Official ChillKid on X - "That's the strategy: "Let me in, let me in. Now you get out." It's not a contradiction when you think of it as phases of battle. When they needed access, they talked about freedom of speech, tolerance, acceptance. Now that they're in they shift to censorship and removal."
Rawle Nyanzi on X - "And they often gloat about taking things away from “chuds” and “manbabies.”"
Meme - "ZARA. Discover the beauty collection *ugly black woman with missing tooth*"
Thread by @wokal_distance on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "This is Debra Chew. You've probably never heard of Debra Chew. Nobody elected Debra Chew. But she is responsible for more DEI policy in the U.S. government than any other bureaucrat. What she does is called "Policy Entrepreneurship," and it's how activists subvert democrcy🧵
This letter from at the time Director Francis Collins outlines the extent the which Chew was able to build a huge apparatus of DEI withing the National Institutes of Health. The sheer volume of DEI infrastructure she created has to be seen to be believed👇
-Debra championed a change to the NIH mission statement
-she led the effort to re-engineer the former NIH Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Management.
-Through her advocacy for the Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) population at the NIH, Debra launched a Safe Zone Training (a form of safe space training)
-. She also led the trans-NIH committee effort to standardize workforce categories for diversity. Beyond NIH
-Debra launched a new, centralized Reasonable Accommodation Program for the NIH
-Debra’s team drafted and finalized NIH Reasonable Accommodation procedures,
-She recruited a team of Accessibility Consultants were to provide technical guidance.
All of this was done in the service of EDI programming at the NIH
But it gets worse, because Debra left the NIH, and when over to the Federal Housing Finance Agency where she has been building the Division of Inclusivity, Culture, and Equity. In doing so she brough with her Treava Hopkins-Laboy and Erin Foxworth, from the NIH. As I pointed out yesterday, the NIH has been entirely captured by DEI and woke activists. They operate at every lever, and Debra Chew is a huge reason why. Now that NIH is captured, she is doing the same policy making over at FHFA. This process, of getting into institutions and then creating new policy and advocating for policy changes is called "Policy Entrepreneurship." Policy Entrepreneurship is when the civil service membership attempts to make and implement policy of their own accord.
Sometimes this is good. For example, Radon Gas (which gets into houses through basements) causes more cancer than smoking, so governments have policy dealing with it. Since most average people don't know about Radon gas, almost all radon gas policy starts in the bureaucracy. Usually such regulations are part of the building code. This is an example of policy entrepreneurship: it's the civil service taking initiative to stop a problem most people don't know about. The problem is that this exact same process is open to abuse by activists. Activists can get into the bureaucracy and government agencies and then, rather then doing policy entrepreneurship to solve the problems the agency was created to solve, they instead to policy entrepreneurship to advance their ideology and political agenda. When this happens, government agencies stop being institutional servants of the people, and instead become vehicles that advance the political goals and agenda of the unelected policy entrepreneurs that have taken over those institutions. This is the subversion of democracy.
When institutions cease to be servants of the people through accountibility to elected officials, we end up with an administrative apparatus that has the power to regulate the lives of people according to the political agenda of unelected bureaucrats. It's already happening. We are seeing the fruit of this in California, where regulators are blocking @elonmusk from launching rockets because they do not like his politics. They're using their control of the policy to stop him from succeeding. This is policy entrepreneurship that's gone haywire
The sheer volume of DEI initiatives, requirements, and policies that were put into place by Debra Chew is incredible. I have never seen anyone else be so effective in policy entrepreneurship. She ised DEI policy to transform the entire NIH. It's stunning. The problem is the American people don't like DEI, but they have have no way to stop people lile Debra Chew from implementing DEI anyway If we want to put an end to this, we need to find a way to reign in the abusive and undemocratic forms of Policy Entrepreneurship"
Brandon Warmke on X - "Academic job ads are getting creative.
Out: Diversity statements
In: "Inclusive excellence statements" where you explain how your teaching, service, & research contribute to the success of certain demographic groups. These groups are not specified. You're just supposed to know."
Skeptic Research Center Team on X - "Younger Americans (GenZ), particularly racial minorities, are more likely than other groups to agree that "companies should always prioritize hiring racial minorities before hiring white people." 24% of white, 51% of black and 47% of hispanic GenZ respondents agreed with this"
Wesley Yang on X - "Wow it's almost like propagandizing young people from the earliest ages in DEI dogmas affects their attitudes"
Creolus Magnus on X - "Imagine believing diversity is your strength when ethnic, racial, national, linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity has been the cause of almost every conflict in human history."
