Disney Drops Woke 'Diversity' and 'DEI' From Annual Report: First Time In Years - "Disney removed the woke terms “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “DEI” from its 2025 Form 10-K filing, marking the first time since 2019 the company has omitted the language from its annual business report. The filing appeared after its recent Q4 meeting... Earlier this year, Disney also removed references to its “Reimagine Tomorrow” and “The Disney Look” initiatives from SEC filings. The Reimagine Tomorrow program previously drew attention when a company executive discussed pushing a “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” in animation... Over the last year, Disney has been quietly scaling back its diversity-focused branding, cutting DEI programs from filings, and replacing the language with softer terms like “belonging.”"
Eric Kaufmann on X - "NEW: In response to question from @toadmeister, Labour defends black-only positions in academia that explicitly discriminate against whites and Asians. Says the same for women-only posts. Do they think gaslighting people with DEI euphemisms makes anti-white male discrimination OK? Time for a change."
Yiatin Chu on X - "Affirmative action discriminated against Asian college applicants. Post-SCOTUS rule, we now see the extent.
Johns Hopkins’ first year enrollment for 2023-> 2025 by race:
Asians 25.6 -> 45.1%
Blacks 9.8 -> 4%
Hispanics 20.8 -> 10.1%
Whites 18.3 -> 21%"
Black, Beautiful, & Blessed on X - "Just when they thought they’d be hurting “the Blacks” by removing DEI. DEI includes veterans, people from rural areas, white women, first-generation students, all categories that include white men. 😆😆😆"
Symoné B. Beez on X - "We were never the largest beneficiaries of DEI lol"
Left wingers really have a totally different understanding of words. The article is about affirmative action for men to maintain an even gender ratio, but they have to spin it to include all sorts of unrelated things that are unrelated to DEI
Mike Solana on X - New York Times: "Born Deaf and Blind, She’s Caught in Trump’s Anti-Diversity Crusade"
"if you don't support a national system of racist hiring and admissions practices designed specifically to marginalize high-performing asians and white men you hate disabled children"
NHS diversity practices hindered by ‘misguided approaches’, says Streeting - "Diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) practices within the NHS have been hindered by “misguided approaches” such as instances of “anti-whiteness”, the health secretary has said... “Sometimes there are some really daft things being done in the name of equality, diversity and inclusion, which [have] undermined the cause. For example, there was one member of NHS staff who was merrily tweeting a job ad online and saying part of her practice was anti-whiteness.” Streeting added: “I just thought: what the hell does that say to the bloke up in Wigan who’s more likely to die earlier than his more affluent white counterparts down in London? We’ve got real issues of inequality that affect white working-class people.”"
But of course, he still wants equality of outcome
Thread by @MorganPCALLB on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "In 2024, 54% of registered doctors in the United Kingdom were non-white. In 2024, 36% of registered doctors were born outside the UK. Of the medical workforce, approximately 181,000 doctors are white, while 209,000 belong to ethnic minority groups. Why does the NHS maintain certain ethnicity/race specific DEl programs when most doctors are not white British/English? This constitutes discrimination, greater attention needs to be drawn to this. 🧵
Some of the DEI schemes available on the NHS (not all are based on race/ethnicity):
- Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES)
- Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES)
- Equality Delivery System (EDS2/EDS22)
- Apprenticeship Programmes
- Graduate Management Training Schemes
- NHS Leadership Academy Inclusion Programmes
- Induction and Onboarding for Internationally Recruited Staff
- Staff Networks Guidance and Development Toolkit
- Diversity in Health and Care Partners Programme
- Core20PLUS5
- Review to Tackle LGBT+ Health Inequalities
- Unified Information Standard for Protected Characteristics (UISPC)
- NHS Finance EDI Action Plan
- Sponsorship Programme
- National Rainbow Network
- National Disabilities Network
- Inclusion and Diversity Ambassadors"
Police chief says he wants to 'discriminate against white job applicants' so he can hire more ethnic minority officers - "A police chief has said he wants to discriminate against white job applicants and hire more ethnic minority officers. Chief Constable John Robins of West Yorkshire Police has consistently pushed to reform laws across the country in order to boost the number of ethnic minorities in his force... The spokesperson said: 'The Chief Constable's position has not changed. It is a national view that he holds.' The move has fuelled fears of creating positive discrimination, a practice considered unlawful in the UK... 'With gun crime in West Yorkshire at a record high, many people might think local police might have more important things to be focusing on. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss also said on Thursday that Britain has a 'serious problem' with 'anti-white discrimination'. Posting on X, she said: 'Britain has a serious problem with police leadership being ideologically captured and pursuing anti-white discrimination. Ministers should have to answer for this and take back the powers to do so.' The move comes just two months since West Yorkshire Police were found to have spent £1.4million 'patronising' the public with diversity staff. MailOnline reported how the force employs 19 diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) staff members and spends £361,000 of public money training them. Last year, West Yorkshire Police also came under fire after they arrested a teenage girl when she said she looked like her 'lesbian nana'. The 16-year-old girl, who also suffers from spinal disability scoliosis, had been driven to her home in Leeds by officers after attending the city's Gay Pride celebrations. She had been there with her sister before allegedly making a 'homophobic' remark. The girl was later dragged away 'screaming' by West Yorkshire Police officers in the early hours of the morning having been arrested on suspicion of 'homophobic public order offence'."
