Texas Bans DEI Programs

[topblkmale]

On 1/4/2024 at 8:25 PM, BlackDude said:

Because many black people now have caught on to the “diversity” and “minority” game. Let’s look at this committee.

1. A white man

2. A white woman

3. A white LGBT person

4. A white disabled person

5. A Latino who identifies as white 

That’s often what we get from the DEI programs: the illusion of diversity. When in fact, it’s just like affirmative action. Alluding to racism as a reason for a policy, but written to ensure everyone else (especially white and white adjacent or aspiring) people get the benefits.

If people want to advocate for their groups, they should do so. But I'm also  for transparency. Many of these DEI programs were established with the intent providing the illusion of diversity 
 

 

 

👍👍

I caught on to the game.

@BlackDude Your DEI list excludes:

99. A black man

 

[topblkmale]

On 1/4/2024 at 9:24 PM, blackrobe said:

To summarize what I think I heard from you:

"The DEI programs at Texas Universities did not effectively or authentically represent the concerns of black people and address their issues. That these programs were in fact a way of paying lip service to helping black people while instead providing a vehicle to help white people and those looking to pass as white.

Direct advocacy by communities and their organizations would be more effective at getting their issues addressed within the Texas university system."

As someone who's had to work inside a DEI structure to try and move forward a specific set of issues and concerns, I well aware of the way a DEI organization can structurally slow or prevent progress. 

Do you have specific data, citations, or evidence on how DEI in Texas universities failed and justified the creation of this ban? Based on the broad reporting it seems as though it supporters are more ideologically than specifically data driven. That is, I don't think the proponents of the ban are proposing a better, more effective solution for driving up under-represented minority enrollment and graduation, but instead simply wanted to remove the program and let the chips fall where they may.

The author of the bill that created the ban stated that his goal was in "promoting a merit-based approach where individuals are judged on their qualifications, skills, and contributions" which would seem to structurally disadvantage students across the black community and many others.

I'm trying to figure out if your support is based on specific knowledge of the situation in Texas, a general belief that DEI is always structured to fail or be unfair, or a simple idealogical agreement with those proposing and securing the ban.

 

I don't intend to direct this at you personally @blackrobe but to me, this reads as racism of low expectations.

 

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, topblkmale said:

 

👍👍

I caught on to the game.

@BlackDude Your DEI list excludes:

99. A black man

 

No, it’s usually a black woman (who’s married to or dating someone white) that has distain for black men and/or the black community. 

Edited January 6 by BlackDude

[ScorpionFF]

On 1/2/2024 at 5:12 AM, TaKinGDeePanal said:

New law, new stupidity.

Very well said @TaKinGDeePanal. Those four words just say it all... And on just one lone subject too! The following I am able to say from the last few years of learning (a whole lot of research) as a result of the veil being lifted as it were (seeing clearly for the first time ever in my half a century of life having been living in a fluoridated haze) and slowly peeling back the layers of hundreds of years (if not longer) of deceit. Still so much more to learn too. 

Legislation, Acts and Statutes (that use legalese language) require our “Consent” to have the Force of Law. Government is a creation of  man. And a creation of man can never be above man! All Acts and Statutes are NOT law ---> They are only given the force of law if we the living Man/Woman consent. 

Legalese language is in line with Maritime/Admiralty Law which treats a living Man/Woman as a corporation even though we are clearly living men and women. When you see your ''given'' name all in CAPS and/or with a title (Mr for example) that is a corporation/your strawman (legal fiction) which is being addressed, not you the living Man/Woman. In simple term there is two of everyone, the living Man/Woman, and then their strawman come legal fiction (dead entity lost at sea) *birth certificate*

Politics and Politicians come under the umbrella of Maritime/Admiralty Law which flies in the face of Common/Natural Law which is why humanity is where it is today... Divided and broken! Intentional? 🤔 Personally, I think so.

As for DEI, never heard of that acronym until seeing this post yesterday (way too tired via sleep deprivation to give a response), and now seen it today on YouTube too. Need to look into it more. 

