How Diversity Can Be Truly Profitable - The Atlantic (aka "What Social Science Knows About the Value of Diversity") - "As far back as 2016, Harvard Business Review published an article titled “Why Diversity Programs Fail,” showing that, as generally practiced, DEI programs actually reduced gender and racial diversity in companies. Last year, psychologists reviewing the literature found that these policies also generally lowered the performance of the targeted groups and increased the perception of workplace unfairness. Many companies are now rapidly unwinding DEI programs... There are two kinds of human diversity. The first is the type celebrated by the philosopher Aristotle, who argued that because “of all animals man alone is capable of deliberation,” we have a unique potential to be the most diverse species on Earth. He was talking about what modern researchers call acquired attributes—education, skills, opinions, and the like. This is not the kind of diversity that most DEI programs focus on, which is the second type, based on innate or inherited attributes such as race. The early business case for higher diversity of this second type came from studies purporting to find that it was good for financial performance. One such survey in 2009 linked greater representation of women and minorities on sales teams to better results; another study, involving experiments with college students, showed that when small teams assigned a murder-mystery puzzle were all white, they discussed the problem less than when they included a minority member, and the greater discussion led to improved outcomes. Whether these benefits resulted specifically from greater racial and gender diversity was not clear, however. Another plausible explanation is that the team’s decision making improved by having people on the team from different backgrounds and with divergent experiences and opinions—diversity more of the Aristotelian variety, which newer research finds to be truly valuable. The most effective teams are cognitively and creatively diverse, combining people who come up with different kinds of ideas with others who are good at developing those ideas. This is especially important for driving innovation, according to a 2020 study. But it doesn’t stop with creative style. The authors also found that ideological diversity among colleagues—seeing the world in different, even opposing ways—was beneficial (though “too much” ideological diversity, implying more frequent disagreement, had a negative effect on innovation). An obvious conclusion from this finding is that viewpoint diversity protects against groupthink, which has been shown to harm companies...
Achieving ideological diversity in the workplace is especially tricky because, in aggregate, people’s resistance to accepting political differences is growing. According to the polling firm YouGov, back in 2016, only 10 percent of both Republicans and Democrats said they had no friends with whom they significantly differed politically; by 2020, this figure had risen to 12 percent for Republicans and 24 percent for Democrats. This trend was corroborated by the research firm Generation Lab and the publication Axios, which found in 2021 that 71 percent of college students who are Democrats said they wouldn’t go on a date with a Republican, while 31 percent of Republican college students said they wouldn’t date a Democrat. Similarly, 41 percent of Democratic college students would not support a Republican-run business, 37 percent would not be friends with a Republican, and 30 percent would not work for one. (The Republican numbers regarding Democrats were 7, 5, and 7 percent.)...
1. Demographic proxies are not enough for useful diversity.
2. Look for people with high openness to new ideas...
By all means, seek those who learned critical-thinking skills at good universities, but also seek those formed by very different experiences—in the military, in missionary or volunteer work, or through a hardscrabble childhood.
3. Get serious about political diversity...
Think of the companies that have stumbled into a major political controversy because they assumed that what everyone in their bubble thinks is the same as what everyone in the rest of this huge country thinks. Political diversity protects against that.
Diversity of thought is, in many ways, harder to be comfortable with than demographic diversity. Here’s one last thought about how to make viewpoint diversity easier to achieve in the workplace and in life: Cultivate curiosity."
Yet more evidence that left wingers are more intolerant than right wingers. Curiously, from the YouGov data, this divide only seems to have emerged recently
To left wingers, diversity means people who look different but think alike. And since left and right wingers are now similarly closed minded, this explains why left wing groupthink and echo chambers has caused them to go bonkers
Of course right wingers are the "hateful" ones (because to left wingers, "hate" is anything that opposes the left wing agenda). This ties in with right wingers seeing those who disagree as wrong, but left wingers seeing those who disagree with them as evil
Thread by @JohnDSailer on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Do universities discriminate against white candidates? Yes. Especially when hiring professors focused on identity/social justice. These positions give universities plausible deniability for race-based hiring, which is common in academia. I have receipts. 🧵
It’s worth remembering the academic job market’s total saturation in positions focused on race, identity, and social justice. Things like "indigenous Siberian studies" and classics with a focus on "race, racism, and Greek & Roman studies." This has entirely skewed certain disciplines. A grad student looking at a field like, say, German studies will be able to put two and two together. There are hardly any jobs out there, and the jobs that are out there tend to fit a specific theme. If you’re a historian, well...