Met Police under fire for blocking white males from attending workshops that help minority and female officers gain promotion - "Britain's biggest police force is offering bespoke workshops to minority and female recruits to help them gain promotions. Scotland Yard has so far put 1,500 minority staff through its mentoring programme to help improve their chances of promotion. It is the latest force to be accused of racist hiring policies, after West Yorkshire Police placed a temporary block on hiring white officers. A former Metropolitan Police inspector said the performance of an officer had no bearing on their chances for promotion, which was determined solely through workshops, scenarios and interviews... A Met spokesman said: 'We want a workforce that looks and feels like the capital – allowing us to move effectively engage with Londoners, gain their trust and cut crime. 'This policy is a step towards achieving that.' In the force's Race Action plan, which was published online last year, the force said that its mentoring network had supported 1,500 ethnic minority officers and staff and has been recognised by the College of Policing as 'best practice'. It adds: 'Since 2021, Positive Action workshops for black officers have seen pass rates for promotion increase from 68 per cent to 75 per cent.'"
Spy agencies repeat internship white British applicants cannot apply for - "Britain’s intelligence services have re-opened a summer internship scheme to which white participants cannot apply. Started in 2023, the MI5, MI6 and GCHQ Summer Intelligence Internship attracted criticism last year, when it was labelled “racist”. It was offered only to young people from a “Black, Asian, mixed heritage or ethnic minority background and from a socially or economically disadvantaged background”. When the scheme was first advertised for this summer, Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, described it as “racist” and called for it to be axed... “Deciding who can do a summer internship scheme based on the colour of their skin is bad enough. To bar patriotic white Britons who want to serve their country, but allow white Irish people, is utterly mad.” The scheme states that people from an Irish Traveller background may apply... In 2022, the Ministry of Defence admitted that “despite the best of intentions, some mistakes were made” after reports of an RAF recruitment drive which appeared to favour women and ethnic minority candidates. The inquiry followed the resignation of the RAF’s head of recruitment, after she reportedly refused an order to hire more diverse candidates because she believed it was “unlawful”."
