Education Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Racism Reprints from others.

Giving Up the Bad Faith of Affirmative Action.

Hits: 7

Giving Up the Bad Faith of Affirmative Action.


with John McWhorter and Peter Arcidiacono

One of the more interesting footnotes to the Students for Fair Admissions case doesn’t involve what happened. It involves what didn’t happen. After the decision came down, liberals and the left voiced their dismay at the result. There was a little organized protesting, but it was nothing compared to the massive waves of mobilization that attended the Dobbs decision on abortion, despite the fact that the result was predictable in both cases.

Perhaps that’s to be expected. Dobbs is, in my view, the more consequential decision. It has the potential to directly affect far more people than Students for Fair Admissions. But I think there is another factor at play. Most people already suspected what the latter case demonstrated—that race-based affirmative action is a discriminatory practice. It was both unjust and unpopular, and now it’s been declared unconstitutional. The relatively muted response from some of the left could signal a tacit decision to relinquish the legerdemain and enforced silence and bad faith necessary to keep the policy going. I can’t help but think that, whatever attitude they present to the public, some affirmative action defenders are secretly relieved that they can now turn their attention elsewhere.

Of course, I’m only speculating. And the fight over racial preferences in college admissions is not nearly over. It’s too big a business to simply vanish; elite institutions have invested too much in it to just give it up. This week’s episode features Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, the man who led the herculean effort to analyze the data that made Students for Fair Admissions’ case. As Peter says, that data is clear. Now that it’s out in the open, any of the “good liberals” who defended affirmative action as a matter of principle while privately harboring doubts as to its logical and moral coherence have an offramp. They can let it go. The questions is, will they?

GLENN LOURY: Peter was the main guy—correct me if I get anything wrong, Peter—in the data analysis marathon that had to be undertaken in order to parse through the information made available by Harvard University, quantitative information on its admissions policies, what exactly was going on. And he faced off against the estimable David Card—Nobel fame, UC-Berkeley—who was the lead witness for the defendant, Harvard University, in the litigation. And he prevailed.

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Not at first, but in the end, yes.

So what were the scientific questions, the academic questions, which you’ve been engaged with that were relevant to the litigation.

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, what was relevant to litigation was, was there a penalty against Asian Americans? And also how big the preferences were at these different schools.

JOHN MCWHORTER: There’s nothing sadder than the position of an individual Asian student today at these universities. They are so muzzled. You can often tell what they do think about all of this, but you can’t say that in their social circles. And so they don’t. I’ve seen a couple of them actually change color as they talk about it. It’s weird.

I told one of them, I’m sorry that you are in selective university at this time, because this must be a really tough thing to have any kind of constructive conversation about. Except, I imagine, among yourselves. And one of them kind of smiled. I mean, you can tell what’s going on. It’s hard, but this had to happen. It was time.

Peter, I’m glad that you did this. What in your gut got you onto this? Because, of course, some people are going to say, “Peter, it’s just racism,” and there’s a certain kind of crowd who will applaud. I know it’s not that, but what interested you about this?

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, I think that came about through my own experience as an undergraduate and seeing how much easier the economics classes were than the chemistry classes, so then studying higher education. And then back in 2011 when there was a protest over one of my papers on this, seeing universities not really willing to engage in dialogue about how best to improve the experiences here.

That probably set me on this path. What that paper showed was, it was really about a data fact. You look at white males, they come in, those who want to do STEM and economics, they switch out at a rate of eight percent. This is at Duke. Black males interested in STEM and economics switch out at a rate of over fifty percent.

And nothing happened after that. You know, we just sort of let the protests happen, everything sort of died away, nothing changes. And I think it relates, actually—I know you wrote about this—the Georgetown Law professor who got caught on video lamenting the poor performance of her black students.

Sandra Sellers.

SANDRA SELLERS: I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. And it’s like, oh, come on. You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy

PETER ARCIDIACONO: And she got torn to pieces.

