Inside the White House decision to nominate Erica Schwartz as CDC director
Jason Locasale on X - "Something I noticed on Bluesky, I can’t find a single person celebrating this as a win for diversity. I don't see talk about representation, I don't see praise that the first black woman was nominated for CDC director. That tells you what DEI has actually been about. It was never about principles. It's about control and using identity politics as a weapon to advance a specific agenda. The moment someone with those same characteristics doesn’t align with the agenda, they’re forgotten. The rhetoric disappears because it was never the point."
No surprise that left wingers are dishonest hypocrites
Weird. We're told that right wingers consider all black women DEI hires
The NYT is FREAKING OUT after a white employee told the Trump admin he was denied promotion "because of his race and gender" - "A white employee of The Times said he was passed over for a job promotion because of his skin color, a clear civil rights violation, but one that has become commonplace in the name of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion." Here are some of the details from CNN, because The Times just whines about it in their own reporting... The New York Times apparently did what every company across the United States has done for the last two decades: discriminate against white men. They do NOT seem happy that the law is being enforced fairly... Leadership is freaking out trying to find out which of the white employees broke ranks and tattled to the Trump admin about their racist policies?? ๐"
Did the New York Times discriminate against a white male employee? - "Given President Donald Trump's well-documented contempt for the mainstream media and his demonstrated track record of suing media companies for crossing him, critics of the administration will undoubtedly conclude that this is a politically motivated attack on a disfavored foe. Even so, the EEOC does present information within the suit that is suggestive of discrimination. If the races of the involved parties were reversed, it would probably strike many people as a slam dunk. The employee, a white male, and an editor at the Times, had applied for a more senior position as a deputy real estate editor. He did not get the job, despite extensive relevant experience, including with real estate news, according to the lawsuit. This is not dispositive on its own, of course. However, the lawsuit also claims that he did not even make it to the final round of interviews, losing out to "a white female, a black male, an Asian female, and a multiracial female." The candidate who did receive the position, the "multiracial female," did not meet the stated qualifications for the position, since she did not have experience in real estate journalism. Nevertheless, the hiring manager sent an email to herself signaling an intent to choose this person before even interviewing her. These facts become more concerning in light of the Times' stated desire to increase the number of minority and female employees in leadership positions. The lawsuit cites various diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) plans, as well as the Times' 2021 proposal, "A Call to Action," which lamented that "people of color—and particularly women of color—remain notably underrepresented in its leadership." The proposal explicitly endorsed the idea of gradually replacing existing leadership with women of color, to the specific exclusion of "white and unspecified" ethnicities. Leaders at the Times would be judged "by how well they 'create pathways' for a 'diverse' group of deputies to succeed them," according to the proposal. Basically, the Times published a manifesto announcing that hiring managers would face pressure to promote underrepresented minorities. The paper took the position that senior leadership would be evaluated on the basis of their success at hiring black, Latino, and female applicants. So when it came time to hire a deputy real estate editor, the Times did not really consider the white male applicant, despite the fact that he possessed "considerable experience with real estate news, multiple news platforms, and innovative content." The hiring manager only considered diverse candidates and selected the maximally diverse candidate despite questionable qualifications. Again, that is the contention of the EEOC and one the Times denies. New York Magazine, which revealed the alleged identity of the employee who made the complaint, thinks the whole story is ridiculous... This is a total non sequitur, though. The EEOC is not alleging that the Times has refused to hire any white males for senior leadership positions. The government has claimed that the Times discriminated against this specific employee, passing him over for a promotion due to his race and sex. The existence of other white males in leadership says nothing about what went down with the deputy real estate editor position... federal civil rights law prohibits private employers from engaging in racial discrimination and sex-based discrimination. As long as discrimination is illegal, these protections should (and must) extend to white males as well, even if that's not who civil rights attorneys usually have in mind."
Texan in Seattle on X - "@Timcast I had a slam-dunk, open-and-shut case like this against an employer in 2018. Not a single law firm in Seattle would touch it. Nature is healing."
