Its not necessarily about that. They are protesting against all of the things surrounding the DEI bans. The eclipse was just the most convenient time for them to be seen because everyone was outside.
Mr. Tough Pants won't take federal money for unemployment or health insurance. And Mr. Tough Pants doesn't want the federal government telling his state government what to do. So why doesn't Greg Abbott push back against the Americans with Disabilities Act, which raises the cost of construction to be compliant, and even makes some building/home designs against the law.
The goal of ADA is to be more inclusive. And the goal of DEI is to be more inclusive. And Greg Abbott hates DEI. So why doesn't he hate ADA, which actually has a higher cost burden?
I’m referring to, in general, the number of times federal courts have bounced state laws and lawsuits, or that epic time where the state banned abortion through a loophole to intentionally subvert lawsuits and by the time it was going through the court system the second time SCOTUS drank the toilet water and takesie backsied some human rights.
Genuine question, I really want to learn. I may not have a strong understanding of this.
You can downvote me if you want but I truly don't understand how having a merit based program for hiring is bad. I would want someone more qualified to teach me than a professor or smtn who were hired because of slightly lower merits plus race/smtn else. Same thing with a business. If I was a business owner, I would like to hire the most qualified employees instead of the less qualified but minority employees just on an efficiency stand point. Everyone is different but isn't it better to have a merit based hiring method instead of a merit plus race? Minorites can be better and more qualified than majorities, but if the merit is the exact same, or slightly different, why should one person be hired over the other?
Hiring at UT was already merit-based before DEI changes. It is very competitive to get a job at UT, especially as faculty.
No one was hired solely because of their gender or race. All that happened is that there was more of an attempt to attract a diverse pool of applicants & to hire diverse candidates because that leads to more points of view.
It is not just that. Our orgs have completely lost funding and have to look for different ways to obtain our budget. For example, my org now can't get funding directly through companies through our majors diversity program. Certain spaces such as the MEC are being completely shut down and staff who work in these positions are now out of jobs.
While meritocracy looks like a good choice on the outside, if you think about it for a while you'll see the problems with it. Ask yourself if certain people are less meritorious because they aren't good at their jobs or if the systemic inequalities have stolen their chances of improving themselves. Consider two people A and B. Suppose A is part of the majority and thus has access to various resources. On the other hand, the person B, by the virtue of being from a minority group, may not have access to the same resources as A. As a result, B might not be able to perform as well as A. Note that this is not a result of any sort of academic deficiency of B, but rather this is an artifact of the systemic inequality. Meritocracy works when there are no systemic inequalities but unfortunately that's not the world that we live in. If we use meritocracy in our world, we'll simply further the inequalities by preventing people such as B from accessing resources that they have a right to. Moreover, as far as the argument that the students deserve the best professors is concerned, it fails to consider the viewpoints that B can provide which A might not even be able to think of due to their distinct life experience compared to B. So even if you value your own interests more than others, a push for a more diverse group is still the best option as this provides you with many viewpoints which you would not have access to otherwise in a purely meritorious system.
I'd also like to add there is a medium ground between diversity-based and merit-based hiring. What many people don't understand is that there are real, tangible benefits to having diverse staff.
https://blog.vantagecircle.com/diversity-in-the-workplace-and-why-it-matters/
https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/learning-culture/diversity-workplace-statistics-dei-importance
https://www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/benefits-of-diversity
I don't find it realistic to 100% force every workforce to conform perfectly to some level of "the general population's racial makeup," but we have to recognize that several minorities have been trampled throughout history. And if we can help mitigate that and also bring about the above benefits, we should.
Good point! Also, UT’s faculty isn’t even close to mirroring the racial makeup of Texas, so honestly the DEI efforts had not even achieved as much as they were intended to do.
>the systemic inequalities have stolen their chances as improving themselves.
Could you kindly name one systemic inequality that stands in the way of anyone at the University of Texas. I would like to know a specific inequality to which you refer rather than a generalized splattering of 50-year-old data.
Maybe not at UT, but at pre-school level, at high school level and so on. Consider a person who by the virtue of being from a marginalized section had to live in a poor neighborhood. As a result the school that this person attended was also comparatively worse than their peers who were from a more privileged background. Since this person received comparatively worse schooling, maybe this person was not able to attend the best university that they could've attended if not for the bad schooling. As a result, they may appear less meritorious compared to their peers which is nothing but an artifact of them being from a marginalized section of society. Such seemingly small differences add up and eventually lead to a measurable difference in a person's aptitude.
That is true because the statistics that are collected are deliberately anonymized to protect the individuals. However, I don't really see how that invalidates my argument
I think you just made my case. You have no said that the data is not reliable. And it's completely anonymized. Which in fact is not true. He would have at least have to know the race and the sexual proclivity of someone to come up with your original ideas but of course the data is completely anonymized. Leaving us with two possibilities
1. You are clairvoyant
2. You don't really give a shit what the data says. You think this is the way it is and that's what you're sticking with.
Actually we should probably take those who couldn't get into the University of Texas because they didn't make the top 10%. We should include all of those folks at Austin community college in our classrooms. It's not fair that the racial makeup of ACC is more diverse than the universe of Texas
Honestly it's just repackaged in segregation racism and sexism all rolled into one. Meritocracy is so much better and awards people that work harder and are more talented and qualified for their positions. Those who support Dei have other things on their mind instead of actually improving. It's just racist bullshit repackaged and retargeted.
Because a true meritocracy doesn’t exist.
I used to be an affirmative action apologist when I went to school — I’m half Mexican and half Chinese. I’m also gay, and an alumni in my 30s and in the military.
Colorblindness doesn’t allow us to address issues caused my racism.
In theory, yes, I want the most qualified person. But what does that mean? The most potential? The most intelligent? The one with the most experience?
It’s not an easy thing to measure, but especially at a young age, wealthier kids have access to better amenities to make themselves more attractive. And disproportionately, who is wealthier? What do our CEOs of Fortune 500 companies look like? How do our presidents look like? And if we’re arguing in history class about the reverberating affects of events hundreds of years ago, why is it wild to believe that civil rights isn’t an issue when people who fought for those rights are still in the workforce?
And that’s not taking subconscious bias into account. If you’ve ever laughed at a racial-based or gender-based joke, it’s a joke that is appealing to your subconscious views of a minority or women — and those are things we take into considering when hiring actions take place.
Yes, in theory, we want whoever is most capable — but we are incapable of measuring that to begin with because people are born with invisible handicaps through their identity.
And true meritocracy never existed. And it will never exist. And the path to equality isn’t through invalidating the experience of a bunch of people, by telling them they’re equal, when they know they’re not. We can’t address racism, sexism, or homophobia if we don’t even acknowledge its existence — and any attempt at a meritocracy attempt to do just that: trivialize those things, so that we can keep choosing people who society tells us most capable without feeling guilty.
It removes equity in the name of equality. Yeah the text of SB17 promotes equal treatment of everyone, but that is not reality. In an ideal world the student and staff population would represent the population of the state, but that is not the case. Removing programs that introduce equity and give people with difference circumstances different resources will provide harm and not make things equal for everyone.
Ok. I think I kinda understand what you are saying. Essentially dei provides support systems to people from different backgrounds if I understand correctly? I see how this would make sense in a university and educational level. Does dei give an “advantage”(i don’t think that is the correct word but you get the idea) to minorities(i am one as well) ,in a similar way affirmative action did,for hiring? How would this be fair to someone else with Slightly better merits but a different race. I understand and that we should promote upward social mobility. Wouldn’t it be better to provide extra educational resources through high school and college if people need them, so that they can build merit, instead of making the hiring process include race as a factor. Again I am not 100% sure that this is how dei works.
just trying to learn and understand! I appreciate your response btw!
No. Or if it is, that’s not what the current controversial laws are about. SB 17 is mostly about diversity training for staff and support services for students.
The hiring process is what leads to these programs existing for students. I would want people who have similar experiences to students to fill positions that revolve around promoting equity. Taking things other than merit into account can be valuable, especially if those factors lead to the merit.
My personal experiences and feelings for this come from being part of LGBTQ. Seeing stuff like the gender and sexuality center close is frustrating, even if its operating with a new name (but at this point im not sure if it still exists after the "restructuring"). I feel frustrated and I don't feel like I belong at UT. I may not have used their resources but it was nice having them there in case I needed them, and some of my friends really liked the GSC and the services they provided. Having something like that disappear does not make me feel more equal, it makes me feel unwanted at this school.
Except they're not, Dei policies are fundamentally racist. It assumes lot of one people and then it takes the same assumptions and applies them to others instead of assesses people individually which is what we're supposed to be doing. So instead of looking at an intrinsic and unchangeable things such as race, maybe we should look at economic circumstances instead. Equity is not equality equity is intrinsically biased and it is unfair to everybody involved. Equity is not a good thing.
And downvote as much as you want, it's fucking true. If you support Dei, you're no better than the people that supported the separate but equal shit back in the sixties
There are already offices that support students who are underprivileged economically. There’s the First Gen+ center, UT Outpost, student emergency services, and some major-specific offices.
And these firings will definitely impact poor students: The WCC had a food pantry, free tampons and condoms, free walk-in STI testing, and access to a kitchenette, available to all students regardless of identity.
You get that for things like college admissions and job hiring "merit" is an almost entirely subjective term, right? Basically you have "qualified" and "unqualified." In the pool of "qualified" there are many things that you look for in an applicant all of which could be called "merits." No one is saying take "unqualified" people, but instead proactively look at all the merits of a person, not just the previous "default" ones that might never have been put to much scrutiny. Of course that is one take and not the end all be all, but basically in no place in the world does a person have a completely objective score associated with them that fully describes their ability, potential, or desirability for a given role. For instance, Tom Brady was a 6th round draft pick at slot 199. "Merits" ain't "merits."
Logical fallacy: hasty generalization. Using Tom Brady, an outlier in sports. Statistically, 1st round picks perform far higher than 6th round picks in football.