Eboo Patel on X - "Diversity work is sacred. America needs #DEI to live up to its promise of social mobility and cooperation across difference. Right now, it’s falling short. Can it evolve? My piece in @Philanthropy citing @Musa_alGharbi & @RachelKleinfeld"
Brandon Warmke on X - "Defenders of DEI are in a tough spot. DEI is sacred. So it must be saved. But honest brokers know how harmful it is. The trick is to reimagine what DEI could be without the underlying ideology. The problem is the ideology is the only reason DEI was created in the first place."
"Sacred" is a really telling word
i/o on X - "Earlier in the year Rufo and Musk and others had very publicly tied DEI at Boeing to recent safety and quality control incidents at the company. It appears that these attacks may have paid off."
Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ on X - "WINNING: Boeing has abolished its DEI department. Earlier this year, we published a story showing how DEI was undermining competence at the company. Insiders tell us it helped put pressure on the new CEO, who made the decision to shutter the department."
Weird. Left wingers keep claiming it was the bean counters and corporate people who ruined Boeing
“It’s an Empty Executive Suite” - "To help explain what went wrong, I have been speaking with a Boeing insider who has direct knowledge of the company’s leadership decisions. He tells a story of elite dysfunction, financial abstraction, and a DEI bureaucracy that has poisoned the culture, creating a sense of profound alienation between the people who occupy the executive suite and those who build the airplanes... At its core, we have a marginalization of the people who build stuff, the people who really work on these planes... Status games rule every boardroom in the country. The DEI narrative is a very real thing, and, at Boeing, DEI got tied to the status game. It is the thing you embrace if you want to get ahead. It became a means to power. DEI is the drop you put in the bucket, and the whole bucket changes. It is anti-excellence, because it is ill-defined, but it became part of the culture and was tied to compensation. Every HR email is: “Inclusion makes us better.” This kind of politicization of HR is a real problem in all companies. If you look at the bumper stickers at the factories in Renton or Everett, it’s a lot of conservative people who like building things—and conservative people do not like politics at work. The radicalization of HR doesn’t hurt tech businesses like it hurts manufacturing businesses. At Google, they’re making a large profit margin and pursuing very progressive hiring policies. Because they are paying 30 percent or 40 percent more than the competition in salary, they are able to get the top 5 percent of whatever racial group they want. They can afford, in a sense, to pay the “DEI tax” and still find top people. But this can be catastrophic in lower-margin or legacy companies. You are playing musical chairs, and if you do the same things that Google is doing, you are going to end up with the bottom 20 percent of the preferred population... Boeing is just a symptom of a much bigger problem: the failure of our elites. The purpose of the company is now “broad stakeholder value,” including DEI and ESG. This was then embraced as a means to power, which further separated the workforce from the company. And it is ripping our society apart. Boeing is the most visible example because every problem—like, say, a bolt that falls off—gets amplified. But this is happening everywhere around us, and it is going to have a huge effect. DEI and ESG became a way to stop talking honestly to employees. We need to tear off the veil of all this coded language that is being used everywhere, and our elites need to recover some sense of service to people. They think they have it already because they are reciting these shibboleths of moral virtue: “I am serving because I am repeating what everyone else is saying about DEI.” It’s a form of cheap self-love that is being embraced by leaders. If you pay the tax to the DEI gods or the ESG gods and use coded language with your workforce, it absolves you of the hard work of really leading."
i/o on X - "Blacks are less than 7% of STEM workers, and yet they're 17% of STEM workers on TV. This is consistent with the overall pattern of over-representation of blacks in "prestige occupation" TV roles. Asians are grossly under-represented — they're only 6% of STEM TV roles."
"Media portrayals of STEM characters send the profoundly negative message that STEM professions are for white men. This narrow representation has not improved in the last decade. Of all STEM characters, men outnumbered women nearly two-to one (62.9% compared to 37.1%). The vast majority of STEM characters in entertainment media were White (71.2%), while fewer were Black (16.7%), Asian/Asian-American (5.6%), Latinx (3.9%), and Middle Eastern (1.7%)."