As for men and women being split up (segregated) into smaller groups based upon race, sex, sexuality, disability, it's all very divisive, isn't it - Labels I do not care for. We are who we are, no definition required. Maybe that has been the aim all this time, eh. Would make perfect sense considering we are not even governed anymore, are we, if we ever were, no, we are on a worldwide basis ruled instead by invisible unelected tyrants who hate our guts and who use puppets (politicians) to distract us with noise and chaos! 

We live in a voluntary slave based society via deception (Maritime/Admiralty Law) within a fictitious debt system (promissory note - pay the bearer on demand) - Give me Gold and Silver anytime over that worthless paper crap. 

There is a great talk on YouTube touching upon the Occult Art of Law - Truly fascinating. More than happy to share the link if anyone so desires to see it. 

Anarchy: ''the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government'' [ Google ]

Time for humanity to UNITE! 

[ScorpionFF]

Since my above comment a second DEI video of the day appeared on my YouTube feed. Interesting that both videos did not mention TX at all yet chose to talk about this subject on a philosophical note instead. As said, never heard of this until now. 

I am sincerely appreciative for the confused reactions from @topblkmale and @viking8x6 as I am acutely aware that if I read my above comment three years ago that someone else had written I would have thought what on earth is he/she going on about. I totally get it. I just want what is the very best for humanity, very much like my late Grandmother in that regard. 

I am not the man I was three years ago, and I am definitely not the man I was ten years ago pre life changing event. I see the world now from a completely different perspective to how I used to which gives rise to isolation more so than before three years ago. Thank God I am able for my own company and that the cheeky inner child remains the same - Thank Fuck for that! 

I had a thought since my initial comment, that being... Why can't humanity just be? *sighs* I hold onto hope that such peace will happen in my lifetime where division, noise and chaos will be no more. 

[hntnhole]

On 1/3/2024 at 5:28 PM, BootmanLA said:

"meritocracy" - let the best person win - is a mirage, for the most part

Agreed.  Sounds good, but seldom works.  

 

On 1/5/2024 at 6:18 PM, BootmanLA said:

DEI programs was to approach discrimination holistically: to help everyone that the traditional power structure (overwhelmingly straight, white, Anglo-European, male, Christian) had discriminated against. That includes not just Black people (who, again, definitely had it worst), but also women (including white women), LGBT people (including white ones), Hispanic/Latino/Asian people (including many who identify as white) and non-Christians (including white-identifying Jews, Muslims, and other faiths, as well as those of no faith at all).

As best I can see, hopefully the more official programs like this the fewer kids of Inherited Power will continue that atrocity.  While some claim that the US is a "Christian" nation, talk is cheap, it's the actions that count, and the US is no more "Christian" (in the sense of following the Original Message, as opposed to what passes for it these past numbers of centuries) than the man in the moon.  It's a step in the moral direction, but far from achieving the claimed goals. 

My own view is DEI programs work mostly on those who attempt to honor that message anyway, and are least likely to violate the message.  How long it lasts though, is a different question. Still, it's better then openly advancing hatred, which is no doubt why TX is banning these programs in the first place.

[NWUSHorny]

DEI while good in intent, has spawned a cottage industry to help us "comply" without actually doing anything meaningful, and in many cases keeps the prejudices in place.

[BootmanLA]

13 minutes ago, NWUSHorny said:

DEI while good in intent, has spawned a cottage industry to help us "comply" without actually doing anything meaningful, and in many cases keeps the prejudices in place.

That to me sounds like a failure of the people who run the businesses and operations that need DEI in the first place.

One of the reasons that "cottage industry" exists is that such offices are always looking for a cheap way out, instead of doing the hard work needed to actually implement real diversity in the workplace and to ensure that opportunity isn't unwittingly only passed on to "those like me". 

[BootmanLA]

On 1/5/2024 at 8:00 PM, BlackDude said:

As a black person, I’m going to look at any equity or reparative policy and see how it affects my group first.  

I would have assumed by your presence on this board that you are also a member of another group - presumably, bi or gay men - who also have faced rampant discrimination in the workplace.