A grad student in the shoes of David Austin Walsh might think they have the right formula: even if you’re a white guy, just specialize in the right things, then you'll have at least a shot. That is verifiably incorrect. Universities very explicitly say these race/identity/social justice jobs exist to target specific groups. They get very close to openly declaring their intention to discriminate in the hiring process. I've repeatedly found search committees openly admit to using racial preferences. Ohio State sought a professor of French studies with a "specialization in Black France." The search committee stated that hiring a “visible minority” was a key priority—so they only invited black candidates for on campus interviews. The University of Washington conducted a search for a professor focused on diversity. A white woman was the search committee's first choice. A diversity committee member objected on the grounds of race. They then re-ranked the candidates. Here's the University of Washington diversity advisory committee member noting that it's "optically-speaking" a bad look that the offer to go to a white woman. This is the goal of "cluster hiring," hiring multiple candidates at once w/ a focus on DEI, increasingly popular in academia. In the sciences, that means heavily weighing DEI statements. But in the humanities, it commonly involves hiring w/ a race/identity/social justice focus.
A professor friend recently told me that everyone in his university system acts like cluster hiring is just a legal form of racial quotas. But again, we don't have to rely on rumors. Administrators have literally said that's exactly what they're doing.
We have the worst of both worlds. Our universities contort entire academic disciplines, narrowly focusing on social justice, applying de facto ideological weed-out tools like diversity statements—all for the sake of achieving (or masking) racial preferences."
Left wingers still claim that there's no discrimination against white men, even when such discrimination is openly proclaimed
Meme - Curse @encoresalad: "White people: "exist"
Media: "How do we fix this problem?"
Those who portray the existence of White people as a problem that needs to be fixed usually cloak their genocidal intent behind the word "diversity.""
"The New York Times. New Hampshire, 94 Percent White, Asks: How Do You Diversify a Whole State? Melina Hill Walker and Dick Martin at a gathering of business leaders, government officials and others this week on how to make New Hampshire more diverse."
Sonnie Johnson on X - "I talked to one of my Leftist friends yesterday. There is a point I TOTALLY missed... For a lot of these white progressive women, their finance streams have been cut off by canceling DEI. They were making LOTS of money speaking at corporate conferences and gov't roundtables. For them, canceling DEI is equivalent to moving the steel industry to China. Who is going to replace the salary of those jobs? Think about that. They aren't fighting for the illegals. They are fighting for a financial future based on their Feminist studies degree."
How DEI Caused a Military Recruitment Crisis - WSJ - "In his recent viral essay, “The Lost Generation,” published in Compact, Jacob Savage describes how U.S. media and academia in the 2010s closed their doors to millennial white men. The self-righteous, racist ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion wasn’t a problem only within those rarified fields. It also infected the U.S. armed forces. Under President Biden, senior officers worked to make our military less white, precipitating a recruitment crisis. During the first Trump administration, lethality was the military’s overriding focus. That changed in 2021. Mr. Biden issued an executive order embedding “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” across “all parts of the Federal workforce.” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin took the unprecedented step of ordering a “stand-down” to combat “extremism” in the armed forces. By the time an independent report commissioned by the Pentagon found these concerns to be baseless, they had already formed the ideological permission structure for a DEI crusade. In 2022, Gen. C.Q. Brown (later promoted to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) issued a memorandum that set numerical quotas for everyone from white males to Pacific Islander females among commissioned officer applicants to the Air Force. Racial discrimination likewise distorted admissions to the U.S. Naval Academy. Black applicants scoring in the fourth decile had an admission rate higher than that of whites in the eighth decile. These stories could have come out of Mr. Savage’s essay, but the military isn’t the media. It requires young people to sign up for unglamorous and sometimes dangerous jobs far from home. By signaling that white men were less welcome, DEI initiatives pushed thousands of them away from military service. Between 2013 and 2023, annual male enlistments in the Army fell 35%, from 58,000 to 37,700. From 2018 to 2023 the number of white Army recruits dropped from 44,042 to 25,070. No other groups saw such steep declines. Meanwhile the share of white high school boys who in Monitoring the Future surveys said the military is doing a “good” or “very good” job declined from 76% in 2014 to 57% in 2024. The focus on DEI also fueled a “recommendation recession.” The percentage of white male veterans who said in a 2019 Pew study that they would advise a young family member to join the military was 81%. Only 63% said so in the 2024 Survey of Military Veterans, which also asked why. Far more white male respondents pointed to the military’s “DEI and other social policies” (66%) than to the “possibility of physical injury or death” (38%) or the “possibility of psychological problems” (35%). These recommendations matter: According to a 2023 article in the Journal, 80% of recruits have relatives who served. Our best chance to reverse these disastrous Biden-era trends is the “reset” led by current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which eliminates DEI, implements sex-neutral standards, and re-emphasizes war fighting. Initial evidence suggests the reset is working, with the Pentagon announcing its “best recruiting numbers in 15 years.”... DEI advocates often framed their initiatives as necessary to attract female and nonwhite recruits. Today’s evidence contradicts that self-serving view. Female recruitment is up from 16,725 in 2024 to 23,985 in 2025. Encouragement to enlist increased among blacks (9 points), Hispanics (14 points), and women under 55 (15 points) since 2023 in the Reagan National Defense Survey. The Hegseth reset alone didn’t end the recruitment crisis. A successful operation in Iran and administrative and operational reforms also helped. But it is clear that stressing identity over mission drives young people away, while emphasizing merit and lethality helps the military recruit across demographic lines."