Paul Rossi, anti-maxxer on X - "I had a civil rights lawyer tell me to he couldn't take cases defending white men because his other clients would judge him for it and he'd lose business"
lovable rogue on X - "i’ve interviewed hundreds of people for engineering and product jobs at well known companies and candidates were explicitly, routinely and deliberately rejected for being white men. companies with documented hiring processes would pick the “most capable diverse candidate”
like literally a hiring manager at a household name company said “we have too many white men on the team, i’ll get in trouble if we hire another. can the hispanic woman do the job?”. i was also told that i couldn’t get promoted until a few men left that role"
Douglass Mackey on X - "The New York Times is defending itself from being sued for discrimination against white men by saying it was just one employment decision amid hundreds. Interesting. Imagine if they took that line on the Emmett Till case: just an aberration. Just one guy lynched out of millions."
AAGHarmeetDhillon on X - "At Yale Medical School, a black applicant is 29 times more likely to be invited to interview than an Asian with equally strong academics. Today, @CivilRights told Yale that its use of race in admissions is ILLEGAL—and that @TheJusticeDept will step in to enforce Title VI."
Skeptic Research Center Team on X - "While a majority of Americans (except liberal GenZ adults) understand that qualified black applicants are almost never denied admission, most Americans are unaware that qualified Asian applicants are regularly denied admission. These data come from the American Political Perspectives Survey (APPS) collected from August 3, 2025, to September 26, 2025, with 3,000 American adults who speak English. All respondents needed to pass (1) attention checks, (2) a duplication check, (3) time-to-completion checks, (4) fraud and (5) bot-identification checks. For more information, see: https://research.skeptic.com/american-polit"
If you don't use race to prioritise black people, you're racist
Wesley Yang on X - "It's truly amazing that affirmative action managed to be for six decades an issue that Democrats could have benefitted from moderating on more than any other but never did (and in fact spent the 2010's seeking to increase the scope and intensity of its practice). But the Democrats never had to moderate on affirmative action because the Republican never opposed it in any systemic way at the national level (8 of 9 state level referendums, including one in California all sought to do away with it, to little pracitical effect,) until Donald Trump rescinded LBJ's executive order that created it on the first day of his second term. That is to say that both parties did without the political gains that both of them might have reaped by opposition to it in deference to a moralizing discourse with the power to put certain commitments beyond the reach of political contestation. Is there a right to equal outcomes? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written explicitly to say no there is no such right. But within a year, LBJ was also rationalizing the proposition that "the way to stop discriminating by race is to keep discriminating by race forever." The elite consensus that made affirmative action untouchable for six decades in the face of unswerving supermajority opposition that neither party saw fit to manifest politically served as the model for moralizing elite consensuses emerging along a range of other issues which a would-be moral vanguard sought to place beyond the reach of political contestation. Is there a right of free movement without regard for borders? Is there a right for non-citizens to vote? Is there a right for me to have the coercive power of the state at my disposal to force other people to believe me when I claim to be something I am not? Is there a right for me to be accommodated in my dream to be airplane pilot despite my neurological deficits in spatial processing? Is there a right for me, a 50-year old man, to swim against 12 year old girls in a race and to get naked with them in their changing room because I have a compulsion to pretend to be a woman? Is there a right to make the state destroy the livelihood of anyone who would try to stop me from entering that race because they don't agree that a 50-year old man's compulsion to wear girl's underwear makes him a girl? These are all questions similar to the question of affirmative action in that a supermajority of the public opposes the answers to these questions that the stewards of elite consensus want to give. These are issues that are unlike affirmative action in that the public is (at least for now) showing itself to be willing to treat these issues as within the scope of their political discretion. They are not willing to treat these issues as sacred commitments that transcend the popular will that neither party has a right to oppose. One of those parties has shown some ability to try to work the people's will on these questions. And the other party might compete more successfully against that party by moving its positions closer to the will of the people. But the party of affirmative action of course is so habituated to wielding power by generated moralizing discourses that place its priorities beyond the reach of politics, and has so bought into the urgency and righteousness of its designated causes (even when they have so plainly plunged into moral and epistemic and practical dysfunction) that it simply doesn't know how to moderate and cannot and must double down at any cost. It has blown too much smoke up its own ass about the fake shit to which it demands the rest of the world to genuflect to do otherwise."