Of course, you don't mention whether you're out or not, which can make a huge difference. If you're not out, and you're conventionally masculine enough to "pass" for straight, then it's possible your membership in this second group hasn't affected you, just like very light-skinned black people who could "pass" as Hispanic or otherwise didn't always directly experience racism against their race (except, of course, when divulging race was required for legal purposes, like registering to vote, etc.). But I don't think being able to "pass" ought to be a determinant of whether one cares about discrimination, particular discrimination that would be levied against oneself if it were publicly known.

And I'll note that while racial discrimination still occurs, it's very clearly NOT allowed, legally, in all sorts of situations. On the other hand, discrimination against gay people is still not barred, nationally; it's prohibited in employment, now, but the Supreme Court has been carving out "religious exemptions" on the basis of sexual orientation repeatedly in the last few years. It's quite possible that they'd do the same if a housing discrimination case reached them, for example.

By contrast, the Supreme Court has expressly held that there is no religious freedom exemption that allows for racial discrimination, period. 

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I would have assumed by your presence on this board that you are also a member of another group - presumably, bi or gay men - who also have faced rampant discrimination in the workplace.

Of course, you don't mention whether you're out or not, which can make a huge difference. If you're not out, and you're conventionally masculine enough to "pass" for straight, then it's possible your membership in this second group hasn't affected you, just like very light-skinned black people who could "pass" as Hispanic or otherwise didn't always directly experience racism against their race (except, of course, when divulging race was required for legal purposes, like registering to vote, etc.). But I don't think being able to "pass" ought to be a determinant of whether one cares about discrimination, particular discrimination that would be levied against oneself if it were publicly known.

And I'll note that while racial discrimination still occurs, it's very clearly NOT allowed, legally, in all sorts of situations. On the other hand, discrimination against gay people is still not barred, nationally; it's prohibited in employment, now, but the Supreme Court has been carving out "religious exemptions" on the basis of sexual orientation repeatedly in the last few years. It's quite possible that they'd do the same if a housing discrimination case reached them, for example.

By contrast, the Supreme Court has expressly held that there is no religious freedom exemption that allows for racial discrimination, period. 

I don’t believe giving equal remedy to everyone, regardless of how they have been harmed, create equality. After  the dust has all settled do you still have the same discriminatory system. And this is why I do not believe in DEI programs, because they are not transparent About who they are targeted to help specifically. I believe all people should be equal, but I am going to advocate for my group 1st.

as far as being black, and in an LGBT community, that is intersectionality , which I do not agree with. I have seen too many times were Black people who are also LGBT are left as mascots in the fight for gay equality. Meaning they get to be the spokesperson and then watch as their white counterpart get all the benefits. This is something I personally observed in the workplace. that’s why I believe in my advocate and support Black people, black LGBT people are also included in all the Black people. Again, this does not mean I don’t believe LGBT people should not be given equal because they should.

[topblkmale]

On 1/3/2024 at 1:14 PM, blackrobe said:

@BlackDude and @topblkmale, I'm interested in the reasons and rationales for why you think banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs is a good thing. Can you help me understand your thought process here?

 

Since this is the LGBT politics forum, I won't go too deep into the DEI agenda regarding race. However, DEI does not benefit black men whether intentional or unintentional.

 

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, BlackDude said:

as far as being black, and in an LGBT community, that is intersectionality , which I do not agree with.

That's like saying "I don't agree with air". Intersectionality exists, whether you see it or believe it is meaningful. 

5 hours ago, BlackDude said:

I don’t believe giving equal remedy to everyone, regardless of how they have been harmed, create equality.

DEI doesn't provide "equal remedy to everyone". In fact, one of the points of DEI is to enlighten those with privilege, power, or authority about the (varied) experiences of different marginalized groups and find the best ways to address each - which may well be different in different cases.

Now, DEI can certainly be done poorly, no question about it. But to dismiss DEI, broadly speaking, because it's not always done well, or because, in your words, you "personally observed in the workplace" poorly handled DEI, is no different than a white guy saying that he's seen a black man managing a company with lots of white employees so there's no such thing as discrimination.

That said, I'm not going to tell you that you should advocate for all groups equally, even those to which you belong. You get to choose the battles you want to fight. But to jump from that to "DEI is useless" is a leap Jackie Joyner-Kersee couldn't cross on her best day.