Weird. Left wingers keep denying that racial quotas exist(ed) and that DEI is just to level the playing field. And also that DEI is the way to get more people to join fields
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on X - "We are taking a sledgehammer to the oldest DEI program in the federal government—the 8(a) program."
Nathan Mintz on X - "I was on a program ~12 years ago at Boeing where we paid a 70 yo “systems architect” 40k/mo for 60 hours work - the PO went to a business in his wife’s name. In three years of work, he produced barely anything. When he got pneumonia and was out for 3 weeks, I - who made about 1/10th of that an hour at the time- had to write the proposal in 3 late nights, not him. He had made almost no progress. But it provided Boeing compliance to small business volume requirements so they paid the toll. These policies are demoralizing to hard working people in prime contractors, are a tax on real productivity and encourage scheming over adding value. Bravo to @SecWar and good riddance to 8(a)."
The Trump Administration Is Still Awarding Contracts Based on Race and Sex - "President Donald Trump promised to end federal spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Yet the government has continued to award contracts based on race and sex. Despite rampant fraud and multiple court rulings against the practice, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has used “disadvantage” essays from business owners to skirt the rules and continue discriminatory programs that dole out billions in government contracts. For decades, the federal government has awarded certain special contracts exclusively to so-called disadvantaged businesses and women-owned small businesses. Until 2023, SBA presumed that racial minorities were “disadvantaged.” The resulting discrimination was absolute: according to an analysis conducted between 2020 and 2023, these programs made not a single award to white men. Though the second Trump administration has taken steps to limit these contracts, the largest disadvantaged-business initiative—the SBA’s 8(a) program—is thriving. The program “is still one of the most lucrative and sought after” SBA certificates, one contracting lawyer said in November. In fact, fiscal year 2025 saw the largest 8(a) spending on record, totaling $26 billion... The SBA’s “Guide for Demonstrating Social Disadvantage” reveals how the shell game works. The guide teaches applicants how to play the system, featuring examples of potential “disadvantage.” It gives minorities and women the magic words: “I believe my application [for a bank loan] was denied due to bias toward my race” and “I believe my request [to declare a business major] was denied based on sex bias.” Once the agency approves the application, the contracts can start flowing—no real evidence required. Are these applicants always disadvantaged? No. Consider Earl Stafford Jr., a black contractor who wrote an essay to apply for the 8(a) program. The Washington Business Journal reported on Stafford’s “painstaking” ordeal of writing the essay, in which he described unspecified acts of discrimination that made him think that he did not have “what it took to be in business.” Yet his father, Earl Stafford Sr., founded a successful defense firm and started his own private foundation—hardly the background of a disadvantaged person. As with any racialized initiative, the 8(a) program is ripe for fraud. White business owners can find a minority front man or a woman to head a nominally disadvantaged or woman-owned firm, which the white man continues to run behind the scenes. Another option is for minority-owned firms to receive the government contract but act as “pass through,” taking a cut off the top and paying another firm to do the contracted work. The Supreme Court ruled last year against a “disadvantaged” company that provided none of the required paint for a Philadelphia bridge and train station and passed the work to other firms. Out-and-out dishonesty is also common. In 2023, Margarita Howard and her companies HX5 and HX5 Sierra were forced to pay the government almost $8 million for lying about Howard’s assets in order to participate in 8(a)... Other aspiring federal contractors have pretended to be Native American or embezzled funds intended for Natives. ProPublica recently highlighted the case of Charles Dawson, a contractor whose companies won hundreds of millions of dollars on a promise to use his profits to help “Native Hawaiians.” He funneled some of the money into private jets, Porsches, and polo. Even after a federal raid on Dawson’s house, the companies continued to win federal support. Everyone within the system knows such fraud is rampant. A 2018 government audit reviewed 25 8(a) recipient firms which together received more than $100 million. Of these, 20 “should have been removed from the . . . program” due to ineligibility... President Biden’s SBA sought to award 15 percent of all federal contracts to disadvantaged firms. Trump SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler has reduced the goal to the law’s actual standard of 5 percent. Her administration has also demanded financial records from 8(a) businesses to weed out fraud. But the core problem with these programs is not fraud. It is that they systematically discriminate against one group: white men."