Ersatz Equalism on X - "If you can frame something as a right you can bypass the democratic process - that is the danger."
Daniel Friedman on X - "In the 2000s, Esquire and GQ had large subscriber-bases among men and magazines like Maxim and Details were also very popular with nearly entirely male audiences, in addition to numerous print magazines focusing on gaming, cars, and various male-dominated hobbies. Men were a large segment among readers of literary fiction, and there were male editors acquiring books that were of interest to male audiences. Now the entire print media, online media and publishing ecosystem is female dominated and female serving. This audience is still there. Half the population is still men. What happened? Did all this stuff get usurped by YouTube? Or did they just abandon their audience?"
The irony of Trevor Phillips’ suspension - spiked - " The veteran BBC radio football commentator, Alan Green, is stepping down from the corporation – because the BBC doesn’t want him. The 67-year-old Belfast man doesn’t fit their agenda any more. And I bet you know why. Green, who has worked for 45 years for the BBC, has been told by BBC Radio 5 Live that his contract is not being renewed this summer. ‘I was basically told “You don’t fit our profile”’, he told The Times. Green had clearly seen the writing on the wall. At the end of last year, 5 Live announced that Cornelius Lysaght, BBC horse-racing correspondent since 2001, was leaving – not by mutual consent. In January, 5 Live then announced another white, middle-aged commentator, Mark Pougatch, had ‘decided to move on’. Pougatch disagreed, saying: ‘Just so we’re clear this was not my decision, but on we go.’ There has been a long-running crusade within the BBC to rid itself of audible or visible middle-aged white males. Whenever, for instance, one of their kind stands down from a popular show, he invariably tends to be replaced by a she: Question Time, Newsnight, QI, Radio 2’s Breakfast Show, Doctor Who. In its war on middle-aged white men, the BBC is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the times. The irony is that this war is being carried out by other middle-aged white men, from the Brahmin liberal class, who run the BBC."
Roman Helmet Guy on X - "Movies about Ancient Greece and Rome used to be made to entertain the chuds, and so academic historians would make thousands of posts criticizing the films’ inaccuracies. Now movies about Ancient Greece and Rome are made to own the chuds, and so academic historians make thousands of posts defending the films’ inaccuracies."
Katie Miller on X - "Twelve years ago, San Francisco killed 8th-grade Algebra in the name of equity. Advanced math enrollment (including AP Calculus) dropped, and racial gaps expanded. China graduates ~1.3 million engineers yearly vs. just 130,000 in the U.S. Last night, the SF school board finally voted 4-3 to bring math back. When DEI overrides academic standards, America falls behind."
Pennsylvania ex-con, 27, who's been jailed three times turns over a new leaf to become state's youngest ever judge - "Hanif Johnson, a student at Penn State University in 2012, once walked into a courtroom in shackles and handcuffs for a hearing on charges of simple assault, conspiracy, and harassment. Twelve years later, Johnson found himself sitting on the bench as the youngest judge ever elected in the state of Pennsylvania... A magisterial district judge is a position elected by residents and doesn't require a law degree, so Johnson took a brave step to embark on the campaign."
Paul on X - "The system creates evidence that it works even when its catastrophically imploding. They look at his Judgeship as evidence of success even though his entire education and legal career was floated to him with little to no effort on his part. Now they can parade him around like a show dog for the public to gawk at."
When left wingers go on about "qualifications", this is what they mean: use DEI to give people pieces of paper and positions they don't deserve, then claim that those pieces of paper and positions are "proof" that they are "qualified" and talk of "DEI hires" is racist and a dog whistle
Lack of diversity in England Women squad will stop many girls from dreaming
From 2022. Of course, football teams are evil, so they refuse to have minorities because they want to crush the hopes of little girls who are unable to identify with white players, and they do it at the expense of winning, because we know that diversity improves performance.