And to me, that’s a feature not a bug for affirmative action. When you come in, you’re going to be behind your peers. That’s by definition, unless we’re screening on things that we shouldn’t be screening. So that idea, you’re going to come in behind, the performance relative to your peers is going to be worse. It could still be a good thing that you’re going to the better school and have a better outcome. But it’s a definite feature of the system that you will be further down on the last rank. So now you have a system where actually they come in with the university saying, “We want you so much. We’re willing to give you big preferences.” And they come out thinking the place is racist. That doesn’t seem so good.

JOHN MCWHORTER: It’s not so good. It makes no sense whatsoever. It’s one of the aspects of all of this that really is as peculiar as discussions medieval Europeans had about matters of religion and philosophy, where again, you have to be very careful to understand what the terminology is, what things you’re not supposed to look at and why. Truly peculiar that you have that kind of preference, and yet the stylish attitude by the time you’re finished is that you’ve just gone through some sort of racist hazing.

And it really will perplex people in say a hundred years, maybe even in fifty, to look back on the state of our discussion with this and to see something like what Sandra Sellers was lamenting. And for the good thinking idea to have been that there’s nothing wrong with that, that that’s not something that we need to try to fix, and it doesn’t matter.

Yes it does. And I think that everybody will understand why a few of us weird renegades back in the early twenty-first century thought it did. It does.

I think it’s going to happen a lot quicker than fifty years. I think it’s happening before our very eyes. I mean, Peter pointed out that this decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, did not engender the same kind of backlash from the left of revulsion and political determination to do something about it that the Dobbs decision on the abortion question did, even though it is resolving in a “conservative” direction of one of the big questions of constitutional law of the last half-century. It is historic in representing a kind of transformation of the law in its way, as was the Dobbs decision. It didn’t engender the same kind of backlash.

And I think this house of cards which Peter described—I mean, the Sandra Sellers thing is a predictable consequence. As he says, it’s a feature, not a bug. It’s a predictable consequence. And then you’re going to have a witch hunt and you’re going to go around and cut people’s heads off if they observe that it’s true. And then everybody can see it. It’s not like it’s not common knowledge that there are these implications of preferences. It’s corrupt.

I think Justice Clarence Thomas deserves to be recognized here as, for decades, having made this argument about the affront to the dignity of the beneficiaries of preference, the fact that they’re not being taken seriously as persons of whom it is reasonable to expect performance like anybody else. You’re patting the beneficiaries on the head. You’re turning them into baubles to wear on a charm bracelet around your wrist, representing the various colors of the demographic universe. You’re not taking them seriously. That’s what I would say.


Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Racism Reprints from others.

Winning. Senator Kennedy shames Democrats.

Hits: 17

Winning. Senator Kennedy shames Democrats.

The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) did a markup on “ethics” legislation Thursday targeting conservative Supreme Court Justices.

While the Democrats managed to pass out of this sick bill out of committee on a party-line vote, they got humiliated by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) in the process over a simple amendment condemning racism.

Kennedy is a straight-shooting national treasure complete with an incisive wit and dry sense of humor. He has displayed these talents throughout his time in the Senate whether by stumping unqualified Biden nominees or in interviews with reporters.

As Townhall reported, he put his remarkable skills once again to the test and went scorched earth on the Democrats for refusing to pass his amendment calling out the evil, racist attacks against the great Clarence Thomas. After an epic tour de force and a bit of help from Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), he got them to do exactly what he wanted in the first place.

Democrats started of by making excuses for why the amendment was unworkable and tried to convince Kennedy to back off. The Louisiana Senator, however, let loose in his trademark colorful fashion:

I don’t understand the reluctance to accept the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be a black man, has been the butt of a lot of racist statements. And I don’t understand reluctance to condemn those. And that’s what my amendment does.

I don’t want it watered down, I don’t want to bubble wrap it, I don’t want to sugar coat it, I want to say, big as Dallas, the United States Senate condemns all these racist things that have been said against Justice Clarence Thomas.