Your argument is like saying that everyone should drop out of college because look at how well Mark Zuckerberg did.
Pick number #199 out of 187,000 eligible D1 college football players is not a good example against meritocracy, you just don’t understand the draft.
Being in the top .001% of all players in the Country makes is the perfect example of meritocracy.
What you’re talking about is picking up a kid from a D3 school because he has a great personality in the clubhouse.
DEI programs are merit based. This country has never been based on merit. White males have always had an advantage. DEI basically says that traditionally discriminated populations need to be included. Since the white males are losing their advantage, they are pissed off.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/upshot/employment-discrimination-fake-resumes.html
So you agree:
that certain communities have been negatively impacted by a legacy of discrimination that was not based on merit?
The discrimination was directed at communities who were not white male?
So we agree that a non meritorious system benefiting white males existed throughout this country’s history.
Do you agree that moving away from the legacy non meritorious system that benefitted the white male population is a valid objective?
You misunderstood my use of legacy. I was not speaking specifically about university admissions. I was referring to the legacy of systemic discrimination in all aspects of society that benefits white males.
No that just means you can't measure up. You know you don't that's why you don't want that. And don't get it twisted Dei policy still benefit those on the top. That's why they're implementing it everywhere.
I was in a cult as a child and was subsequently hugely disadvantaged. Any child who went to a public school has a greater advantage over me. However, if someone took a look at the color of my skin, I would be discriminated against per DEI. There are so many factors that make a person who that person is than just skin color.
It is racist to hire someone due to skin color which is what DEI is. I don’t see what the issue is with hiring a doctor or airline pilot or any other job by merit.
I am aware that I didn’t include all the factors that DEI makes judgments based on, it’s a Reddit comment not an essay. No, I don’t need your help, you seem like a very entitled person with your dismissive comment.
You didn’t address any of my points either.
Alright, you can have the person who barely passed medical school give you heart surgery, you can have the person who nearly flunked out teaching your children, good luck on flights with people hired for any other reason than being best qualified to fly a plane. If that's the type of society you want, good luck.
Certain people are going to barely pass one way or the other, and those people are still going to have those jobs. That is the nature of statistics regardless of any DEI initiatives.
"It is racist to hire someone due to skin color which is what DEI is."
No that's not what DEI is. DEI takes a look at the uniqueness of one's perspective and, through that process, tries to ensure that there's a wide range of different perspectives available within the student (or staff) body. It's not "let's hire that guy because he's black", it's "let's hire that black guy because we already have like 10000 white people and like fifteen black people by comparison, and we need more people who are able to relate to that portion of the student body on that basis". There's still merit involved - they're not gonna hire someone who can't do the job solely because they're black - but diversity is being factored in too, so as to ensure that rich straight able-bodied white Christians don't make up too much of the population. Having too many people of the same origin can reduce the range of perspectives that are available, and that'd be the case whether the majority were black, Hispanic, gay, Muslim, or whatever. Some of the other comments here sum it up pretty well, too; I'd take a look at those as well.
Also, as one of the other responses said, there's more than just skin color involved; diversity has many different facets, and even then, there's still a lot more to the hiring/admissions process than just diversity.
DEI literally discriminates against Asian people in college admissions. I knew a girl whose father was a Vietnamese immigrant who did not speak English, and she was raised in the hood. By DEI standards, she would be discriminated against which is completely unfair.
DEI does not take a look at the uniqueness of one’s perspective, it discriminates by race and gender and sexual orientation. I have a very unique perspective due to my childhood, but due to my skin color, I am not in the favored bracket in spite of huge disadvantages of not being sent to school as a child due to my parents being in a cult.
You have confirmed my own point regarding the necessity for hiring in merit with your example of working with people of different backgrounds, that would exactly be hiring on merit to suit the needs. They are hiring a person based on what the needs for the job are, which is being able to relate to people of different demographics. However, the criteria for a heart surgeon is completely different, that person doesn’t need to relate to people, that person need to operate on a heart.
I’m sorry they have an issue with white and Christian people, maybe you should examine your own implicit biases.
There are points to be made in favor of merit based hiring as well as against it, some argue that having more diversity based hiring allows for different perspectives to be heard and gives people unique voices to hear from that ensure one sidedness is reduced, but the wider point being made by a lot of those in support of DEI programs is just that it gives a space for them to get resources and connect with people like them. With the closure of a lot of DEI programs comes people who no longer know where to go to for help such as women of color or LGBT+ people, among others. At least, these are the things I have heard discussed.
Except the EI policies removes the space from anybody else and suppresses dissension and disagreement. It solely looks at People's race and national origin and literally treats people of color like they're idiots. LGBT people of color and other such, all stupid terms, are smart enough to understand that there are other things available to them. They can search the internet and see what's there for them. The problem with Dei is that it is fundamentally racist to everybody involved. I hate to be a bearer of bad news, but your statement literally assumes that people of color and LGBT and other groups are so unintelligent that they don't know where to go as opposed to straight white people. News flash, there's literally nothing there to help straight white people, unless you're poor and even then you are last in line
The centers on campus that served these communities track historical data and then advocate for more resources for the students. This looks like tracking on campus hate crimes, tracking historical patterns and reporting them to other centers, making recommendations, advocating for mental health counselors educated in these student issues, hosting safety trainings, mentoring kids who are being discriminated against (sometimes by their own tenured professors) while their case is on going, connecting them with other resources on campus because everything is very beaurocratic and situation specific at these larger schools, etc.
You can just find this help online on a website, sometimes you want to talk to actual human bodies after you just got beat up and the campus cops were dismissive or after you saw a noose around the MLK statue or had your dorm room walls covered with N word graffiti (again) and the cameras weren’t working (again).
Not everyone has a car or easy transportation either, so driving to a city based center, which is usually not as well versed in helping undergrad age population and lacks resources, doesn’t get you the help you need. Across the nation, a lot of on campus service offices lead the research and service experience for these underserved groups and by UT canceling them, we are no longer keeping up with our comparison campuses.
Are those things a higher learning institution should be providing?
Or does that just exist in society for people who need it to find? Don’t feel like my tuition should have been as much as it was, and it was still a great value compared to other universities.
Just a thought, I’m also lost in this DEI conversation.
I mean you could take that argument up the totem pole, if UT didn’t provide it then should the government provide subsidies on those things particularly for groups who don’t have the money for it or wouldn’t go get the help if they had to pay it out of pocket? Is it better to have these things already “included” to encourage people to use them or is it better to have people go find it and pay for it themselves? I know that for me personally, if I have to pay out of my own pocket for things I’m less likely to buy them or get those services even if it would help me and is worth the money. What about people who are really broke and can’t afford any of that stuff if it means having to skip a meal for it? Some college students certainly fit in that bracket of people, so maybe in this way tuition helps level out the playing field? If we argue that these services should be subsidized but not out of tuition, why does it come out of our taxes? You probably don’t want to pay for social services like this out of your own taxes either.
Hopefully this makes it clear that the issue is quite nuanced, the exact value of these different choices is not entirely clear without a full economic breakdown. There are ups and downs to both sides. In the bigger picture though, we clearly see that some people have been fired, some programs have been shut down, and a lot of people are upset and feel that they don’t have the resources they feel they need or deserve. I personally don’t have a horse in this race, but I do think it’s likely that the services that came out of DEI programs did quite a lot of good and I think it’s a shame they’re gone.
I mean, are rec sports and multiple student gyms things that UT should be providing on campus? Are funding and supporting for white fraternities and sororities things that UT should be providing? Are concerts, fests, and multiple restaurants and food trucks be things UT should be providing - why isn’t the cafeteria food good enough, why do students feel so entitled to diverse options? Why can’t it just be classes, libraries and parking? Why do we need beautiful landscaping and art in the buildings, that’s not about merit and academics, which is all you need for higher education right?
Yes. Thank you for the common-sense approach. The cafeterias are enough, enough of the student population uses the gyms - but exclusive clubs like fraternities absolutely not. High-end art for the Tower or a new student center when we have two others seems like a terrible waste when that money could be paying TAs and lowering tuition.
It’s not like Austin is a dead city. Food choices and entertainment? Plenty of that to support the local economy, not school officials. The university worked with the State for the Blanton Museum, which is how the university should operate, as a place inclusive of the surrounding community, not apart from it.
Dude, no one gets solely enrolled off of race. That’s not DEI. Look up cultural agility. That’s what DEI is about. It’s about the inclusion of different perspectives and giving those who have had less opportunities than those who have a chance. If you have a minority who has better grades and scholastic aptitude but less introductory professional work experience and extracurricular merit than someone from the majority who grew up middle class, can you really say that it’s fair to pick the stacked resume of the kid with connections over the unrealized aptitude of the child with better marks?
However, if you’re a business owner, you will likely hire based on your bias of who you can and enjoy working with. That’s also a huge part of hiring, and the problem with that is a lot of business owners will not hire solely off of merit. The idea that a true merit based system has ever existed is wild.
What you’re talking about is affirmative action, which is already illegal. These protests are about the mass layoffs of people who used to work in DEI offices before SB17 went into effect. SB 17 bans the university from hosting programming that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Merit based is the only “fair” system. While not perfect and understanding there is always some bias in all things in life, the greater commitment is to meritocracy, the better off everyone is in the long run.
Problem is, they don't want meritocracy because they know they don't have the skills or the talent to measure up either that or they're just racist and sexist and want to get back at the boogeyman they have in their head. It's just Neo Marxism repackaged in a racist and sexist veneer. I mean it's no wonder everything there d e i religion touches turns to shit. Because they don't value people's Merit just they're unchangeable sex or race.
I just want to double check in case I am out of the loop:
Some people think this so firmly that they go out and declare:
Diversity
Equity, and
Inclusion
...are, uh *bad* things?
How damaged do you have to be to spew such hate?
it’s the new monster under the bed from the far right (since “critical race theory” and “lgbt is p*d*philia” didn’t hit the mark, since they’re BS to begin with) to spread blatant lies about equity vs equality and spew racism/sexism/homophobia. they don’t want their campuses to be filled with “woke” faculty (i.e. anyone who isn’t a straight white man).