Meme - Magills @magills_: "In the 1997 Armand Assante version of The Odyssey the great Vanessa Williams (left) was cast as Calypso in the Greek epic and no one was outraged because she was unbelievably hot."
Quail friend @GambelerQuail: "Like every movie was like this in the and no one cared. All this constant whining would have been considered bizarre. People have become so brain broken by dumb agitprop."
Frank Castle @FrankCastleMilk: "Yeah, because people who were pushing weird anti western nonsense weren't around yet, so we didn't get "We need to replace these white actors with black ones so US audiences like it more" shit. It's the motivation for the choices that changed, which is why it's an issue."
As usual, left wingers pretend not to understand things. This was also before the agitprop of the woke getting upset about race switching and claiming it was morally wrong. But of course, you're only allowed to be upset in one direction today and if you're upset at the hypocrisy, you're the hypocrite
Drew Pavlou ๐ฆ๐บ๐บ๐ธ๐บ๐ฆ๐น๐ผ on X - "Lupita Nyong'o: “I really had no idea what The Odyssey was” ๐ญ"
blighter on X - "she has a masters in drama from Yale and “had no idea what the odyssey was”. not just “hadn’t read it” had never heard of it at all apparently. what a damning indictment of Yale."
Meme - Chatnoir @Mschatnoir: "She was all about correct representation when it was wakanda though"
OliLondon @olilondontv: "Lupita Nyong'o responds to criticism over being cast to play 'Helen of Troy' in "The Odyssey? "Our cast is representative of the world.""
Of course, we know that this is an apples to oranges comparison, because The Odyssey is fiction, unlike Wakanda
Meme - "Christopher Nolan cast a Mexican actor-who has publicly stated that "only Latinos should play Latino portray Eumaeus, the elderly Greek islander character."
Fandom Pulse on X - "Greek City Times published an open letter to Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey this week. It reads in part: "We did not vanish. Greek people did not disappear after the age of myth. Greek culture was not frozen in classical marble. We are still here. For more than 3,000 continuous years, Greek identity has persisted." The addendum: "Given Hollywood's insistence for minority representation, authenticity and diversity — where are the Greeks, or the Greek Americans in this Greek story?" The film shot in Greece, with Greek funding, across Greek locations. Not one cast member is Greek. Hollywood required diversity for every production except this one."
Daniel Friedman on X - "In 2015, a white man resubmitted a poem that had been rejected by every literary magazine under a Chinese pen name and got it accepted into the “Best American Poetry” anthology. In 2026, a ChatGPT short story submitted under the name Jamir Nazir — a Muslim from Trinidad — won the Commonwealth prize. The lesson of both of these stories is that literary judges’ assessment of the same piece of writing changes based on who they believe wrote it. Nobody would ever accidentally award a prize to ChatGPT if what their contest was seeking to elevate was strong writing, powerful storytelling or a strong, unique voice. AI produces none of this. These judges awarded a prize to a ChatGPT story because they can’t look at a rambling, nonsensical piece of writing with no real plot, no real point, tons of cliches and lots of non-sequitur figurative language — all the hallmarks of AI writing — and tell it’s bad if they believe it was written by an exotic minority."
Johannes M. Koenraadt on X - "I always said diversity & LGBT are a Chinese psyop meant to weaken the West from within. It was McKinsey that pushed the myth of diversity being a strength. New research says: NOPE, IT'S BAD. "Studies increasingly link diversity quotas to weaker performance, lower morale, and operational decline.""