Kennedy also noted that if another senator put forth another amendment “to condemn every racist thing that has ever been said in the history of ever” which he would be thrilled vote for it.


Undeterred, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) spoke up and tried to convince his colleagues to excuse the racism against Thomas.

I consider this to be not relevant to the matter at hand, and further it specifically requests the Biden administration to inject itself politically into a law enforcement decision that the Biden administration, I think quite properly, has avoided getting involved with.

But Kennedy was not having any of this BS and blistered Whitehouse and his cronies in return.

I mean does anybody here support that kind of rhetoric? I don’t! I don’t think you do! And this kind of rhetoric hasn’t been directed toward John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, it’s been directed towards Clarence Thomas! And it’s un-American, it’s unconscionable, and I can’t believe we wouldn’t condemn it!

I don’t care how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin. Don’t try to pretend that this is a technical mistake in this amendment. It’s not complicated! You don’t have to be a senior at Cal Tech to figure it out!

It says all of this stuff about Clarence Thomas, calling him a house slave, and all other racist, disgusting statements, we condemn! Now you either condemn it, or you don’t. And that’s all this amendment does

Whitehouse responded by saying he condemned the racism but still demanded his colleagues to vote no. He reiterated he wanted the Biden regime off the hook when it came to defending Supreme Court Justices.

Like a bulldog, Kennedy once again refused to let go:

It’s a real simple amendment. If you support the racist things that have been said against Clarence Thomas, then vote against this amendment. If you think the things that have been said about Clarence Thomas are racist to the marrow and you condemn them, then vote for this amendment.


Not to be outdone, Cruz next took control and laid into the vile Democrats as well:

The part that is offensive of this is that it calls on the Department of Justice to enforce the law. Just stop and repeat that to yourself again. So now it is the position of Democrats that it is unacceptable for the Department of Justice to enforce the law!”

At the end, the Democrats were so cowed and shamed by Kennedy that they voted for his amendment.


Corruption How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Racism Racism. The Law

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Judges to Consider Race in Sentencing

Hits: 31

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Judges to Consider Race in Sentencing

California lawmakers consider a bill that would require judges to consider a person’s race when deciding how long to sentence them to prison.

The bill, which was introduced in February by Democratic Assembly taxpaying citMember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, was approved by the state Assembly in May and is currently being debated in the state Senate, according to Fox News.

If the Dems didn’t have double standards, they would have none at all.

Assembly Bill 852 would add a section to the California Penal Code requiring courts, when they have the power to decide a prison sentence, to take into account how racial minorities have been affected differently than others in order to “rectify racial bias.”

“It is the intent of the Legislature to rectify the racial bias that has historically permeated our criminal justice system as documented by the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans,” the proposed section reads.

“Whenever the court has discretion to determine the appropriate sentence according to relevant statutes and the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council, the court presiding over a criminal matter shall consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised and system-impacted populations.”

The task force, which was created from legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020, published its recommendations in June, Fox News reported. The state legislature will debate whether to implement them.

Jones-Sawyer is a member of the reparations task force, according to NBC News.

Eligible black California residents could receive more than $115,000, or roughly $2,352 per year of residency from 1971 to 2020, in compensation for excessive policing and felony drug arrests, as well as disproportionate incarceration during the alleged war on drugs, Fox News reported.

Jones-Sawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wow. Give criminals money for being caught. What a novel concept!

Isn’t giving someone preferential treatment because of their skin color RACIST????

Answer: YES! (Unless the parties enjoying the preference are non-White, of course.)


Gun Control Racism The Courts

The face of a “White Supremacist” in Philly shooting (A follow-up)

Hits: 9

Remember how Twitterheads claimed that the Philly shootings were done by “White Supremacists?” Well, here one is:

The 40-year-old Kimbrady Carricker

The man accused in the fatal shooting spree in Philadelphia that left five people dead and four others wounded Monday night left a will at his house, and according to a roommate, had acted agitated and wore a tactical vest around his house in the days before the shooting, prosecutors said Wednesday.