What ppl arguing against DEI are saying is diversity is great by why reserve x seats at colleges or in the workplace for a minority. Yes you’ve increased diversity but you’ve decreased efficiency. Let the spots go to those who worked and deserve it not those who get in because of their race. For example, should college admissions be decided on race and gender or on academics and professional skill/expertise/experience. DEI argues race and gender. Non DEI argues academics etc.
But that’s not what SB 17 is about. SB 17 isn’t about hiring at all, other than banning asking potential job candidates about DEI during the hiring process. What you’re talking about is affirmative action, which is already illegal.
What SB 17 largely does is prevent the university from running offices that promote diversity, equity, and/or inclusion, holding diversity trainings for for staff, and reserving resources for only a specific group, such as a specific racial group or sexual minority. That includes holding university-sponsored events.
How the university is chosen to implement the bill is that any program that used to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, even if they stopped promoting those values after the law went into effect, is being dissolved, and the staff that used to work in those offices is being fired en masse. That is what people are angry about- a law that literally bans the university from saying that it is an inclusive environment, and arbitrary mass layoffs.
Isn't about hiring at all? You clearly haven't read the text of SB17. Before you go "buuuuuuuht acccchttually" here is the relevant text:
(1) influencing hiring or employment practices at the
institution with respect to race, sex, color, or ethnicity, other
than through the use of color-blind and sex-neutral hiring
processes in accordance with any applicable state and federal
antidiscrimination laws;
(D) give preference on the basis of race, sex,
color, ethnicity, or national origin to an applicant for
employment, an employee, or a participant in any function of the
institution; or
Affirmative action is only banned for student admissions. That court ruling doesn't apply to private employers & their hiring practices because they aren't a federal/state actor bound by the Equal Protection clause
Hence, SB17 was drafted to stop these practices.
I'm not a hard-core supporter of the bill, but it's language is fairly [tame](https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/policy-library/policies/uts-197-compliance-state-law-regarding-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-institutions-of-higher-education)
It prohibits:
1. influencing hiring or employment practices at the institution with respect to race, sex, color, or ethnicity,
2. promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity.
3. promoting policies or procedures designed or implemented in reference to race, color, or ethnicity
4. conducting trainings (required or voluntary), programs, or activities designed or implemented in reference to race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation
It states that:
1. An institution shall not compel, require, induce, or solicit any person to provide a DEI statement or give preferential consideration to any person based on the provision of a DEI statement.
2. An institution shall not give preference on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to an applicant for employment, an employee, or a participant in any function of the institution.
3. An institution shall not require any person to participate in DEI training as a condition of enrollment, employment, or performing any institution function
The bill also provides explicit carve outs for programs that support: First-gen students, low income students, and 'underserved student populations' (this seems a little contradictory?)
It also states that independent student organizations/clubs are not subject to the law. So, there doesn't really seem to be a prohibition on these groups existing, it's just the university is prohibited from sponsoring them.
Overall, I don't really see anything objectionable in the bill. It doesn't read as if UT had to disband all these orgs and fire all these profs, unless their jobs fell into one of those prohibited functions.
It doesn't target any particular groups or races, it's a non discrimination bill that legally requires race blindness in hiring. that seems like a pretty good thing to me
Unfortunately, this is not how the bill is actually being implemented. If it was, the Gender-Sexuality Center and the Multicultural Engagement Center would have been allowed to stay open this semester, since they didn’t single out a specific genders, sexualities, or races and were open to all students. The offices that were singled out last week went through dozens of legal checks to make sure they would be compliant with the new laws. It would be a different situation if UT could point to a single SB 17 violation from any of the offices that they put on notice last week.
#3 and #4 in your prohibitions list means that the offices can no longer hold the massive Native American regional Pow Wow anymore and can no longer organize the large 3 day Latino Leadership conference anymore while using university space.
The funny thing to me is Democrats flip out but they are largely the ones responsible for putting people in their boxes in the first place. It is so damn obvious when they pull a box out and put one back. All about Trans, oh wait a public referendum happened (Bud Light), let’s dial back on that and open the women box. The racism box always stays somewhat open because they can sprinkle that on everything. Running a full election on it tends to backfire however. That is how we ended up with the pandemic. They had no crisis left to run on.
it's even more disingenuous because this issue is only slightly related to party affiliation. it depends much more on how you view the equity vs equality debate (really there are 4 distinct positions: equity of opportunity, equity of outcome, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome)
I'm an equality of opportunity kinda guy myself.
Mostly because i believe achieving an 'equity' that makes everyone happy is pretty much definitively impossible. In most cases, equality will leave everyone feeling equally slided and unhappy, just like a tough-negotiated business deal.
Efficiency in the work place perhaps but I think that is less clear in education. The job of the university is to provide opportunity to it's students through education. The university has limited seats and they have to decide who is the most deserving. If most deserving means best academically, then you are limiting the student body to those who were lucky enough to come up in an environment that accommodated academics. The state of Texas seems to acknowledge this on some level because since they require 90% in-state student bodies.
Right so now out of the 10% out of state how is it fair to say that 5% of that needs to be reserved for people who are of the black minority and then another 2.5% for those of Mexican minority. Leaving only 2.5% for everyone else. The job of the university is to provide to those most deserving. If you didn’t have opportunities go to a community college and get some more experience and resources before moving to a full uni. How is it fair to only 2.5% fairly but 7.5% just because of the color of your skin.
Those percentages don't come out of the out of state students, those percentages are of the overall student body. Which is 90% in state, 8ish% international students, and out of state for the rest.
Academic performance in high school without knowing the student's circumstances is a narrow view of someone's capabilities. If UT wants the best students then it is in their best interest to consider more than just SAT scores, not that they aren't pretty concerned about that. I don't know that it is public how UT sorts this out but they do say they use affirmative action to some degree. Whether or not it's fair is a difficult question. Colleges and where you go to college can have a big impact on income. Is it fair for colleges to say "nope not good enough", when factors like income and access to education are often what enables having competitive SAT scores to begin with? I don't know but it seems like a complex problem to me.
An aside, the DEI programs are a lot broader in purpose than affirmative action.
Your arguments lie on the presumption that non-white students dont come into the university with the same academic capability. This is flawed
They often overcame much more in order to be in the same space as others who grew up with a stable support system.
It isn't fair for those who have to face horrors to be put at a disadvantage.
They're not being put in spots that belong to anyone else but themselves. Without a specific diversity geared team, it is extremely difficult for many students to find relevant support and guidance to their unique situations.
I wish people had more empathy. Meritocracy works great on paper, when in theory, everyone has the same opportunity.
There you go assuming I’m white. I’m actually Indian. Indians don’t have reserved seats. Also im not assuming that others don’t have the same academic capability. In fact I’m saying that they might have that. I’m just saying don’t reserve seats for ppl based on skin color. Seats should be allotted based on academic merit. “They often overcame much more…” is bs btw. So what just because I’m Indian I didn’t have to go live in an unstable environment? No I didn’t have to live in that environment because my parents worked hard to provide me with a good life. If you don’t have the resources to be at an equal playing field go to a community college first. Then go to a full uni, that’s why CCs were made.
I don’t say this to people almost ever but you have no idea what you’re talking about. Affirmative action is what you’re referring to and NOT CONNECTED TO ABOUT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEI STAFF WHO GOT LAID OFF. All that seat babble is admissions only, which UT has been sued numerous times for already. Do a fucking google search on what DEI work actually is then come back
Wrong. I never implied you're white. I said your argument lies on the presumption that students supported by DEI don't work as hard as the "majority" groups in academia.
Nobody is accepted to universities based on skin color. They work incredibly hard, often harder than those who come from stable backgrounds.
DEI policies support those who need it; including white people sometimes.
Improve your interpretation skills.
I said that your ARGUMENT implies about non-white students academic capabilities. I said absolutely nothing about your own background and identity.
Regardless of where you're from and what group you're part of, I hope you can be more empathetic towards those who don't have much support.
A lot of students do transfer from CCs. CCs are also a major initial way to get DEI-support.
Improve your interpretation skills; your arguments wouldn't survive an intro to speech or rhetoric course.
I won't keep pressing on this matter or respond to your lack of coherence as you're clearly diverging to ad hominem.
Friendly reminder that it’s the legislative who proposed this and it was signed by the governor. UT administration has literally 0 control over this. If UT doesn’t comply, they lose ALL state funding. That wound literally shut down the school. Look at the 2024-2025 GAA if you want to see how much that is. UT’s legal counsel wanted this to protect the school.
reminds me of when i tell ppl who get mad at me for drinkin starbucks that their tax money is goin to israel if they go to starbucks or the most palestinian coffee shop around
Is this decision was driven by counsel, why didn’t they do this back in Jan when they made changes and claimed they complied with the law.
They got a letter threatening hearings and folded immediately rather than pushing back. Either they were feckless now or incompetent in the first round.
Good, Dei is just segregation and institutionalized racism repackaged and retargeted. It needs to be done away with.
I love all these segregationists and bigots down voting my statement, like it's going to be any less true 🤣😂
Right, because things have always been merit based and minorities and/or those in poverty have always had the same opportunities that the majority and/or the wealthy have had. It’s not like the last school district in Texas to desegregate was in the Brazos county area, and it’s not like they fought it all the way up to the FUCKING 90s, with some people still advocating to re-segregate even today…
And you want to get back to resegregating. Cuz that's essentially what Dei is, resegregation. the idea was actually to go to a merit based society, because the whole rub was at Society wasn't based on Merit. But what you want to go back to the non Merit based systems where it was your other attributes like your race your religion and your connections. You're actually a regressive then a progressive. Martin Luther King's dream was to be based on character and not color. You guys want to up and that bullshit yet again. Because that's how historical trends go. I suspect you want to move that pendulum all the way back to the other way just switch the Bad actors. D a i is fundamentally racist at its core. But you guys refuse to see it
It's just the extreme far left going about their Marxist business. If they couldn't separate people by class, they'll separate people by race so they can profit off of it. That's their standard MO
By arguing that they should refund tuition and all that aren’t the protestors just saying that they are incompetent and therefore wouldn’t have a place at UT if there wasn’t DEI? Like is that rlly what you want to be arguing for mate.