Anna Hitrova on X - "Just heard of a story of a man starting a business and putting it in his wife’s name so on paper it appears like a business owned by a woman and therefore when bidding for a contract it will be considered a minority business."
DEI 4 White Guys on X - "This is a common occurrence, as straight White male business owners have been systematically marginalized out of the market due to ESG scoring requirements imposed by international finance on corporations to have “diverse suppliers” who are registered with national race/sex/lgbt organizations. No such organization exists for straight White males."
Clifton Duncan on X - "In 2001 an ABC series about a female spy became one of its most popular shows. Over 5 seasons it averaged 9 million viewers per episode & scored 9 Emmy nods. No culture war BS. No online outrage. Nobody cared. People never hated strong female characters, they just hate bad writing *Jennifer Garner in Alias*"
One cope I've seen is that this just shows right wingers' hypocrisy, since they didn't use to protest "strong female characters" but are only just jumping onto the bandwagon. Which is why bringing up contemporary examples brings home the point a lot better
John Rain on X - ""We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies." Diversity is a weakness."
Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review
Walmart's DEI rollback signals a profound shift in the wake of Trump's election victory - "“There has been a lot of reassessment of risk looking at programs that could be deemed to constitute reverse discrimination,” said Allan Schweyer, principal researcher at the Human Capital Center at the Conference Board. “This is another domino to fall and it is a rather large domino,” he added. Among other changes, Walmart said it will no longer give priority treatment to suppliers owned by women or minorities. The company also will not renew a five-year commitment for a racial equity center set up in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd. And it pulled out of a prominent gay rights index."
Mario Nawfal on X: "🚨🇺🇸WHY DID LEGACY HIDE THIS STUDY? DEI’S NEGATIVE IMPACTS REVEALED
Thread by @SwipeWright on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "🚨BREAKING: The @nytimes and @business killed stories at the 11th hour covering new research on DEI pedagogy and its negative psychological impacts. The study showed that certain DEI practices increase hostility, authoritarian tendencies, and agreement with extreme rhetoric. 🧵
Colin Wright on X - "Following my report on the @nytimes and @business both killing stories about a new study revealing the potential harms of DEI pedagogy, the Hindu American Foundation (@HinduAmerican ) has independently confirmed the accuracy of my report. They've issued a statement accusing the outlets of "censor[ing] critical information that has immense repercussions for the #HinduAmerican community" and called on them to "do the right thing and run the coverage of this landmark study as was planned." The buried study involved DEI training on caste discrimination where participants were exposed to materials from Equality Labs—a prominent provider of anti-caste training. Those exposed to the training were significantly more likely to perceive bias and endorse dehumanizing rhetoric, including adapted quotes from Adolf Hitler where the term “Jew” was replaced with “Brahmin.” Why are these important results being censored?"
Thread by @aaronsibarium on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "NEW: ~40 departments at the University of Illinois Chicago have pledged, in writing, to hire faculty based on race. One department justified its quotas by claiming that minorities "have a greater sense" of the "nature of teaching." Here's how UIC is openly flouting the law:🧵
Steven Pinker on X - ""Disempower DEI" was one of my 5 recommendations for how universities (one in particular) could save themselves (w academic freedom, nonviolence, viewpoint diversity, & institutional neutrality). New study confirms that DEI programs make people hallucinate bigotry while turning them into bigots."
Thread by @sisterinferior on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "It's time for the annual "Where's the White Male" contest. Also known as the GoodReads Choice Awards. No, really, where are the white males? Let's see...
NYT and Bloomberg reportedly ignored a major report exposing how DEI training might worsen racism and division. A study by NCRI and Rutgers reveals that DEI training can heighten perceptions of bias and hostility, yet outlets like NYT and Bloomberg have declined to cover it. The study found materials like “White Fragility” and “How to Be an Antiracist” led participants to see racism without evidence and favor punitive actions. Anti-Islamophobia and anti-caste trainings also increased bias and negative rhetoric, raising concerns about DEI’s impact. Critics argue the media’s silence on the findings points to ideological bias in public discourse."
The study was conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University. It investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically trainings that draw heavily from texts like How to Be an Antiracist and White Fragility. The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Using carefully controlled experiments, researchers found that exposure to anti-oppressive rhetoric consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed.