In his first court hearing on Wednesday morning, 40-year-old Kimbrady Carriker was charged with 11 total offenses and several counts of each.

In addition to murder, Carriker is also facing charges of attempted murder, reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a valid permit.

He is being held without bail for the murders.

Sources say the suspect made disturbing social media posts before the gunfire. Sources say, Carriker, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, owned the ghost guns used in this mass shooting.

Prosecutors said they recovered a handgun, a will dated June 23, and other evidence during a search of the Carricker’s home. They declined to discuss details of the will or whether it gave any indication Carrick had been planning the attack between then and the shooting ten days later.

This is not the first time Carriker has had run-ins with the law. The suspect has misdemeanor drug and gun charges from 2003, which led to probation.



Crime Racism The Courts The Law

Pittsburgh synagogue mass shooter found guilty in federal death penalty trial.

Hits: 14

Robert Bowers was found guilty on Friday (6/16) on all counts in the 2018 mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue that killed 11 worshippers.

Bowers was convicted on all 63 charges, including 11 counts of hate crimes resulting in death. Bowers offered to plead guilty if the death penalty was taken off the table, but prosecutors turned him down.

The bullet damaged doors of the Tree of Life synagogue building in Pittsburgh, was entered June 1, 2023, as a court exhibit by prosecutors in the federal trial of Robert Bowers.The bullet-damaged doors of the Tree of Life synagogue building in Pittsburgh was entered June 1, 2023, as a court exhibit by prosecutors in the federal trial of Robert Bowers.© U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania via AP

The jury deliberated for less than one day. Jurors will next weigh if Bowers should be sentenced to death.

Bowers stormed the Tree of Life synagogue on Oct. 27, 2018, gunning down 11 people in the deadliest antisemitic attack in American history. Bowers allegedly told investigators after his arrest that he wanted to kill Jewish people, according to a criminal complaint.

This undated Pennsylvania Department of Transportation photo shows Robert Bowers.

This undated PennDOTphoto shows Robert Bowers. © Pennsylvania Department of Transportation via AP, FILE

Prosecutors said Bowers, armed with a semi-automatic assault-style rifle and three handguns, moved “methodically” through the synagogue and shot many of his victims at close range.

In opening statements in May, defense attorney Judy Clarke admitted that Bowers was the shooter and said he “shot every person he saw … and injured first responders who came to their rescue.”

A memorial is placed inside the locked doors of the dormant landmark Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood, Oct. 26, 2022.

A memorial is placed inside the locked doors of the dormant landmark Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood, Oct. 26, 2022.© Gene J. Puskar/AP
“There will be no question that this was a planned act and that he killed 11 people,” Clarke said, but she asked the jurors to “scrutinize his intent.”

The jury, comprised of 11 women and seven men, included an intensive care nurse, a new father and a veteran.

The penalty phase is set to begin June 26.

The signage on the dormant landmark Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood is framed in spring foliage, Apr. 19, 2023..

The signage on the dormant landmark Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood is framed in spring foliage, Apr. 19, 2023..© Gene J. Puskar/AP


Child Abuse Just my own thoughts Life Opinion Racism WOKE

Why do groups like Moms for Liberty scare White Progressives, certain Blacks, and the LGBTQ crowd?

Hits: 18

Why do groups like Moms for Liberty scare White Progressives, certain Blacks, and the LGBTQ crowd? It’s really very simple. Moms for Liberty feel that they do not need co-parents. Schools should teach the children how to Read, Write, and Arithmetic.

White Progressives have no issues with teachers going off curriculum and injecting their social views. That’s not what a well rounded education is about.

Some Black parents and Black hate groups are more about students learning about racism, and government programs than learning how to do it for themselves.

The LGBTQ crowd cares about what boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Big topic is about boys using girls bathrooms.