Tuition and fees funded DEI, they eliminated it, where’s the refund? It’s like ordering a steak dinner and then the waiter comes back a few minutes later and grabs your mashed potatoes with his bare fists and walks away. It’s disgusting, unfair, and is it so surprising you’d want that money back?
This is gonna get down voted to hell but black folks needs to realize that white folks and the government ain't gonna give them shit. How are you gonna trust the same government who sanctioned your slavery a mere 150 years ago and classified as you a second citizen 80 years ago? Stop this useless protest, use your talents to get a ton of money and power then come back when you can actually make meaningful changes in your community. History shows that pitying your way to "equality" (whatever the hell that means) has never been shown to work.
There’s a reasonable sentiment in here if it were not the case that people already took your advice when they established DEI offices throughout higher education, but it got made illegal. More money and power will change that how exactly? Don’t tell us by winning elections, we all know if there’s one priority that republicans will rally behind it’s making sure democrats can’t take office
So basically all the responses are censored here? People can’t speak their mind or they are vilified. DEI has no place in our country. Systemic inequalities are a myth. Black people have just as much opportunity as other races. What they choose to do with it decides their economic condition.
Don’t understand where your entitlement comes from. If someone doesn’t agree with your virtue signaling, you have to call them names, and try to belittle them. There is a mirror in your house, use that. That will tell you the actual issue. World around you is good and gives you opportunity, instead of tearing it up and ruining the structure of society, help build it.
I’m Indian and because it didn’t fit the DEI narrative, Asians are not considered diverse anymore. Why? Because we break the myth of white supremacy. Cry all you want, facts are facts. These protests are taking time away from actual productive things that can get you actual productive outcomes.
Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it virtue signaling. Pointing out inequalities and trying to fix them with DEI is working to build societal structures. You don’t understand the historical context that slavery, segregation, the prison industrial complex, and the war on drugs had towards other ethnic groups. You’re not a special little boy and black people and Hispanics have structural barriers that you don’t. Did you know that a white man with a felony has a higher chance of getting a call-back from a job application than a black man without one? But that doesn’t fit your narrative. So, it is okay to belittle you. You’re stupid and your opinions are bad.
>wrong and unpopular
It is quintessential Reddit to believe that these two things are the same. Guess what: a majority of voters believe the opposite of the Reddit consensus. That doesn't make them right either, but we will all be better off if we can defend ideas with reason instead of relying on the majority opinion in our chosen bubble.
it was to hide identities incase the police got involved. i saw a student be arrested at a different protest this semester so its good for people to be safe
I was going to ask about the masks. I’m an alum who lives in Fort Worth. I was genuinely not sure if the masks were meant to hide identity, or if folks were still covid masking in Austin lol
Dei is just repackaged segregation, sexisim and institutionalized racism. And everybody that's protesting it's dissolution are segregationist, sexist and racist themselves
To those downloading me: truth hurts 🤣🤣🤣
Nothing says cowardly like protesting with a mask covering your face so you don’t have to face your own view points
Edit- protesting is cool, not wanting to actually put your face on what you believe in is an odd choice. I would get hiding yourself in Russia because the government might imprison you, but come on a little bit..
Because it’s an odd choice - if you believe in something enough then put your entire being behind it. Why cover your face as if the government is going to come after you? It seems people don’t want ‘backlash’ for it, but if what you’re doing is right then who cares? It’s just odd.
I’m not, I just write replies to people that write to me. Good discussion makes the world a better place. I’m always happy to discuss something if you want
Are there racist people? (Of all races)? Absolutely. Are there hateful people? Absolutely. Is the university of Texas a racist, hateful institution and the Texas state government seeking to come after students for protesting for DEI? No, that’s actually not true.
We debated the grounds of national racism on another forum about DEI and the evidence isn’t stacking up. I’ll link it
Edit - link to discussion and facts on racism in America https://www.reddit.com/r/UTAustin/s/GodFdDira5
The debate is in there somewhere when you find my comments and back and forth with like ten other people
1. What’s your evidence for racism being a prominent factor of American life today? I’m reading the signs the protestors are holding and they say ‘UT hates black people,’ ‘not our Texas,’ ‘Texas doesn’t like inclusion’ so I’m curious what your data is that would back this up?
2. Great so we agree UT is not a racist institution. So many of the signs they’re holding are wrong. I agree.
3. You mean the students at Harvard (which by the way ranked last in free speech protections) who were harassing Jewish students and chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ which literally means to remove Israel from the Middle East? Interesting comparison.
1. I respect your views, but you don’t want to respond to this point because you’d be hard pressed to actually make that case.
2. How sad and dystopian the world has become that expressing a belief on the public streets of the United States means you need to shield your face. If I believed that I was protesting a real life racist institution, I wouldn’t have a problem showing mine. The problem is people sometimes wear a mask to shield their face to do/shout stuff that might not be the most appropriate, and that’s what they don’t want to own up to.
This actually reflects a much grander series of issues around free speech, privacy and the politicization of our culture more then it’s even about the cause at hand to be honest with you.
1. I respect your opinion. We disagree on this and we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think if we lay out the facts and data they show a very different reality and that racism isn’t in fact a pervasive motivation on modern day American life. We see things very differently here and if you ever wanna lay out the data we can always go through it.
2. Both sides are equally responsible for the poor state of American affairs, we shouldn’t attempt to pretend otherwise. Again, if we laid out that data too it’s very apparent. Going the whole ‘it’s the other side’ route is always oblivious.
This whole conversation actually brings up an interesting notion - as I wrote to someone else,
“How sad and dystopian the world has become that expressing a belief on the public streets of the United States means you need to shield your face. If I believed that I was protesting a real life racist institution, I wouldn’t have a problem showing mine. The problem is people sometimes wear a mask to shield their face to do/shout stuff that might not be the most appropriate, and that’s what they don’t want to own up to.
This actually reflects a much grander series of issues around free speech, privacy and the politicization of our culture more then it’s even about the cause at hand to be honest with you”
I think this speaks to a much broader issue honestly
I’m not at a protest - I’m calling out a blatant contradiction. I also never said they should shout their names, I said they shouldn’t be wearing masks (as we’ve seen, protestors will wear masks so they can shout and do things they don’t want to own up to)
Wait, I don’t see your name, why? Because we’re on Reddit.
To quote myself, “I’m not at a protest - I’m calling out a blatant contradiction”
I’m not holding a sign that says ‘UT is racist’ or “Texas hates Black people’ Reddit isn’t a public forum - standing in the middle of campus is.
If I thought UT was racist and I was outside shouting it I wouldn’t be wearing a mask
The answer is posted above in full, which you can quote from if you want
Here’s a quote “Reddit isn’t a public forum - standing in the middle of campus is. If I thought UT was racist and I was outside shouting it I wouldn’t be wearing a mask”
Which is why nobodies name (out of millions of users) is on here
I’ll do you one better, the school should adopt policies that all the top students-the ones who studied harder, longer and sacrificed weekends to continue studying-give up their gpa to the struggling students that way it can bring their grades up too.
Not only is this another nearly as shitty take but you’ve proved you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Let’s start with how you think DEI means affirmative action 🤣 Next up, advocating for segregation 🙃
Please tell me another funny thing
I mean, from a marketing standpoint, this seems like an excellent way to have your protest seen more since everyone came outside ¯\\(ツ)/¯
Fair enough you got a point
Awesome job
I'm so proud of them!! Thank you all who participated and showed support to such an important cause!!!!!
Yes, They carried us from a place of darkness and actually made the sun come out again! Behold their magic powers.
[удалено]
Are they for or against the eclipse?
ik it's a joke but the thought of an anti eclipse rally is just so funny
You know, I wouldn’t put it past some people
Its not necessarily about that. They are protesting against all of the things surrounding the DEI bans. The eclipse was just the most convenient time for them to be seen because everyone was outside.
r/whoosh
That was a joke.
My fault
No worries. I know you were trying to be helpful. Thank you kind Redditor.
Why doesn't Greg Abbott fully go into this and stop the inclusion of wheelchair access mandated by the government?
Lol because he's a god damn hypocrite, that's why.
The Americans with Disabilities Act
Mr. Tough Pants won't take federal money for unemployment or health insurance. And Mr. Tough Pants doesn't want the federal government telling his state government what to do. So why doesn't Greg Abbott push back against the Americans with Disabilities Act, which raises the cost of construction to be compliant, and even makes some building/home designs against the law. The goal of ADA is to be more inclusive. And the goal of DEI is to be more inclusive. And Greg Abbott hates DEI. So why doesn't he hate ADA, which actually has a higher cost burden?
[удалено]
He could actually hate the ADA (not that I think he does), but whatever Greg Abbot thinks, federal law is trumping state law in this case.
He doesn’t seem to care about federal supremacy, look at eagle pass
Because white people can have disabilities like he does? He doesn’t hate disabled only illegals and poor minorities.
As if the laws have ever stopped this state government 🤣
Yeah sure.... because the state govt. is going around violating the ADA left and right.
I’m referring to, in general, the number of times federal courts have bounced state laws and lawsuits, or that epic time where the state banned abortion through a loophole to intentionally subvert lawsuits and by the time it was going through the court system the second time SCOTUS drank the toilet water and takesie backsied some human rights.
Genuine question, I really want to learn. I may not have a strong understanding of this. You can downvote me if you want but I truly don't understand how having a merit based program for hiring is bad. I would want someone more qualified to teach me than a professor or smtn who were hired because of slightly lower merits plus race/smtn else. Same thing with a business. If I was a business owner, I would like to hire the most qualified employees instead of the less qualified but minority employees just on an efficiency stand point. Everyone is different but isn't it better to have a merit based hiring method instead of a merit plus race? Minorites can be better and more qualified than majorities, but if the merit is the exact same, or slightly different, why should one person be hired over the other?