DEI is about getting the widest possible pool of talent after all
DEI Statements for Professors . . . and Plumbers - "The latest incarnation of the loyalty oath is the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statement... It seems unnecessary to explain in any detail why it is wrong to require applicants for professorial positions to assent to and express enthusiasm for discriminatory practices that are in some cases not only immoral but blatantly illegal... Louis Galarowicz and Mason Goad, two research fellows at the National Association of Scholars (NAS), on whose board of directors I sit, have put out an excellent white paper: “Ideological Insistence: A Quantitative Study of DEI Statements in American University Job Listings.” The NAS regularly weighs in on DEI matters, and this study follows neatly on one from 2023 by John D. Sailer (now at the Manhattan Institute) titled “Diversity Statement, then Dossier,” which took on the phenomenon of “DEI cluster hiring.” In the new white paper, Galarowicz and Goad report on more than 23,000 job listings—“almost every open position, from deans to janitors”—advertised between October 17 and November 26, 2024 at ninety-eight institutions: eighty-nine public universities across eleven states from Maryland to California, plus the eight Ivies and MIT. This is, they believe, “the largest study to date on DEI statements in American higher education hiring practices.” It should be stressed that Galarowicz and Goad present their discoveries with what would appear to be exceptional fairness: no one can doubt that the NAS leans right, but the authors are not looking to “own the libs.” They explain in some detail their “attempt[s] to err on the side of caution,” which have led to the suspicion that they undercounted rather than overcounted and, therefore, that “the true amount of DEI-commitment in American colleges and universities’ job requirements is substantially higher than the numbers we provide here.” Some of the things Galarowicz and Goad have uncovered about the use—and non-use—of DEI statements are sobering but not especially surprising. One example: Washington (a reliably blue state) has “the highest state-wide percentage of job postings with diversity statements of the states we sampled,” followed in second place by its southern neighbor, blue Oregon, and followed in third place by its southern neighbor, blue California. But other discoveries I, for one, would not have predicted. Take, for example, the contrast between the two most prestigious public universities in California: UC Berkeley and UCLA. At Berkeley, “whose public statements have expressed an extraordinary commitment to DEI even by the standards of American higher education,” 80 percent of the listings surveyed were “DEI positive.” But at UCLA, only one of 189 listings fell into this category. What makes this remarkable, not to say heartening, is that it suggests that “DEI repeal can be swift and total.” After all, just one year ago, UCLA was a proud poster child for the DEI apparatus. How did such an about-face happen? Galarowicz and Goad are surely correct that it stems from the intrepid reporting of the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher F. Rufo (see, e.g., a City Journal article from April 2024 written with Luke Rosiak) and Aaron Sibarium of the Washington Free Beacon. In the Ivy League, Dartmouth and Princeton present a similar contrast. A full 100 percent (120 out of 120) of Dartmouth’s listings required candidates to demonstrate “a commitment to diversity, inclusion, and cultural awareness through actions, interactions, and communications with others,” whereas the lone DEI-positive one out of 190 at Princeton was for the position of Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion. Galarowicz and Goad suggest that Princeton’s positive practice may be the result of the work of the AFA... There is, I believe, hope for Dartmouth. Its president since 2023, Sian Beilock, may be the most sensible president in the Ivy League: Dartmouth was the first Ivy to announce, in early 2024, that it would be reinstating the requirement that prospective undergraduates submit SAT or ACT scores, and Beilock’s unwillingness to tolerate anti-Semitism on campus has been refreshing. Furthermore, come July 1, Dartmouth will have a new provost, the mathematical biologist Santiago Schnell, who in my estimation is unlikely to have patience for DEI overreach. As for Princeton, there is a cautionary tale behind the statistics: DEI lurks everywhere, not just in statements. However pleasing it is that Princeton “appear[s] to be quietly stepping away from the use of diversity statements,” it would be very wrong to believe even for a second that the institution is unfriendly to DEI. The Princeton Alumni Weekly reports that “[t]he University insists that its commitment to DEI remains unwavering,” and articles from recent years by the alumni journalists Abigail Anthony and Stuart Taylor, Jr.—the latter writing just a few months ago—make clear the tremendous power that words like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” have on campus. Furthermore, this past April, Rufo and Ryan Thorpe damningly described Princeton’s “entrenched . . . system of racial discrimination and segregation”: DEI has “expanded dramatically” under the leadership of longtime president Christopher Eisgruber, with moves that go well beyond faculty hiring—for example, “call[ing] on departments to award contracts based not on quality or cost, but on race.” Supplier contracts bring me to plumbers. As already noted, “Ideological Insistence” records information about job postings for blue-collar and lower-level white-collar positions as well as for professors and deans, and Galarowicz and Goad’s graphs differentiate between the use of DEI statements for faculty and for “staff.” What the authors do not do, however, is comment on different types of staff. This is unfortunate since the sociopolitical views of a large number of essentially invisible staff members—office assistants, dining hall workers, and plumbers—are likely to be quite different, in aggregate, from the views of those at the front of the house: professors and academic administrators. "
BBC criticised for banning white job applicants for trainee role - "The BBC has come under fire for excluding people from a white-ethnic background from applying for a traineeship. In the criteria for the job with BBC Newsbeat, it states that the traineeship is only open to candidates from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority background. The trainee multimedia journalist position has been offered through the social enterprise Creative Access, which aims to get better representation for people from ethnic minority backgrounds in the creative industries."