In one experiment, participants read excerpts from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, juxtaposed against a neutral control text about corn production. Afterward, they were asked to evaluate a hypothetical scenario: an applicant being rejected from an elite university. Those exposed to the DEI materials were far more likely to perceive racism in the admissions process, despite no evidence to support such a conclusion. Those exposed to the DEI materials were also more likely to advocate punitive measures, such as suspending the admissions officer or mandating additional DEI training.
The NCRI also analyzed anti-Islamophobia training materials to determine their effectiveness in reducing anti-Muslim prejudice and to examine whether they unintentionally skew perceptions of fairness, potentially reinforcing biases against institutions viewed as oppressors.
"Following exposure to the texts, participants were presented with a controlled scenario involving two individuals—Ahmed Akhtar and George Green—both convicted of identical terrorism charges for bombing a local government building."
"In the control group (corn), Ahmed’s trial was perceived as just as fair as George’s, indicating no baseline perception of Islamophobia. In the anti-Islamophobia content group (treatment), George’s trial ratings were not significantly different from the corn content group (control). However, participants in the anti-Islamophobia treatment group rated Ahmed’s trial as significantly less fair (4.92 vs. 5.25) than did those in the control group. The training led them to perceive injustice toward Ahmed despite the specifics of his situation being identical to those of George."
"These results suggest that anti-Islamophobia training inspired by ISPU materials may cause individuals to assume unfair treatment of Muslim people, even when no evidence of bias or unfairness is present."
The study also looked at DEI training on caste discrimination. Participants exposed to materials from Equality Labs—a prominent provider of anti-caste training—were significantly more likely to perceive bias. Those people were also more likely to endorse dehumanizing rhetoric, including adapted quotes from Adolf Hitler where the term “Jew” was replaced with “Brahmin.” The findings suggest that these programs may not only fail to address systemic injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets.
Critics of DEI have long pointed to its lack of empirical support, and the NCRI study adds weight to those concerns. As troubling as the study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information. The public deserves to know if the tools being deployed to foster “equity” and “anti-racism” are instead causing harm. As DEI programs continue to expand across schools, workplaces, and governments, the stakes could not be higher. Whether this research sparks a broader reckoning or remains buried will depend on whether institutions—and the media that hold them accountable—are willing to confront uncomfortable truths."
Grievance mongering and offence mining are self-fulfilling prophecies. People find what they are looking for and can indeed imagine oppression - but of course left wingers will dismiss claims that "they are just imagining it". But the left are all about fighting "oppressors" and Revolution, so these are good results
Hindus are white-adjacent and benefit from white supremacy, so it's no wonder they'd say that
In September 2022, the Department of Industrial Engineering made a bold promise to UIC's Office of Diversity, Equity, and Engagement: From then on, the department said, 50 percent of all faculty hires would be either women or minorities. Citing the need for "culturally relevant pedagogy," the department explained that "minoritized" professors "tend to have a greater sense" of "the human, social, and communal nature of teaching and learning." That is why the department was applying to UIC’s Bridge to Faculty program, which funds the recruitment and mentorship of postdoctoral scholars from "underrepresented" groups. The money would help the engineering program hit its diversity targets, the department wrote in its application, and, by boosting the number of minority faculty, "enable students" to change "oppressive systems, discriminatory practices, and eventually society as a whole."
The pitch paid off: When UIC announced its fourth cohort of Bridge scholars in 2023, industrial engineering was one of 10 departments chosen to host one. Other winners included the History Department, which pledged in its application to "hire a Black or Native American scholar of colonial Latin America who specializes in the study of slavery or Indigenous peoples." They also included the Department of Urban Planning and Policy, which said it would hire "a scholar with expertise in environmental justice and environmental racism who comes, precisely, from a community of color."
~40 departments have applied to the Bridge to Faculty program since 2020. In most of those applications, which were obtained via a public records request by the National Association of Scholars, departments say outright that they will use program funding to hire minorities only. Those written pledges appear to violate federal law.
"It’s illegal for employers to hire or refuse to hire anyone because of their race," said Dan Morenoff, the executive director of the American Civil Rights Project. "UIC looks to be openly flouting its legal obligations." While the Supreme Court outlawed race-based college admissions just last year, Morenoff added, discrimination in employment, including faculty hiring, has been illegal since 1964. UIC did not respond to a request for comment.