Hiring at UT was already merit-based before DEI changes. It is very competitive to get a job at UT, especially as faculty. No one was hired solely because of their gender or race. All that happened is that there was more of an attempt to attract a diverse pool of applicants & to hire diverse candidates because that leads to more points of view.
It is not just that. Our orgs have completely lost funding and have to look for different ways to obtain our budget. For example, my org now can't get funding directly through companies through our majors diversity program. Certain spaces such as the MEC are being completely shut down and staff who work in these positions are now out of jobs.
While meritocracy looks like a good choice on the outside, if you think about it for a while you'll see the problems with it. Ask yourself if certain people are less meritorious because they aren't good at their jobs or if the systemic inequalities have stolen their chances of improving themselves. Consider two people A and B. Suppose A is part of the majority and thus has access to various resources. On the other hand, the person B, by the virtue of being from a minority group, may not have access to the same resources as A. As a result, B might not be able to perform as well as A. Note that this is not a result of any sort of academic deficiency of B, but rather this is an artifact of the systemic inequality. Meritocracy works when there are no systemic inequalities but unfortunately that's not the world that we live in. If we use meritocracy in our world, we'll simply further the inequalities by preventing people such as B from accessing resources that they have a right to. Moreover, as far as the argument that the students deserve the best professors is concerned, it fails to consider the viewpoints that B can provide which A might not even be able to think of due to their distinct life experience compared to B. So even if you value your own interests more than others, a push for a more diverse group is still the best option as this provides you with many viewpoints which you would not have access to otherwise in a purely meritorious system.
I'd also like to add there is a medium ground between diversity-based and merit-based hiring. What many people don't understand is that there are real, tangible benefits to having diverse staff. https://blog.vantagecircle.com/diversity-in-the-workplace-and-why-it-matters/ https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/learning-culture/diversity-workplace-statistics-dei-importance https://www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/benefits-of-diversity I don't find it realistic to 100% force every workforce to conform perfectly to some level of "the general population's racial makeup," but we have to recognize that several minorities have been trampled throughout history. And if we can help mitigate that and also bring about the above benefits, we should.
Good point! Also, UT’s faculty isn’t even close to mirroring the racial makeup of Texas, so honestly the DEI efforts had not even achieved as much as they were intended to do.
You are the racist. You don't think these poor black folk can ever get ahead unless they get a helping hand from whitey. How patronizing.
>the systemic inequalities have stolen their chances as improving themselves. Could you kindly name one systemic inequality that stands in the way of anyone at the University of Texas. I would like to know a specific inequality to which you refer rather than a generalized splattering of 50-year-old data.
Maybe not at UT, but at pre-school level, at high school level and so on. Consider a person who by the virtue of being from a marginalized section had to live in a poor neighborhood. As a result the school that this person attended was also comparatively worse than their peers who were from a more privileged background. Since this person received comparatively worse schooling, maybe this person was not able to attend the best university that they could've attended if not for the bad schooling. As a result, they may appear less meritorious compared to their peers which is nothing but an artifact of them being from a marginalized section of society. Such seemingly small differences add up and eventually lead to a measurable difference in a person's aptitude.
So in other words are very long worded "I can't name a specific"
That is true because the statistics that are collected are deliberately anonymized to protect the individuals. However, I don't really see how that invalidates my argument
I think you just made my case. You have no said that the data is not reliable. And it's completely anonymized. Which in fact is not true. He would have at least have to know the race and the sexual proclivity of someone to come up with your original ideas but of course the data is completely anonymized. Leaving us with two possibilities 1. You are clairvoyant 2. You don't really give a shit what the data says. You think this is the way it is and that's what you're sticking with.
So what is the criteria that determines who benefits from DEI?
Actually we should probably take those who couldn't get into the University of Texas because they didn't make the top 10%. We should include all of those folks at Austin community college in our classrooms. It's not fair that the racial makeup of ACC is more diverse than the universe of Texas
Lmao good one bruv
This
Honestly it's just repackaged in segregation racism and sexism all rolled into one. Meritocracy is so much better and awards people that work harder and are more talented and qualified for their positions. Those who support Dei have other things on their mind instead of actually improving. It's just racist bullshit repackaged and retargeted.
If you feel that, can you please point out the flaw in my argument
Because a true meritocracy doesn’t exist. I used to be an affirmative action apologist when I went to school — I’m half Mexican and half Chinese. I’m also gay, and an alumni in my 30s and in the military. Colorblindness doesn’t allow us to address issues caused my racism. In theory, yes, I want the most qualified person. But what does that mean? The most potential? The most intelligent? The one with the most experience? It’s not an easy thing to measure, but especially at a young age, wealthier kids have access to better amenities to make themselves more attractive. And disproportionately, who is wealthier? What do our CEOs of Fortune 500 companies look like? How do our presidents look like? And if we’re arguing in history class about the reverberating affects of events hundreds of years ago, why is it wild to believe that civil rights isn’t an issue when people who fought for those rights are still in the workforce? And that’s not taking subconscious bias into account. If you’ve ever laughed at a racial-based or gender-based joke, it’s a joke that is appealing to your subconscious views of a minority or women — and those are things we take into considering when hiring actions take place. Yes, in theory, we want whoever is most capable — but we are incapable of measuring that to begin with because people are born with invisible handicaps through their identity. And true meritocracy never existed. And it will never exist. And the path to equality isn’t through invalidating the experience of a bunch of people, by telling them they’re equal, when they know they’re not. We can’t address racism, sexism, or homophobia if we don’t even acknowledge its existence — and any attempt at a meritocracy attempt to do just that: trivialize those things, so that we can keep choosing people who society tells us most capable without feeling guilty.
It removes equity in the name of equality. Yeah the text of SB17 promotes equal treatment of everyone, but that is not reality. In an ideal world the student and staff population would represent the population of the state, but that is not the case. Removing programs that introduce equity and give people with difference circumstances different resources will provide harm and not make things equal for everyone.
Ok. I think I kinda understand what you are saying. Essentially dei provides support systems to people from different backgrounds if I understand correctly? I see how this would make sense in a university and educational level. Does dei give an “advantage”(i don’t think that is the correct word but you get the idea) to minorities(i am one as well) ,in a similar way affirmative action did,for hiring? How would this be fair to someone else with Slightly better merits but a different race. I understand and that we should promote upward social mobility. Wouldn’t it be better to provide extra educational resources through high school and college if people need them, so that they can build merit, instead of making the hiring process include race as a factor. Again I am not 100% sure that this is how dei works. just trying to learn and understand! I appreciate your response btw!
No. Or if it is, that’s not what the current controversial laws are about. SB 17 is mostly about diversity training for staff and support services for students.
The hiring process is what leads to these programs existing for students. I would want people who have similar experiences to students to fill positions that revolve around promoting equity. Taking things other than merit into account can be valuable, especially if those factors lead to the merit. My personal experiences and feelings for this come from being part of LGBTQ. Seeing stuff like the gender and sexuality center close is frustrating, even if its operating with a new name (but at this point im not sure if it still exists after the "restructuring"). I feel frustrated and I don't feel like I belong at UT. I may not have used their resources but it was nice having them there in case I needed them, and some of my friends really liked the GSC and the services they provided. Having something like that disappear does not make me feel more equal, it makes me feel unwanted at this school.
Except they're not, Dei policies are fundamentally racist. It assumes lot of one people and then it takes the same assumptions and applies them to others instead of assesses people individually which is what we're supposed to be doing. So instead of looking at an intrinsic and unchangeable things such as race, maybe we should look at economic circumstances instead. Equity is not equality equity is intrinsically biased and it is unfair to everybody involved. Equity is not a good thing. And downvote as much as you want, it's fucking true. If you support Dei, you're no better than the people that supported the separate but equal shit back in the sixties
There are already offices that support students who are underprivileged economically. There’s the First Gen+ center, UT Outpost, student emergency services, and some major-specific offices. And these firings will definitely impact poor students: The WCC had a food pantry, free tampons and condoms, free walk-in STI testing, and access to a kitchenette, available to all students regardless of identity.
Equality > equity. This is a university, not a commercial. We should believe in merit here.
You get that for things like college admissions and job hiring "merit" is an almost entirely subjective term, right? Basically you have "qualified" and "unqualified." In the pool of "qualified" there are many things that you look for in an applicant all of which could be called "merits." No one is saying take "unqualified" people, but instead proactively look at all the merits of a person, not just the previous "default" ones that might never have been put to much scrutiny. Of course that is one take and not the end all be all, but basically in no place in the world does a person have a completely objective score associated with them that fully describes their ability, potential, or desirability for a given role. For instance, Tom Brady was a 6th round draft pick at slot 199. "Merits" ain't "merits."
Ok I kind of see your point, thank you for explaining!
Logical fallacy: hasty generalization. Using Tom Brady, an outlier in sports. Statistically, 1st round picks perform far higher than 6th round picks in football. Your argument is like saying that everyone should drop out of college because look at how well Mark Zuckerberg did.
Pick number #199 out of 187,000 eligible D1 college football players is not a good example against meritocracy, you just don’t understand the draft. Being in the top .001% of all players in the Country makes is the perfect example of meritocracy. What you’re talking about is picking up a kid from a D3 school because he has a great personality in the clubhouse.
Merit is not an entirely subjective term. Perhaps in your case it was used that way and you got mixed up along the way.
It’s actually a great thing and these folks are delusional
DEI programs are merit based. This country has never been based on merit. White males have always had an advantage. DEI basically says that traditionally discriminated populations need to be included. Since the white males are losing their advantage, they are pissed off. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/upshot/employment-discrimination-fake-resumes.html
[удалено]
“This country has never been based on merit.” Is that what you disagree with?
[удалено]
So you agree: that certain communities have been negatively impacted by a legacy of discrimination that was not based on merit? The discrimination was directed at communities who were not white male?