Has the BBC's diversity push led to racism? | The Spectator Australia - "The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the public-funded national broadcaster of the UK, has been wandering into territory many wouldn’t hesitate to call ‘racism’ if it were directed toward a different ethnic group, begging the question of why any right-thinking British person would want to pay the mandatory £159 annual TV fee to be besmirched, belittled, patronised, and disenfranchised. One of many examples of this casual racism occurred when the English women’s football team, the Lionesses, gathered an impressive 8-0 victory against Norway in the Women’s EURO 2022. BBC presenter Eilidh Barbour said the following: ‘[A]ll starting 11 players and the five substitutes that came on to the pitch were all white. And that does point towards a lack of diversity in the women’s game in England.’ Judging the value of players by the colour of their skin – or mentioning it at all – is something that would have been considered unacceptable ten years ago. It is also not a comment that the BBC directs toward other cultures. Has anyone at the BBC gone on the record demanding more ‘white’ people on the Indian cricket team? Or more people of Chinese descent on the Cameroon World Cup team? The UK is a nation with a majority ‘white’ population – even though this is a simplistic view of the dozens of different ethnic identities contained within the UK. Having a team whose players reflect this is not statistically odd. But comments that suggest a team has no minority representation on purpose are far from true. The Lioness team has multiple players of minority status in the squad, it just so happened that none of them were selected to play in that game. This often happens for various reasons, such as injuries and ensuring adequate rest during a tournament. Many of them played in the next game, the quarterfinal match against Spain, in which the Lionesses won 2-1. Humouring Barbour’s logic, why does the BBC not endlessly praise the UK for the clear statistical over-representation of minorities in the athletics field or on the basketball team that is not seen in other nations? The BBC should be the last to toss stones, given the state of their glass house. In the list of the top earners at the BBC, the first eleven are all white. One cannot help but be reminded of Queen Gertrude in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who observed shrewdly that, ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks.’ An anti-white culture has been stirring to life in the BBC. Instead of a civilised world blind to race and focused on the merits of an individual, in 2021, the BBC banned white people from applying for a trainee production management position in Glasgow. This is likely a part of the BBC’s preposterous diversity target plan, which includes a target of having 20 per cent Black, Asian, and ethnic minority staff. As the Daily Mail said: ‘Positive discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, but “positive action” is allowed for trainee and internship roles in areas where there is under-representation.’ Relabelling discrimination as ‘action’ doesn’t make it any less racist... The BBC has long ceased to be a network that represents all people in the UK. It has narrowed its appeal along class lines and political opinion. Brexit is an example of the BBC’s politicised coverage. During the Brexit referendum, the BBC was biased towards the Remain side. Of the 4,275 guests invited on the Today show between 2005 and 2015 to discuss the EU, only 132, a measly 3.2 per cent, were Brexiteers. The British public, nevertheless, voted to leave the EU with a slender but decisive majority, led by the working class. One can only imagine the size of the pro-Brexit majority had the BBC, and other media outlets, been impartial about the issue. The BBC has been in the headlines over cultural issues as well. In 2020, the BBC caused a public uproar when it tried to remove the lyrics from the popular patriotic songs Land of Hope and Glory and Rule, Britannia! from the annual Proms at the Royal Albert Hall. These songs are traditionally sung at the end of the Proms concerts, but the BBC deemed they may be too redolent of racism. They planned to drop the songs entirely, before offering a compromise, where the songs would only be performed by the orchestra. The attempt to accuse British culture of racism and then cancel it did not go down well. A YouGov poll found that 55 per cent opposed BBC’s intentions, with only 5 per cent agreeing that the songs should not be sung, and 16 per cent agreeing with BBC’s compromise. Yet everyone in the UK, including those whom the BBC continuously affront with their hauteur, is taxed yearly to fund its lavish multi-billion pound budget, even if they never watch any BBC programs. Barely 5 per cent of young adults in the UK watch BBC live. The polls consistently show that the majority of adults think that the license fee is unfair or very unfair. One million people have opted to stop paying the license fee in 2019-20. If the national broadcaster is so happy to take the billions in public money and so ready to turn around and insult the integrity of the same taxpayers, they deserve to collapse in ruin."