Just my own thoughts Progressive Racism Racism

What race baiters like Sunny Hostin and White Progressives don’t get about being exceptional.

Hits: 21

What race baiters like Sunny Hostin and white progressives don’t get about people like Senator Scott, Justice Thomas, and other successful Conservative Blacks about being exceptional.

Folks who think like Hostin think that just because a person of color is successful that has to be a rare occasion. They think that the only way for a person of color to make it is to just rely on the government for help.

Sadly white progressive Democrats think that besides the government, a person of color has to also rely on a white person to get ahead. They have thought like that since the days of slavery.

White folks don’t have a free pass to being exceptional. Everyone who puts their own best effort can make it. It’s just harder when you expect someone else to do the lifting.


Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Racism The Courts WOKE

This Supreme Court case could spell the beginning of the end for affirmative action. DEI-ers are bracing for a crisis.

Hits: 19

This article appears in the June/July 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “The end of affirmative action?”

**Fortune Magazine is a woke-promoting organization. Notice the blatant propaganda in their choice of the picture above**
Somewhere along the way, “Diversity and Inclusion” added “Equity” — which is the left’s code word for “preferential treatment” — TPR

Why diversity advocates see a Supreme Court case on college admissions as a looming crisis for corporate America.

It may seem like a harsh assessment of human nature, but people don’t generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do, says Natalie Gillard, who has worked in diversity, equity, and inclusion for over a decade. That’s why laws and mandates exist.

And that’s why Gillard has been anxiously watching the Supreme Court. While the ruling had not come down when this issue went to press, court watchers say the conservative majority is very likely to strike down or severely restrict race-based college admissions programs in June. Many fear that prohibiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions will unleash a legal dismantling of over half a century’s worth of laws and rulings aimed at remedying the systemic inequities racial minorities face in the U.S.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in October in the case brought by Students for Fair Admissions, an organization founded by the anti-affirmative-action legal activist Edward Blum, against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, accusing the institutions of discriminating against Asian American and white applicants.

While this decision on affirmative action will most directly affect higher education admissions, legal analysts say it could open the floodgates to upending diversity initiatives in other areas, including the corporate landscape.

And Gillard and her colleagues in DEI are bracing for a crisis. Gillard created Factuality, a 90-minute interactive game and “crash course” in structural inequality that has been used as an employee-training tool at companies such as Google, Nike, and American Express, as well as at Yale University, among others. Factuality has seen an uptick in demand in recent years, but Gillard is under no illusions about why companies hire her: “I really feel that there are people who participate in these programs and initiatives because it’s required and mandatory,” she tells Fortune, “and that with this decision they’re just emboldened to stop.”

Last year the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, had a transformative cultural and legal effect—leading to a cascade of states passing near-total abortion bans and restrictions on reproductive rights. The affirmative action ruling may not be as far-reaching, but it is a bellwether for a shift in the conversation about race and racism broadly, says Richard Leong, a senior strategist at Collective, a DEI consultancy headquartered in Brooklyn.

“I think it really begins to throw into jeopardy whether or not we can continue to use race and ethnicity as a demographic identifier,” Leong says, adding, “The DEI industry as it is today is already under fire.”

Indeed, DEI initiatives at public universities have been challenged in Florida and Texas this year. Corporate DEI programs have been the target of rage and ridicule in op-eds from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. And amid a wave of layoffs, many tech companies are rolling back their diversity pledges, cutting DEI roles at disproportionate rates.

Gillard says she has already seen the effects in her business: She used to collaborate often with companies and organizations in Texas and Florida, she tells Fortune, but she no longer works in those states because organizations are unsure about what they can and cannot do, and fearful of causing controversy.