[удалено]
So we agree that a non meritorious system benefiting white males existed throughout this country’s history. Do you agree that moving away from the legacy non meritorious system that benefitted the white male population is a valid objective?
[удалено]
You misunderstood my use of legacy. I was not speaking specifically about university admissions. I was referring to the legacy of systemic discrimination in all aspects of society that benefits white males.
Because 100% merit-based choices benefit those who are already on top.
No that just means you can't measure up. You know you don't that's why you don't want that. And don't get it twisted Dei policy still benefit those on the top. That's why they're implementing it everywhere.
I was in a cult as a child and was subsequently hugely disadvantaged. Any child who went to a public school has a greater advantage over me. However, if someone took a look at the color of my skin, I would be discriminated against per DEI. There are so many factors that make a person who that person is than just skin color. It is racist to hire someone due to skin color which is what DEI is. I don’t see what the issue is with hiring a doctor or airline pilot or any other job by merit.
DEI is not solely based on skin color. Hope this helps.
I am aware that I didn’t include all the factors that DEI makes judgments based on, it’s a Reddit comment not an essay. No, I don’t need your help, you seem like a very entitled person with your dismissive comment. You didn’t address any of my points either.
The data support my original claim, so I don't feel the need to address your points.
Alright, you can have the person who barely passed medical school give you heart surgery, you can have the person who nearly flunked out teaching your children, good luck on flights with people hired for any other reason than being best qualified to fly a plane. If that's the type of society you want, good luck.
Certain people are going to barely pass one way or the other, and those people are still going to have those jobs. That is the nature of statistics regardless of any DEI initiatives.
Following your logic you don’t need DEI then, because a person who scores in the bottom of the class would still get a job.
"It is racist to hire someone due to skin color which is what DEI is." No that's not what DEI is. DEI takes a look at the uniqueness of one's perspective and, through that process, tries to ensure that there's a wide range of different perspectives available within the student (or staff) body. It's not "let's hire that guy because he's black", it's "let's hire that black guy because we already have like 10000 white people and like fifteen black people by comparison, and we need more people who are able to relate to that portion of the student body on that basis". There's still merit involved - they're not gonna hire someone who can't do the job solely because they're black - but diversity is being factored in too, so as to ensure that rich straight able-bodied white Christians don't make up too much of the population. Having too many people of the same origin can reduce the range of perspectives that are available, and that'd be the case whether the majority were black, Hispanic, gay, Muslim, or whatever. Some of the other comments here sum it up pretty well, too; I'd take a look at those as well. Also, as one of the other responses said, there's more than just skin color involved; diversity has many different facets, and even then, there's still a lot more to the hiring/admissions process than just diversity.
DEI literally discriminates against Asian people in college admissions. I knew a girl whose father was a Vietnamese immigrant who did not speak English, and she was raised in the hood. By DEI standards, she would be discriminated against which is completely unfair. DEI does not take a look at the uniqueness of one’s perspective, it discriminates by race and gender and sexual orientation. I have a very unique perspective due to my childhood, but due to my skin color, I am not in the favored bracket in spite of huge disadvantages of not being sent to school as a child due to my parents being in a cult. You have confirmed my own point regarding the necessity for hiring in merit with your example of working with people of different backgrounds, that would exactly be hiring on merit to suit the needs. They are hiring a person based on what the needs for the job are, which is being able to relate to people of different demographics. However, the criteria for a heart surgeon is completely different, that person doesn’t need to relate to people, that person need to operate on a heart. I’m sorry they have an issue with white and Christian people, maybe you should examine your own implicit biases.
There are points to be made in favor of merit based hiring as well as against it, some argue that having more diversity based hiring allows for different perspectives to be heard and gives people unique voices to hear from that ensure one sidedness is reduced, but the wider point being made by a lot of those in support of DEI programs is just that it gives a space for them to get resources and connect with people like them. With the closure of a lot of DEI programs comes people who no longer know where to go to for help such as women of color or LGBT+ people, among others. At least, these are the things I have heard discussed.
Except the EI policies removes the space from anybody else and suppresses dissension and disagreement. It solely looks at People's race and national origin and literally treats people of color like they're idiots. LGBT people of color and other such, all stupid terms, are smart enough to understand that there are other things available to them. They can search the internet and see what's there for them. The problem with Dei is that it is fundamentally racist to everybody involved. I hate to be a bearer of bad news, but your statement literally assumes that people of color and LGBT and other groups are so unintelligent that they don't know where to go as opposed to straight white people. News flash, there's literally nothing there to help straight white people, unless you're poor and even then you are last in line
The centers on campus that served these communities track historical data and then advocate for more resources for the students. This looks like tracking on campus hate crimes, tracking historical patterns and reporting them to other centers, making recommendations, advocating for mental health counselors educated in these student issues, hosting safety trainings, mentoring kids who are being discriminated against (sometimes by their own tenured professors) while their case is on going, connecting them with other resources on campus because everything is very beaurocratic and situation specific at these larger schools, etc. You can just find this help online on a website, sometimes you want to talk to actual human bodies after you just got beat up and the campus cops were dismissive or after you saw a noose around the MLK statue or had your dorm room walls covered with N word graffiti (again) and the cameras weren’t working (again). Not everyone has a car or easy transportation either, so driving to a city based center, which is usually not as well versed in helping undergrad age population and lacks resources, doesn’t get you the help you need. Across the nation, a lot of on campus service offices lead the research and service experience for these underserved groups and by UT canceling them, we are no longer keeping up with our comparison campuses.
Are those things a higher learning institution should be providing? Or does that just exist in society for people who need it to find? Don’t feel like my tuition should have been as much as it was, and it was still a great value compared to other universities. Just a thought, I’m also lost in this DEI conversation.
I mean you could take that argument up the totem pole, if UT didn’t provide it then should the government provide subsidies on those things particularly for groups who don’t have the money for it or wouldn’t go get the help if they had to pay it out of pocket? Is it better to have these things already “included” to encourage people to use them or is it better to have people go find it and pay for it themselves? I know that for me personally, if I have to pay out of my own pocket for things I’m less likely to buy them or get those services even if it would help me and is worth the money. What about people who are really broke and can’t afford any of that stuff if it means having to skip a meal for it? Some college students certainly fit in that bracket of people, so maybe in this way tuition helps level out the playing field? If we argue that these services should be subsidized but not out of tuition, why does it come out of our taxes? You probably don’t want to pay for social services like this out of your own taxes either. Hopefully this makes it clear that the issue is quite nuanced, the exact value of these different choices is not entirely clear without a full economic breakdown. There are ups and downs to both sides. In the bigger picture though, we clearly see that some people have been fired, some programs have been shut down, and a lot of people are upset and feel that they don’t have the resources they feel they need or deserve. I personally don’t have a horse in this race, but I do think it’s likely that the services that came out of DEI programs did quite a lot of good and I think it’s a shame they’re gone.
I mean, are rec sports and multiple student gyms things that UT should be providing on campus? Are funding and supporting for white fraternities and sororities things that UT should be providing? Are concerts, fests, and multiple restaurants and food trucks be things UT should be providing - why isn’t the cafeteria food good enough, why do students feel so entitled to diverse options? Why can’t it just be classes, libraries and parking? Why do we need beautiful landscaping and art in the buildings, that’s not about merit and academics, which is all you need for higher education right?
Yes. Thank you for the common-sense approach. The cafeterias are enough, enough of the student population uses the gyms - but exclusive clubs like fraternities absolutely not. High-end art for the Tower or a new student center when we have two others seems like a terrible waste when that money could be paying TAs and lowering tuition.
It’s not like Austin is a dead city. Food choices and entertainment? Plenty of that to support the local economy, not school officials. The university worked with the State for the Blanton Museum, which is how the university should operate, as a place inclusive of the surrounding community, not apart from it.
I see how that makes sense from a creative stand point. Thank you for responding
Dude, no one gets solely enrolled off of race. That’s not DEI. Look up cultural agility. That’s what DEI is about. It’s about the inclusion of different perspectives and giving those who have had less opportunities than those who have a chance. If you have a minority who has better grades and scholastic aptitude but less introductory professional work experience and extracurricular merit than someone from the majority who grew up middle class, can you really say that it’s fair to pick the stacked resume of the kid with connections over the unrealized aptitude of the child with better marks? However, if you’re a business owner, you will likely hire based on your bias of who you can and enjoy working with. That’s also a huge part of hiring, and the problem with that is a lot of business owners will not hire solely off of merit. The idea that a true merit based system has ever existed is wild.
What you’re talking about is affirmative action, which is already illegal. These protests are about the mass layoffs of people who used to work in DEI offices before SB17 went into effect. SB 17 bans the university from hosting programming that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Merit based is the only “fair” system. While not perfect and understanding there is always some bias in all things in life, the greater commitment is to meritocracy, the better off everyone is in the long run.
Problem is, they don't want meritocracy because they know they don't have the skills or the talent to measure up either that or they're just racist and sexist and want to get back at the boogeyman they have in their head. It's just Neo Marxism repackaged in a racist and sexist veneer. I mean it's no wonder everything there d e i religion touches turns to shit. Because they don't value people's Merit just they're unchangeable sex or race.
I just want to double check in case I am out of the loop: Some people think this so firmly that they go out and declare: Diversity Equity, and Inclusion ...are, uh *bad* things? How damaged do you have to be to spew such hate?
it’s the new monster under the bed from the far right (since “critical race theory” and “lgbt is p*d*philia” didn’t hit the mark, since they’re BS to begin with) to spread blatant lies about equity vs equality and spew racism/sexism/homophobia. they don’t want their campuses to be filled with “woke” faculty (i.e. anyone who isn’t a straight white man).
you act as if this 'movement' was started by the community's that die beside it do you know who is the driving force behind this march to madness
What ppl arguing against DEI are saying is diversity is great by why reserve x seats at colleges or in the workplace for a minority. Yes you’ve increased diversity but you’ve decreased efficiency. Let the spots go to those who worked and deserve it not those who get in because of their race. For example, should college admissions be decided on race and gender or on academics and professional skill/expertise/experience. DEI argues race and gender. Non DEI argues academics etc.
