammar checker.

It's funny watching you pretend like DEI includes white folks. Does it include white men as well? Which companies are actively replacing non white folks with white folks under the DEI banner?

 

[shockaholic12]

It's exactly how the word works. Punch it in to any grammar checker.

It's funny watching you pretend like DEI includes white folks. Does it include white men as well? Which companies are actively replacing non white folks with white folks under the DEI banner?

You can’t be diverse of a demographic. That describes an act of exclusion not inclusion. That is not how the word works at all. To achieve diversity one must inclusive of groups. If you’re purposely excluding any specific group from your team, you acting towards the opposite of diversity. How is this over your head? I can type “My car is gaslighting me.” in a grammar checker and it won’t ping as grammatical wrong but it’s still isn’t using the term correctly is it? Do I really need to explain what grammar means to you?

DEI does include white folks. Youre claiming diversity only applies to race and that’s just dumb. White people can be of varied nationality, sexual orientation, religion, speak different languages, the list goes on. I work in tv and have been on many sets where departments were predominantly women who added men to their team to achieve a balance.

I know you have a burning desire to tap into some white male victim complex but no one is being victimized here.