Let’s try this again. DEI came to higher education much earlier than it did other institutions, just as critical theory was being taught in college classrooms. I worked for and was a student in classes taught by exceptionally competent women before DEI and 4th wave feminism. When my college adopted DEI hiring practices for both faculty a…
Let’s try this again. DEI came to higher education much earlier than it did other institutions, just as critical theory was being taught in college classrooms. I worked for and was a student in classes taught by exceptionally competent women before DEI and 4th wave feminism. When my college adopted DEI hiring practices for both faculty and administration, that’s when the incompetence showed up. When you limit the pool of those you hire to immutable characteristics instead of hiring on the basis of excellence and merit, standards are lowered. This is not hard to comprehend.
I'm game. I am very familiar with the problems that happen when the pool of applicants is limited to specific immutable characteristics. In one case, we get the majority selected to be good at their profession, but we also get some strap hangers who are mediocre. This used to be the case with white males and this is what happens when the pool is not open to all. The script has been somewhat flipped, and I detest it just as much as I did the script of the 60's, 70's and 80's. But what you describe isn't DEI for women. You are describing DEI for ideology. Even if I had the "right degree" for the job, I guarantee this old feminist could not get hired by these lunatics. I'm completely devoid of band wagoning onto whatever The Thing of the year is. The Old Guard didn't like me, and the New Guard doesn't like me, which indicates I'm right.
Here is a quote from the Substack written by “Techno Fog” (which makes my point for me about what selecting for immutable traits does to aid in the lowering of standards): “If you recall, Justice Jackson was selected as part of Biden’s fulfillment of a campaign promise: to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. While Jackson checked that box, there were always doubts on the left about her intellectual rigor and her ability to persuade.” In limiting his search Biden, by definition, eliminated a lot of other people who would have been better prepared for SCOTUS. It was Jackson, I believe, who said she doesn’t know what a woman is because she’s not a biologist.
Let’s try this again. DEI came to higher education much earlier than it did other institutions, just as critical theory was being taught in college classrooms. I worked for and was a student in classes taught by exceptionally competent women before DEI and 4th wave feminism. When my college adopted DEI hiring practices for both faculty and administration, that’s when the incompetence showed up. When you limit the pool of those you hire to immutable characteristics instead of hiring on the basis of excellence and merit, standards are lowered. This is not hard to comprehend.
I'm game. I am very familiar with the problems that happen when the pool of applicants is limited to specific immutable characteristics. In one case, we get the majority selected to be good at their profession, but we also get some strap hangers who are mediocre. This used to be the case with white males and this is what happens when the pool is not open to all. The script has been somewhat flipped, and I detest it just as much as I did the script of the 60's, 70's and 80's. But what you describe isn't DEI for women. You are describing DEI for ideology. Even if I had the "right degree" for the job, I guarantee this old feminist could not get hired by these lunatics. I'm completely devoid of band wagoning onto whatever The Thing of the year is. The Old Guard didn't like me, and the New Guard doesn't like me, which indicates I'm right.
Here is a quote from the Substack written by “Techno Fog” (which makes my point for me about what selecting for immutable traits does to aid in the lowering of standards): “If you recall, Justice Jackson was selected as part of Biden’s fulfillment of a campaign promise: to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. While Jackson checked that box, there were always doubts on the left about her intellectual rigor and her ability to persuade.” In limiting his search Biden, by definition, eliminated a lot of other people who would have been better prepared for SCOTUS. It was Jackson, I believe, who said she doesn’t know what a woman is because she’s not a biologist.