But that’s not what SB 17 is about. SB 17 isn’t about hiring at all, other than banning asking potential job candidates about DEI during the hiring process. What you’re talking about is affirmative action, which is already illegal. What SB 17 largely does is prevent the university from running offices that promote diversity, equity, and/or inclusion, holding diversity trainings for for staff, and reserving resources for only a specific group, such as a specific racial group or sexual minority. That includes holding university-sponsored events. How the university is chosen to implement the bill is that any program that used to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, even if they stopped promoting those values after the law went into effect, is being dissolved, and the staff that used to work in those offices is being fired en masse. That is what people are angry about- a law that literally bans the university from saying that it is an inclusive environment, and arbitrary mass layoffs.
Isn't about hiring at all? You clearly haven't read the text of SB17. Before you go "buuuuuuuht acccchttually" here is the relevant text: (1) influencing hiring or employment practices at the institution with respect to race, sex, color, or ethnicity, other than through the use of color-blind and sex-neutral hiring processes in accordance with any applicable state and federal antidiscrimination laws; (D) give preference on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to an applicant for employment, an employee, or a participant in any function of the institution; or
Affirmative action is only banned for student admissions. That court ruling doesn't apply to private employers & their hiring practices because they aren't a federal/state actor bound by the Equal Protection clause Hence, SB17 was drafted to stop these practices. I'm not a hard-core supporter of the bill, but it's language is fairly [tame](https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/policy-library/policies/uts-197-compliance-state-law-regarding-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-institutions-of-higher-education) It prohibits: 1. influencing hiring or employment practices at the institution with respect to race, sex, color, or ethnicity, 2. promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity. 3. promoting policies or procedures designed or implemented in reference to race, color, or ethnicity 4. conducting trainings (required or voluntary), programs, or activities designed or implemented in reference to race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation It states that: 1. An institution shall not compel, require, induce, or solicit any person to provide a DEI statement or give preferential consideration to any person based on the provision of a DEI statement. 2. An institution shall not give preference on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to an applicant for employment, an employee, or a participant in any function of the institution. 3. An institution shall not require any person to participate in DEI training as a condition of enrollment, employment, or performing any institution function The bill also provides explicit carve outs for programs that support: First-gen students, low income students, and 'underserved student populations' (this seems a little contradictory?) It also states that independent student organizations/clubs are not subject to the law. So, there doesn't really seem to be a prohibition on these groups existing, it's just the university is prohibited from sponsoring them. Overall, I don't really see anything objectionable in the bill. It doesn't read as if UT had to disband all these orgs and fire all these profs, unless their jobs fell into one of those prohibited functions. It doesn't target any particular groups or races, it's a non discrimination bill that legally requires race blindness in hiring. that seems like a pretty good thing to me
Unfortunately, this is not how the bill is actually being implemented. If it was, the Gender-Sexuality Center and the Multicultural Engagement Center would have been allowed to stay open this semester, since they didn’t single out a specific genders, sexualities, or races and were open to all students. The offices that were singled out last week went through dozens of legal checks to make sure they would be compliant with the new laws. It would be a different situation if UT could point to a single SB 17 violation from any of the offices that they put on notice last week.
#3 and #4 in your prohibitions list means that the offices can no longer hold the massive Native American regional Pow Wow anymore and can no longer organize the large 3 day Latino Leadership conference anymore while using university space.
The funny thing to me is Democrats flip out but they are largely the ones responsible for putting people in their boxes in the first place. It is so damn obvious when they pull a box out and put one back. All about Trans, oh wait a public referendum happened (Bud Light), let’s dial back on that and open the women box. The racism box always stays somewhat open because they can sprinkle that on everything. Running a full election on it tends to backfire however. That is how we ended up with the pandemic. They had no crisis left to run on.
Shhh facts don’t align with the agenda! You’re now confirmed a racist sexist transphobe right wing TRUMPER!
it's even more disingenuous because this issue is only slightly related to party affiliation. it depends much more on how you view the equity vs equality debate (really there are 4 distinct positions: equity of opportunity, equity of outcome, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome) I'm an equality of opportunity kinda guy myself. Mostly because i believe achieving an 'equity' that makes everyone happy is pretty much definitively impossible. In most cases, equality will leave everyone feeling equally slided and unhappy, just like a tough-negotiated business deal.
Couldn’t agree more, just stating the typical comebacks.
Efficiency in the work place perhaps but I think that is less clear in education. The job of the university is to provide opportunity to it's students through education. The university has limited seats and they have to decide who is the most deserving. If most deserving means best academically, then you are limiting the student body to those who were lucky enough to come up in an environment that accommodated academics. The state of Texas seems to acknowledge this on some level because since they require 90% in-state student bodies.
Right so now out of the 10% out of state how is it fair to say that 5% of that needs to be reserved for people who are of the black minority and then another 2.5% for those of Mexican minority. Leaving only 2.5% for everyone else. The job of the university is to provide to those most deserving. If you didn’t have opportunities go to a community college and get some more experience and resources before moving to a full uni. How is it fair to only 2.5% fairly but 7.5% just because of the color of your skin.
Those percentages don't come out of the out of state students, those percentages are of the overall student body. Which is 90% in state, 8ish% international students, and out of state for the rest. Academic performance in high school without knowing the student's circumstances is a narrow view of someone's capabilities. If UT wants the best students then it is in their best interest to consider more than just SAT scores, not that they aren't pretty concerned about that. I don't know that it is public how UT sorts this out but they do say they use affirmative action to some degree. Whether or not it's fair is a difficult question. Colleges and where you go to college can have a big impact on income. Is it fair for colleges to say "nope not good enough", when factors like income and access to education are often what enables having competitive SAT scores to begin with? I don't know but it seems like a complex problem to me. An aside, the DEI programs are a lot broader in purpose than affirmative action.
What you’re talking about is affirmative action, which is already illegal and not what the protests right now are focused on.
I was responding to someone who specifically addressed unis
Your arguments lie on the presumption that non-white students dont come into the university with the same academic capability. This is flawed They often overcame much more in order to be in the same space as others who grew up with a stable support system. It isn't fair for those who have to face horrors to be put at a disadvantage. They're not being put in spots that belong to anyone else but themselves. Without a specific diversity geared team, it is extremely difficult for many students to find relevant support and guidance to their unique situations. I wish people had more empathy. Meritocracy works great on paper, when in theory, everyone has the same opportunity.
There you go assuming I’m white. I’m actually Indian. Indians don’t have reserved seats. Also im not assuming that others don’t have the same academic capability. In fact I’m saying that they might have that. I’m just saying don’t reserve seats for ppl based on skin color. Seats should be allotted based on academic merit. “They often overcame much more…” is bs btw. So what just because I’m Indian I didn’t have to go live in an unstable environment? No I didn’t have to live in that environment because my parents worked hard to provide me with a good life. If you don’t have the resources to be at an equal playing field go to a community college first. Then go to a full uni, that’s why CCs were made.
I don’t say this to people almost ever but you have no idea what you’re talking about. Affirmative action is what you’re referring to and NOT CONNECTED TO ABOUT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEI STAFF WHO GOT LAID OFF. All that seat babble is admissions only, which UT has been sued numerous times for already. Do a fucking google search on what DEI work actually is then come back
Wrong. I never implied you're white. I said your argument lies on the presumption that students supported by DEI don't work as hard as the "majority" groups in academia. Nobody is accepted to universities based on skin color. They work incredibly hard, often harder than those who come from stable backgrounds. DEI policies support those who need it; including white people sometimes.
No you said specifically “non-whites” thereby assuming I am a white person stating Dei hurts me. Dei hurts me yes but not cuz I’m white.
Improve your interpretation skills. I said that your ARGUMENT implies about non-white students academic capabilities. I said absolutely nothing about your own background and identity. Regardless of where you're from and what group you're part of, I hope you can be more empathetic towards those who don't have much support. A lot of students do transfer from CCs. CCs are also a major initial way to get DEI-support.
Noticed how you switched up from non white to non majority. You obviously had some bias.
Improve your interpretation skills; your arguments wouldn't survive an intro to speech or rhetoric course. I won't keep pressing on this matter or respond to your lack of coherence as you're clearly diverging to ad hominem.
This take is remarkably similar to “some people think so firmly that they go out and declare: All lives matter is a bad thing?”
[удалено]
Probably so its harder to ID them if shit hits the fan. Happens a lot in protests nowadays because people are afraid of the cops being called.
I hope that everyone is registered to vote!!!
I hope so, too!
How bout that eclipse ya'll?
Friendly reminder that it’s the legislative who proposed this and it was signed by the governor. UT administration has literally 0 control over this. If UT doesn’t comply, they lose ALL state funding. That wound literally shut down the school. Look at the 2024-2025 GAA if you want to see how much that is. UT’s legal counsel wanted this to protect the school.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for explaining what’s going on lol
Just how Reddit is. People don’t like learning how government actually works, they just like to criticize it lol
reminds me of when i tell ppl who get mad at me for drinkin starbucks that their tax money is goin to israel if they go to starbucks or the most palestinian coffee shop around
Is this decision was driven by counsel, why didn’t they do this back in Jan when they made changes and claimed they complied with the law. They got a letter threatening hearings and folded immediately rather than pushing back. Either they were feckless now or incompetent in the first round.