Meme - "Diversity is such a strength that it requires constant propaganda to remind us of it and a police state to enforce it."
Crémieux on X - "California once passed a mandate that required firms to give women affirmative action position for corporate boards. This cost firms almost 1% of their market value."
Reconciling the evidence on board diversity mandates
How ignorant. Why don't markets know that diversity is good for business?
Everybody is Insane on X - "Important to note that nearly every gender gap in the American education system that was used to justify Title IX is larger in 2025 than it was in 1972, but in reverse. The response has been to blame men (white men in particular)."
vittorio on X - "the thing about calling DEI 'economic genocide' is that it undersells it. yes, young White men were systematically excluded from careers during their peak marriage years, but that's just first-order effects. second-order: marriage market collapse. women date across and up. men without careers become invisible to the women who would have married them and disappear. the "eligible bachelor" pool shrinks. third-order: fertility crisis. fewer marriages, fewer children. but it's worse than just men not marrying or having families. the women who "won" the DEI lottery got careers instead of families, delayed fertility until it was too late. DEI attacked family formation from both sides, excluded men from provider roles AND diverted women from their fertility window. everyone lost. fourth-order: psychological. young men couldn't even name what was happening to them. the same institutions that excluded them told them they were "privileged", that complaining was proof of weakness. so they internalized failure as personal inadequacy rather than systemic rigging, retreated into depression, video games, porn. the symptoms we then pathologized as "male failure". the system broke them (on purpose) and blamed them for being broken. fifth-order: institutional trust gone. once you know positions are filled by demographics rather than competence, every credential becomes suspect (if not a priori worthless). is your doctor qualified or a diversity hire? your pilot? your engineer? you can't prove any individual is incompetent, but you can't trust any individual is competent either. medicine skepticism, academic failure, media skepticism, none of this emerged organically. it was manufactured by the DEI hire you can't be sure is qualified to treat you. sixth-order: reality became unspeakable. noticing any of this was a fireable offense. pointing out the obvious got you called a bigot, deplatformed or fired. pure totalitarian censorship and the problem couldn't even be acknowledged (until now, finally) men knew they were being cheated but couldn't say it. women sensed something was wrong with the men but couldn't identify it. relationships poisoned by a dynamic neither party could name. seventh-order: the feedback loop. fewer eligible men means more women competing for a shrinking pool, more women losing the marriage market, more resentment, more "men are trash", more support for DEI, fewer eligible men and the system accelerates itself. and the worst part is that DEI was just the economic arm. the same people and institutions pushed the complete package
"toxic masculinity" to pathologize male identity
"the future is female" as explicit zero-sum framing delusion
"believe all women" to weaponize trust against men
"men are trash" to normalize open contempt
a coordinated ideological assault on family formation.
and it even had a business model. HR departments exploded (millions of jobs invented to administer the regime). DEI consultants became a multi-billion dollar industry. politicians got voting blocs dependent on racial grievance. established boomers kept their positions while their competition was eliminated. the architects knew what they were doing
you don't accidentally build a system that specifically targets men during peak marriage years, tells them they deserve it, makes it unspeakable to complain, attacks their identity as toxic, promotes women into career tracks that burn their fertility, then acts confused when society collapses. if you wanted to suppress the fertility of a specific demographic, engineer the breakdown of trust between the sexes, and make it illegal to notice, the playbook would look exactly like this. DEI should be held responsible for the fertility crisis, the marriage collapse, the epidemic of male depression and suicide, the destruction of institutional trust, the atomization of society, and the manufactured war between men and women
but DEI was the weapon
the people who designed it, funded it, made it mandatory, enforced it through HR, fired anyone who resisted, called all opposition hate and racism, built careers and industries on its maintenance, they knew. and they're the ones who should be remembered as the architects of one of the worst crimes against humanity"