“I’m concerned the decision will only further curtail our efforts,” Gillard says. “After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

A ripple effect

Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court decision goes as expected, it could have a ripple effect on corporate diversity programs. The decision could “augur where the court might go with respect to certain programs for private employers,” says Kevin Cloutier, a partner in the law firm Sheppard Mullin’s labor and employment and business trial practice groups. The courts may rule to strike down affirmative action programs for federal contractors, or be more receptive to reverse discrimination claims against private companies

The most direct impact of the Supreme Court prohibiting race-based admissions decisions is that universities will very likely become less diverse over time—as has happened in public university systems in states where affirmative action is already banned. If so, companies will be left with a more homogenous talent pool to recruit from.

And there are likely to be knock-on effects for companies, says Camille Bryant, an attorney and member of the labor and employment practice group at McGlinchey Stafford. It may be harder to live up to the ESG commitments that companies have made to investors, for example. And less diverse workforces may turn off customers, who increasingly expect brands to be inclusive. More homogenous workplaces are also less appealing to millennial and Gen Z workers, who have high expectations of workforce diversity.

“After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

Natalie Gillard, creator, Factuality

Less diverse talent pipelines could have a substantial effect on outcomes at some organizations. A recent study found, for example, that a higher prevalence of Black doctors led to lower mortality rates among Black residents in those counties. But with less diverse medical programs, hospitals will likely employ fewer Black doctors, negatively impacting patient care.

Backlash to the backlash

The Supreme Court case comes at a critical time for the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It has been three years since the murder of George Floyd brought about a reckoning on racism in the summer of 2020, and many Black and brown workers remain skeptical of their companies’ lip service to the ideals of diversity, dismissing them as “performative allyship.”

“DEI is a journey, not a destination,” says Ericka Brownlee-Keller, DEI head at a renewable energy company. “It really depends on the fabric and culture of the company you’re in.”

BlackRock is one company that decided to take a hard look at its own record, and the results were revealing. In March 2022, the asset management firm hired a third-party law firm to audit the progress it had and hadn’t made on its multiyear racial equity plans, launched in 2021. The audit found that BlackRock was adhering to the letter of its diversity goals—increasing Black and Latinx hires by 30% and improving representation at senior levels—but was failing in some respects when it comes to the spirit of those goals. It has struggled, for example, to retain its Black and brown employees.

BlackRock is also an early case study of a trend DEI professionals say is growing, and the Supreme Court decision could accelerate: backlash to perceived “wokeness.”


Percentage of companies that have a senior role fully dedicated to DEI. Source: Paradigm’s State of Data-Driven DEO, 2022

In April, the conservative group America First Legal (founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller) said it had filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting a civil rights investigation into whether the BlackRock Founders Scholarship, an internship for minority students, discriminates against students who don’t qualify as minorities.

Incidents like that are why DEI professionals Fortune spoke with don’t believe it’s overblown to see the looming Supreme Court decision as a time bomb. They’ve kept tabs on the responses to the court overturning Roe v. Wade last year, and watched as state legislators quickly moved to severely restrict or ban abortions in the wake of the decision. They’ve braced themselves as anti-LGBTQ cultural narratives have gathered steam in recent years, leading to new state laws restricting access to gender-affirming care and accommodations. And they’ve watched as bans have throttled discussion of sexual orientation and Black history in schools.

“What we’re seeing is in a lot of ways a backlash to us being able to have made so much progress,” says Brownlee-Keller. “We often talk about ‘When’s the other shoe gonna drop?’ A lot of this is people’s fears being realized.”

Some argue that diversity initiatives won’t completely crumble on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision, that the field has come too far and the people doing the work are too committed. “This might hinder the progress we’ve made in DEI, but I think we’ll find other avenues,” Brownlee-Keller says. “People in these roles are resilient.”

Strategize now

Many DEI professionals are coming up with lists of actions for employers to consider, no matter how the Supreme Court rules. The first is to review DEI programs and ensure the company has a robust and evidence-based case for these initiatives, says Evelyn Carter, a social psychologist and president of the diversity and inclusion consulting firm Paradigm.