Now in its fifth year, UIC’s initiative is part of a panoply of pipeline programs that are reshaping faculty hiring across the country. The programs hire postdocs and put them on the fast track to tenure, creating a pipeline, or "bridge," from the postdoc to a faculty position. Some of these initiatives are officially race-blind but target scholars who research diversity issues. Others, including the one at UIC, are explicitly for "underrepresented" groups. Money for the postdocs typically comes from the university’s central administration, which solicits applications from each department and doles out a limited number of grants. That means departments must engage in a kind of DEI one-upmanship in order to secure the funds, touting their diversity goals and explaining what’s been done to achieve them. The applications from UIC, which span more than 400 pages, offer a window into these competitions. They show how pipeline programs are incentivizing the sort of quotas that have been illegal for six decades. And they suggest that those quotas and the need to secure funding to meet them are now driving other diversity initiatives, from race-based tenure decisions to activist curricular offerings.
The result is a climate in which DEI permeates every level of university governance. In its application to the Bridges to Faculty program, UIC’s psychology department boasted that it had made "DEI-related activities" a "prominent criterion in promotion and tenure decisions." Not to be outdone, the communications department said that the "entirety of its curriculum centers on inequalities generated and reproduced through communication technologies." "Communication technology use has long been shaped by the canonical preferences of a hegemonically reinforced White masculinity," the department wrote in its 2023 application. By incorporating the "lived experiences of a minoritized scholar," the department "would be better poised to teach students how to develop ways around the dominant habitus."
Many of the applications argue that faculty diversity is a pedagogical imperative—or, as the Community Health Sciences department put it in 2020, that "students need to have faculty who ‘look like them.’" The computer science department, for example, said that an "additional BIPOC/female/nonbinary faculty member" would show "BIPOC/female/nonbinary" students that they could succeed in computing. A few applications even argued it was unethical to recruit a diverse student body without a diverse faculty. The history department said a lack of minority professors had made it "impossible and perhaps even immoral to recruit cohorts of underrepresented graduate students." The Department of Art History suggested that it was "ethically problematic" for white scholars to teach courses on "Black-Indigenous" art. A Bridge to Faculty fellow, the department added, "who is a Person of Color, will be a major step towards reconciling these conflicts."
Postdocs hired through the program are expected to conduct activist scholarship and support DEI. The Math Department, for example, said it was looking to hire "an underrepresented scholar whose work focuses on issues of race and power in undergraduate mathematics education." The Biomedical Engineering Department, which received funding through the program last year, pledged to hire a scholar who would "train the next generation of Biomedical Engineers in DEI principles."
Tldr: It's not just one or two programs. At the University of Illinois Chicago, race-based hiring is the norm in dozens of departments. And given the paper trail, a Trump DOJ would probably have an easy time prosecuting UIC."
Left wingers keep claiming that DEI is needed to correct historic biases and give "minorities" a level playing field, but in reality DEI is explicitly racist etc and makes people more so. Left wing projection strikes once again!
First category, Fiction. White men: 0
Next up, Historical Fiction. White men: 0
Mystery genre. White men: 2 So we're at 2/30 so far. Doing great.
Romance. White men: 0 (As God intended, but still)
I have no idea what Romantasy is but White men: 0
Fantasy White men: 3 Running total, 5/50
Sci Fi brings all the white dudes out White men: 5 Running total, 10/60
Horror also has a lot of white dudes. White men: 6 Running total, 16/70
Debut novel, these are repeats so I dunno if they count but let's count them anyway. They need all the help they can get. Whtie men: 2 Running total, 18/80
Audio book. Another repeat category, but hey! White men: 3 Running total, 21/90
Young Adult Fantasy White men: 1 Running total, 22/100
Young Adult Fiction White men: 0 Running total, 22/110
Nonfiction White men: 2 Running total, 24/120
Memoir White men: 1 Running total, 25/130
History White men: 6 Running total, 31/140
So the overall percentage of white men with prominent literary works out this year is roughly 22%. This is notable for one reason, because normally IDGAF about racial distribution across industries. But in this case, I care. Why? Back around 2014 the literary world began a massive, concerted effort to eliminate white men from the ranks of the published authors out there. They weren't hiding it. They bragged openly about it. And here we are, 10 years later. They've been reduced to a fraction."