The DEI Business Case Is Falling Apart | The American Spectator - "Over the past decade, corporations have embraced diversity, equity, and inclusion as guiding principles, often presenting them as essential not only for social fairness but also for financial success. Public statements from major firms, stock exchanges, and consulting companies repeat the message that greater demographic variety inevitably strengthens decision-making and boosts profits. Yet when one turns from corporate rhetoric to empirical evidence, a very different picture emerges. The studies that are most frequently cited to support the business case for diversity provide little meaningful support for it, while rigorous academic research points toward unintended and often damaging consequences. Much of the modern enthusiasm for diversity as a performance enhancer traces back to a series of influential reports published by McKinsey. These reports claim that companies with more racially and ethnically diverse executive teams earn higher returns. Their charts, rankings, and headlines have been repeated in boardrooms around the world. But when researchers attempted to reproduce the findings using transparent data from the S&P 500, the alleged advantage of diverse executive teams largely disappeared. The replication study found no meaningful difference in profitability between firms with highly diverse executive teams and those with little diversity. Whether using earnings, returns on assets, revenue growth, or shareholder returns, the relationship was basically flat. For example, when S&P 500 firms are ranked by executive diversity and compared across quartiles, the difference in industry-adjusted earnings barely registers and is statistically insignificant.The researchers also showed that McKinsey’s study design pointed in the wrong direction: the data could just as easily suggest that more successful firms hire more diverse executives later on, not that diversity drives financial success Problems with the diversity narrative become even more pronounced when examining corporate boards. Advocates increasingly assert that greater gender diversity on corporate boards will lead to better outcomes for investors.Yet the academic literature on board diversity tells a different story. One major study of almost 2,000 American firms finds that when boards increase gender diversity, they impose noticeably stronger monitoring of executives. While oversight is necessary, too much of it slows decision-making, restricts managerial autonomy, and makes firms less responsive to changing conditions. The study concludes that the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative and can reduce value in well-managed firms because heightened monitoring becomes a burden rather than a benefit. The consequences become even clearer in countries where governments have imposed strict diversity mandates. When Norway introduced a law requiring corporate boards to be 40 percent female, firms had to rapidly appoint new directors from a limited pool of qualified candidates. Stock prices of affected companies fell immediately following the announcement and did not recover in subsequent years. The same pattern occurred when California implemented its board diversity law. Research shows that markets responded by marking down the value of companies forced to replace experienced board members with individuals selected primarily to satisfy demographic quotas. These findings suggest that rapid, mandatory diversification weakens board quality by reducing the emphasis on experience and expertise. While board-level mandates show how regulatory pressure can reduce firm value, the most striking evidence in recent scholarship concerns what happens when DEI policies shape everyday hiring inside companies. Emre Kuvvet’s 2025 study offers one of the most detailed examinations of how diversity initiatives influence workplace safety, consumer satisfaction, and employee morale. His findings are difficult to ignore. Companies with higher Diversity Scores experience dramatically more workplace accidents. Moving from the 25th to the 75th percentile in diversity commitment corresponds to a 52.9 percent increase in total reported workplace accidents. These firms also show substantial increases in lost workdays, suggesting that the accidents are not minor. This decline in safety is matched by a deterioration in customer experience. Firms with stronger DEI commitments face more consumer complaints, more controversies relating to customer health and safety, and lower overall customer satisfaction. Product recalls, quality controversies, and delays are also more common in these firms. Such problems point to a drop in average employee competence and operational discipline. The underlying cause becomes clearer when examining the mechanisms discussed in the study. When organizations feel pressure to meet diversity targets, they often expand their selection criteria in ways that shift the balance away from strictly merit-based hiring. The study notes that firms attempting to diversify may have to choose from a narrower pool of qualified applicants for certain technical or safety-sensitive roles. As demographic goals take precedence, the average skill level can decline. In settings where even small lapses can lead to injury or customer harm, the consequences of lowered hiring standards are amplified DEI policies also reshape the internal culture of organizations. The same study finds that companies with high Diversity Scores suffer from lower employee satisfaction and higher management turnover. Employees increasingly believe that hiring and promotion are not based on competence or effort but on demographic traits. When workers feel that merit no longer governs advancement, trust in leadership erodes. The loss of morale and cohesion contributes to weaker performance across the organization and accelerates the departure of experienced managers. Taken together, the evidence across these studies points to a consistent pattern. Diversity initiatives built on demographic targets, rather than on broad recruitment and equal opportunity, tend to weaken important aspects of organizational performance. They can reduce the average level of experience and competence in the workforce, create friction within teams, undermine trust in promotion systems, and impose governance burdens that impede effective decision-making. This does not imply that diversity is inherently harmful. Many firms benefit from a range of backgrounds and viewpoints. The issue lies with the shift from encouraging diversity organically to enforcing it through quotas, scorecards, and public commitments that prioritize identity metrics over merit. Corporations often insist that diversity strengthens performance, but the most reliable empirical evidence shows otherwise. When demographic representation becomes an overriding objective, the result is often a decline in safety, quality, morale, and, in some cases, shareholder value. An honest assessment of the data suggests that firms should retire the goal of race and gender diversity. As the studies reviewed here show, when DEI initiatives dictate hiring and promotion practices, the costs to organizational performance are real, measurable, and substantial."