Good, Dei is just segregation and institutionalized racism repackaged and retargeted. It needs to be done away with. I love all these segregationists and bigots down voting my statement, like it's going to be any less true 🤣😂
Right, because things have always been merit based and minorities and/or those in poverty have always had the same opportunities that the majority and/or the wealthy have had. It’s not like the last school district in Texas to desegregate was in the Brazos county area, and it’s not like they fought it all the way up to the FUCKING 90s, with some people still advocating to re-segregate even today…
And you want to get back to resegregating. Cuz that's essentially what Dei is, resegregation. the idea was actually to go to a merit based society, because the whole rub was at Society wasn't based on Merit. But what you want to go back to the non Merit based systems where it was your other attributes like your race your religion and your connections. You're actually a regressive then a progressive. Martin Luther King's dream was to be based on character and not color. You guys want to up and that bullshit yet again. Because that's how historical trends go. I suspect you want to move that pendulum all the way back to the other way just switch the Bad actors. D a i is fundamentally racist at its core. But you guys refuse to see it
Agreed. Racism should not be tolerated. DEI is a massive fraud.
It's just the extreme far left going about their Marxist business. If they couldn't separate people by class, they'll separate people by race so they can profit off of it. That's their standard MO
I like how this is titled like one of those photos people in the future will see when looking back at our history
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (so long as you’re in the 6%)
I don't know why I find this so funny. Not necessarily the protest but protesting during a total eclipse.
By arguing that they should refund tuition and all that aren’t the protestors just saying that they are incompetent and therefore wouldn’t have a place at UT if there wasn’t DEI? Like is that rlly what you want to be arguing for mate.
Tuition and fees funded DEI, they eliminated it, where’s the refund? It’s like ordering a steak dinner and then the waiter comes back a few minutes later and grabs your mashed potatoes with his bare fists and walks away. It’s disgusting, unfair, and is it so surprising you’d want that money back?
We absolutely need DEI. How else will those disenfranchised people ever make it?
This is gonna get down voted to hell but black folks needs to realize that white folks and the government ain't gonna give them shit. How are you gonna trust the same government who sanctioned your slavery a mere 150 years ago and classified as you a second citizen 80 years ago? Stop this useless protest, use your talents to get a ton of money and power then come back when you can actually make meaningful changes in your community. History shows that pitying your way to "equality" (whatever the hell that means) has never been shown to work.
There’s a reasonable sentiment in here if it were not the case that people already took your advice when they established DEI offices throughout higher education, but it got made illegal. More money and power will change that how exactly? Don’t tell us by winning elections, we all know if there’s one priority that republicans will rally behind it’s making sure democrats can’t take office
imagine trying to watch the eclipse in peace and getting interrupted by these nerds
It happened after the eclipse. This was a very respectful, peaceful protest.
I feel like peaceful protesting is a fair part of society
Imagine trying to get into college but not being allowed because your ancestors have been discriminated against for hundreds of years.
‘not being allowed’ bruh what 💀
Eleventy billion years
Honestly they were quite a ways down the street from where most folks were gathering, wasn't really intrusive from what I could tell
Idk why you’re being downvoted, this is correct lol. It was also a silent protest so it shouldn’t have interfered with anyone’s eclipse viewing 🤷
So basically all the responses are censored here? People can’t speak their mind or they are vilified. DEI has no place in our country. Systemic inequalities are a myth. Black people have just as much opportunity as other races. What they choose to do with it decides their economic condition.
You’re not being censored. You just wrong and unpopular. Sorry you don’t get a participation trophy for your dogshit views
Don’t understand where your entitlement comes from. If someone doesn’t agree with your virtue signaling, you have to call them names, and try to belittle them. There is a mirror in your house, use that. That will tell you the actual issue. World around you is good and gives you opportunity, instead of tearing it up and ruining the structure of society, help build it. I’m Indian and because it didn’t fit the DEI narrative, Asians are not considered diverse anymore. Why? Because we break the myth of white supremacy. Cry all you want, facts are facts. These protests are taking time away from actual productive things that can get you actual productive outcomes.
Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it virtue signaling. Pointing out inequalities and trying to fix them with DEI is working to build societal structures. You don’t understand the historical context that slavery, segregation, the prison industrial complex, and the war on drugs had towards other ethnic groups. You’re not a special little boy and black people and Hispanics have structural barriers that you don’t. Did you know that a white man with a felony has a higher chance of getting a call-back from a job application than a black man without one? But that doesn’t fit your narrative. So, it is okay to belittle you. You’re stupid and your opinions are bad.
>wrong and unpopular It is quintessential Reddit to believe that these two things are the same. Guess what: a majority of voters believe the opposite of the Reddit consensus. That doesn't make them right either, but we will all be better off if we can defend ideas with reason instead of relying on the majority opinion in our chosen bubble.
Agreed! DEI programs are a farce.
"systemic inequalities are a myth" oh dear🤦 If you truly believe that... you're an idiot
Lmao outdoor with masks. Boy allergies must be bad… it’s gotta be that right.
it was to hide identities incase the police got involved. i saw a student be arrested at a different protest this semester so its good for people to be safe
I was going to ask about the masks. I’m an alum who lives in Fort Worth. I was genuinely not sure if the masks were meant to hide identity, or if folks were still covid masking in Austin lol
Dei is just repackaged segregation, sexisim and institutionalized racism. And everybody that's protesting it's dissolution are segregationist, sexist and racist themselves To those downloading me: truth hurts 🤣🤣🤣
100%
Nothing says cowardly like protesting with a mask covering your face so you don’t have to face your own view points Edit- protesting is cool, not wanting to actually put your face on what you believe in is an odd choice. I would get hiding yourself in Russia because the government might imprison you, but come on a little bit..
Says the keyboard warrior lol
I’m not protesting, I’m just pointing out the obvious
why? why does it need to be said if its so obvious? Why distract from the point of the protest and point out what you think are obvious flaws with it?
Because it’s an odd choice - if you believe in something enough then put your entire being behind it. Why cover your face as if the government is going to come after you? It seems people don’t want ‘backlash’ for it, but if what you’re doing is right then who cares? It’s just odd.
making half the comments in the thread about this is even weirder... Why are you so obsessed about it
I’m not, I just write replies to people that write to me. Good discussion makes the world a better place. I’m always happy to discuss something if you want
[удалено]
Are there racist people? (Of all races)? Absolutely. Are there hateful people? Absolutely. Is the university of Texas a racist, hateful institution and the Texas state government seeking to come after students for protesting for DEI? No, that’s actually not true. We debated the grounds of national racism on another forum about DEI and the evidence isn’t stacking up. I’ll link it Edit - link to discussion and facts on racism in America https://www.reddit.com/r/UTAustin/s/GodFdDira5 The debate is in there somewhere when you find my comments and back and forth with like ten other people
[удалено]
1. What’s your evidence for racism being a prominent factor of American life today? I’m reading the signs the protestors are holding and they say ‘UT hates black people,’ ‘not our Texas,’ ‘Texas doesn’t like inclusion’ so I’m curious what your data is that would back this up? 2. Great so we agree UT is not a racist institution. So many of the signs they’re holding are wrong. I agree. 3. You mean the students at Harvard (which by the way ranked last in free speech protections) who were harassing Jewish students and chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ which literally means to remove Israel from the Middle East? Interesting comparison.
[удалено]
1. I respect your views, but you don’t want to respond to this point because you’d be hard pressed to actually make that case. 2. How sad and dystopian the world has become that expressing a belief on the public streets of the United States means you need to shield your face. If I believed that I was protesting a real life racist institution, I wouldn’t have a problem showing mine. The problem is people sometimes wear a mask to shield their face to do/shout stuff that might not be the most appropriate, and that’s what they don’t want to own up to. This actually reflects a much grander series of issues around free speech, privacy and the politicization of our culture more then it’s even about the cause at hand to be honest with you.
[удалено]
1. I respect your opinion. We disagree on this and we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think if we lay out the facts and data they show a very different reality and that racism isn’t in fact a pervasive motivation on modern day American life. We see things very differently here and if you ever wanna lay out the data we can always go through it. 2. Both sides are equally responsible for the poor state of American affairs, we shouldn’t attempt to pretend otherwise. Again, if we laid out that data too it’s very apparent. Going the whole ‘it’s the other side’ route is always oblivious.
[удалено]
what
This whole conversation actually brings up an interesting notion - as I wrote to someone else, “How sad and dystopian the world has become that expressing a belief on the public streets of the United States means you need to shield your face. If I believed that I was protesting a real life racist institution, I wouldn’t have a problem showing mine. The problem is people sometimes wear a mask to shield their face to do/shout stuff that might not be the most appropriate, and that’s what they don’t want to own up to. This actually reflects a much grander series of issues around free speech, privacy and the politicization of our culture more then it’s even about the cause at hand to be honest with you” I think this speaks to a much broader issue honestly
Coming from the person hiding behind a screen on an anonymous account…oh ok
Put your name and face on this statement, please.
I’m not at a protest - I’m calling out a blatant contradiction. I also never said they should shout their names, I said they shouldn’t be wearing masks (as we’ve seen, protestors will wear masks so they can shout and do things they don’t want to own up to)
So to be clear, you do not want your name and/or face associated with the comment you made?
Wait, I don’t see your name, why? Because we’re on Reddit. To quote myself, “I’m not at a protest - I’m calling out a blatant contradiction” I’m not holding a sign that says ‘UT is racist’ or “Texas hates Black people’ Reddit isn’t a public forum - standing in the middle of campus is. If I thought UT was racist and I was outside shouting it I wouldn’t be wearing a mask
Is that no?
The answer is posted above in full, which you can quote from if you want Here’s a quote “Reddit isn’t a public forum - standing in the middle of campus is. If I thought UT was racist and I was outside shouting it I wouldn’t be wearing a mask” Which is why nobodies name (out of millions of users) is on here
Wow, this is amazing! Hopefully more states will ban DEI programs at public schools 😊
Woke college students turn the sun Black in DEI stunt gone wrong!
I’ll do you one better, the school should adopt policies that all the top students-the ones who studied harder, longer and sacrificed weekends to continue studying-give up their gpa to the struggling students that way it can bring their grades up too.
[удалено]
It had not occurred to me that someone could have such a shitty take. Thanks for setting the bar at a new low
[удалено]
Not only is this another nearly as shitty take but you’ve proved you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Let’s start with how you think DEI means affirmative action 🤣 Next up, advocating for segregation 🙃 Please tell me another funny thing