Thread by @lukerosiak on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "DOD paid $19M to a homeless lady's "woman-owned business." She found a white man to do the work, and kept a cut. When I asked her about it, she ranted about "evil Jews" and "male dominated competitive evil war profiteers." This is why @SecWar is cleaning up minority contracting. Rhonda Valles was eligible for minority contracting because one grandparent was from Spain (the country in Europe). "She said ‘I got this government contract, do you know anyone with a factory who can help me perform it?’ She was literally living in her car." She simply made other people do all the work, and had them sign a contract saying they would never try to find out how much money she was skimming as a middle-woman, and would never blow her cover as a mere pass-through. This is what much of 8(a) contracting is, in black+white: The woman who once had a $19M contract from the Pentagon said contract preference should be given to women- and minority-owned companies because "Male energy is heavy and war like and long overdue for a reduction... evil feudal lords evil Jews.”"
AF Post on X - "Since 2000, women and minorities, who make up less than 10% of all pilots, were factors in 66% of crashes caused by pilot error. Despite the disparity, major airlines are continuing to hire on the basis of identity rather than merit. In January 2025, Delta CLO Peter Carter said the airline is “steadfast” in its DEI commitments and called them “critical to our business,” while United’s training academy maintains a goal that 50% of its graduates be women or minorities. Southwest likewise continues to pledge that it will “recruit, hire, and retain a diverse and inclusive workforce.” Follow: @AFpost"
Despite Trump's efforts, airline DEI programs are still risking people's lives - "For decades, airlines have subordinated safety to diversity quotas. President Donald Trump rightly recognized this danger: Early on, he ordered the Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation to rescind all DEI initiatives and return to merit-based hiring and promotions. But the FAA can, and must, do more... I analyzed every US commercial flight crash attributed to pilot error since 2000: Women and minorities represent less than 10% of pilots yet were factors in four out of six crashes (66%). The sample size is small. But precisely because crashes are so rare, the few times they occur it’s important to scrutinize who is at the controls; under DEI’s guiding principle of relying on statistical disparities, it’s certainly enough to raise questions. It’s not that women and minorities are inherently unable to fly planes, but in practice, pressure for affirmative action too often leads airlines to lower their standards to meet quotas. Today, major carriers persist in aggressive diversity hiring. Delta CLO Peter Carter declared in January 2025 that the airline is “steadfast” in its DEI commitments, calling them “critical to our business.” United’s training academy maintains its goal of ensuring 50% of graduates are women or minorities. Southwest still pledges to “recruit, hire, and retain a diverse and inclusive workforce.” American agreed not to impose illegal quotas, but that leaves plenty of wiggle room... Carriers that resist will find litigation works against them. Discovery will expose how extensively DEI has lowered standards. Exhibit A: the 2019 Atlas Air crash. The National Transportation Safety Board determined the cause to be “the inappropriate response by the first officer,” Conrad Aska, a black pilot at the controls. A check airman (an experienced pilot who oversees quality and safety) described his “piloting performance as among the worst he had ever seen.” When faced with an unexpected situation in the simulator, Aska would “get extremely flustered and could not respond appropriately.” NTSB found Aska panicked after accidentally initiating a go-around procedure and flew the plane into the ground. Atlas remains unrepentant. Its website declares, “Equity and inclusion are deeply woven into our operations.” Most diversity disasters leave far-from-complete paper trails. Training failures happen behind closed doors. Near-misses can go unreported. Crashes can be blamed on mechanical failure, understaffing or other politically acceptable causes. The coverup playbook was written in 1994 when Lt. Kara Hultgreen, the Navy’s first female F-14 pilot, crashed and died. Officials declared it a “gender-neutral accident,” citing engine failure. Her training commander insisted, “We have one standard, and everyone has to meet that.” These were lies. A whistleblower leaked the true records five months later: pilot error. Hultgreen had four “downs,” safety