Why Won’t the Democrats Jettison Racial Preferences? - The Atlantic (aka "The Democrats Can’t Let Go of Racial Preferences") - "In February, the California State Assembly passed, by a 54–14 vote, a measure seeking to place on the November ballot a change in the state constitution to allow racial preferences in K–12 education and in higher-education scholarships. (The state Senate has not yet acted on the measure.) In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani released a 375-page Racial Equity Plan last month that said, “New York’s history has been one of colonization, exploitation and racial oppression”; among other measures, the plan reaffirms the city’s intent to steer contracts to minority-owned businesses. Late last year, Democratic supermajorities in the Maryland House and Senate overrode Governor Wes Moore’s veto of legislation to study reparations for the descendants of enslaved people. In huge swaths of the country, the Democratic brand has become anathema. The party will struggle to recapture the White House and reclaim the Senate unless it can persuade some red-state voters to take a fresh look at it. One obvious move would be for the Democrats, who have hemorrhaged working-class voters, to abandon their stubborn support for politically radioactive racial preferences. Significantly more Americans believe that economically disadvantaged people of any race deserve special consideration in admissions and employment decisions, and such efforts do not run afoul of laws against racial discrimination. Nevertheless, many Democrats cannot bring themselves to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling—or the public’s attitude—even when doing so would help their prospects immensely. In a recent study, the political scientists David Broockman of UC Berkeley and Joshua Kalla of Yale tested potential policy shifts in 29 different issue areas—including immigration, transgender athletes in women’s sports, and Israel and Gaza—in an attempt to discern what might make skeptical voters consider choosing Democratic candidates. They found that moving to the center on racial preferences in college admissions was the most electorally fruitful move Democrats could make and that doing so on racial preferences in government contracting was the second most important. The findings are surprising. Affirmative action has rarely turned up in the top-10 issues most relevant to voters. Inflation, the economy, jobs, and health care almost always rank higher. Perhaps affirmative action has a powerful symbolic value to some voters. To proponents, it signals a commitment to the advancement of underrepresented groups, particularly Black Americans. To other voters, Democrats’ support of racial preferences suggests that the party favors some groups over others rather than seeking equal treatment for all Americans. As the center-left commentator Matthew Yglesias has argued, swing-district Democrats rarely play up the party’s most unpopular positions; many candidates merely try to avoid mentioning them at all. But Republicans are only too happy to bring up these issues. This is why President Trump emphasizes his opposition to “discriminatory DEI” programs at every turn. Republicans may disagree about the Iran war and entitlement cuts, but they are united in opposition to DEI programs. And they know that many Democrats are also opposed to counting race in deciding who gets ahead. In 2020, for example, California voters supported Joe Biden over Trump by a whopping 29 points and simultaneously rejected an effort to reinstate racial preferences by 14 points. Even among the intended beneficiaries of racial preferences in college admissions, ambivalence has grown. A Gallup poll taken months after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard found that 52 percent of Black respondents, and 62 percent of Black respondents under 40, said that striking down racial preferences was “mostly a good thing.”... The most successful Democrats have long understood that support for racial preferences is a political albatross. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the only Democratic presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt to be reelected, both publicly questioned racial preferences... Neither president, however, fully followed through on his instincts. An Obama staffer once told me that the only way the president could shift policies toward class-based affirmative action would be if the courts forced him to. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down racial preferences was a defeat for Democratic priorities but also a political gift. New evidence suggests that, after the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, universities began the transition from racial to economic affirmative action"