violations that would have washed out any male pilot. Instead, she received “extra training, specialized one-on-one tutoring, and a series of special concessions not normally afforded” other pilots. Lowered standards were a key factor in her death . That playbook is still in use. Every official explanation now deserves skepticism. December 2022: A United 777 departing Maui plunged toward the Pacific, pulling up just 750 feet from the water. The NTSB blamed pilot error. The pilot’s name? Never released. February 2025: A Delta Connection plane flipped upside down on a Toronto runway with a female first officer at the controls. Delta claimed her experience “exceeded” requirements. The truth? She had just 1,422 hours, below the FAA’s 1,500-hour standard, but permissible under a special exception. Delta’s statement masked that she had been allowed in the cockpit under a lower standard. Colgan Air, Buffalo, 2009: The male captain stalled the aircraft, but the female first officer, who’d never flown in icy conditions, made it worse. “She inappropriately retracted the flaps,” cited by NTSB as a cause of the crash, which killed 50. Washington, DC, 2025: A female helicopter pilot ignored repeated air-traffic-control instructions and collided with an American Airlines jet, killing 67. Officials emphasized communication failures and airspace complexity, not the pilot who failed to follow directions. Crashes remain rare because aviation technology is exceptional. Airlines assume good software will save subpar DEI pilots. But DEI has infected the entire supply chain. As DEI hires replace the engineers who built these systems, the last safety valve will disappear. Airlines have a moral duty to put passenger safety first. Since they lack the courage, the administration needs a strong enforcer to impose merit-first hiring before the next crash."
Weird. We keep being told no one qualifies to be a pilot based on lowered standards and that the FAA has maintained the exact same standards which have never changed, so all pilots are qualified
Yuri Bezmenov Subversion on X - "One year ago, helicopter pilot Rebecca Lobach killed 66 people when she collided with a passenger plane near DC. She ignored her instructor co-pilot’s orders to turn 15 seconds before impact. Pray for all the victims of DEI."
Emerald Apple on X - "My personal opinion: Captain Lobach's pilot skills were severely lacking, contributing to the disaster. In 2022, during the Army assessment for her annual night vision goggle proficiency check, she was rated "well below average", with challenges in aircraft handling, leading to a failure on that exam. Well below average in the Army puts someone in the bottom 20% of their group. Some reports even mention a history of vertigo and her feeling "dizzy" during the evaluation. Another instructor said her flight control skills as "below average," and she was downgraded from advanced to analog instruments in one assessment. As a result, she was downgraded to Flight Activity Category 2, which is the lowest readiness level for pilots, meaning restricted duties and mandatory remedial training. She then underwent about a month of additional training, passed follow-up checks, and was reinstated to full status. A peer who flew with her shortly before the crash called her rusty. Military pilots often say "you either have it or you don't" for combat pilots. A month of training would not fix lowest tier pilot performance, and most say that no amount of training would fix severe deficits in skills. For context, military flight training has 20-30% washout rate due to untrainable deficits in aptitude, which I personally believe, if she were a man, she would have been removed as a pilot. For the fatal flight, CW2 Andrew Eaves, the instructor, had reportedly expressed concerns about her skills beforehand, telling others she was "not where she should be" and that he needed to "keep a tight rein" on her. In the NTSB findings, it's noted that Eaves had suggested declaring "unstable parameters", which should have ended the checkride as a fail, but wasn't acted on for unknown reasons. She had logged only 56.7 hours in the prior 12 months, which is below the 60-hour requirement. Also, with only 5 hours in the 60 days before the crash, partly due to knee surgery recovery, for which she received a waiver. She should not have received a waiver, as it compromises safety by allowing potentially underprepared pilots back in the cockpit too soon. This indicates lowered standards, possibly influenced by DEI pressures, because in most circumstances, she would not be granted a waiver due to her past pilot skill issues. Facts are facts. She was an underperforming pilot who was being floated by lenient benchmarks."