For example, a company may discover that the promotion pipeline for Black leaders falls off at a specific ranking, based on 10 years of company data. If the company determines that it has failed to support this talent for promotions, it might implement a program to address the problem. Using data to explain these moves helps ensure that company initiatives are not “misconstrued as things that are being done because Black folks or folks of color are deficient,” says Carter, “but rather recognizing it as what it is: righting systemic inequities.” It could also help ensure that the program would survive a legal challenge.

It’s crucial, too, for companies to diligently vet public statements related to diversity initiatives. For example, in today’s climate, making public promises that a company’s board will be 25% female could create a legal vulnerability, Bryant, the McGlinchey Stafford lawyer, says. “Sometimes messages that are very well intended can get an organization in hot water if it’s not necessarily done and crafted in the right way.”


Percentage of employees who don’t think their organization’s racial equity policies are genuine. Source: Catalyst Survey, 2022

That’s a lesson several of Carter’s clients learned last year after announcing plans to pay for employees’ travel costs if they have to cross state lines to get abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Instead of just applause, they faced controversy and complaints.

“There were employees who said, ‘This goes against my values, and I am upset that you would be seen as a company supporting abortion,’ ” Carter says. “A lot of clients said, ‘We thought we did the right thing. But now these people are upset.’ ” Developing internal FAQs to respond to questions or complaints from employees will help managers and human resources teams avoid being caught off guard if and when such a controversy erupts.

Creating new pathways for diverse recruitment will also be key, and might include doubling down on partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities and other minority institutions and on sponsorship and mentorship programs, as well as more actively developing the pipeline for diverse talent.

“This is the time to help your DEI team.”

Evelyn Carter, president, Paradigm

Most important, company leaders should ask what their DEI teams need. These often small and under-resourced teams may soon have to respond to an influx of reverse discrimination claims and handle a slew of complex internal and external communications. That might involve training managers to see and address bias and harassment and training HR to understand how discrimination impacts employee performance.

Employees may also have to navigate more internal strife, microaggressions, and harassment, so companies might consider increasing access to mental health resources such as therapy services and warmlines for employees—free, confidential lines where employees can seek guidance, support or a listening ear.

“That’s a lot. So this is the time to help your DEI team,” Carter says. “Ask your team what they need, and then deliver on it.”



Child Abuse Links from other news sources. Racism Reprints from others.

Calling the Race Baiter out. Fla. GOP Official Offers Moving Costs for NAACP Chair.

Hits: 12

Ron DeSantis: No social transformation without representation

Ron DeSantis: No social transformation without representation





Calling the Race Baiter out. The chairman of the Florida Republican Party on Monday offered to help pay for the chair of the NAACP to move out of Florida after the NAACP issued a travel advisory for the state.

Christian Ziegler, chair of the Florida GOP, noted in a tweet on Monday that NAACP Board of Directors Chair Leon W. Russell lists Tampa, Florida, as his location on Twitter and offered to have the Florida GOP help pay for Russell to move out of the state.

“The CHAIRMAN of the @NAACP lives in Tampa, FLORIDA! True leadership is being willing to do what you ask others to do … time to step up and MOVE. If you think our state is so bad, the @FloridaGOP will help with moving costs,” Ziegler tweeted.

Last week, the NAACP issued a travel advisory for Florida that criticized Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his “aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida.”

NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson wrote in a statement: “Under the leadership of Governor Desantis, the state of Florida has become hostile to Black Americans and in direct conflict with the democratic ideals that our union was founded upon.”



Links from other news sources. Racism Un documented. Uncategorized

Winning, Judge Blocks NYC from Pawning Off Border Crossers on Upstate Suburbs.

Hits: 14

Winning, Judge Blocks NYC from Pawning Off Border Crossers on Upstate Suburbs.

No Mas.

Go back home.

We are seeing more and more so called Sanctuary cities telling the undocumented No Mas. Go back home. And when the undocumented come to these Sanctuary cities, they’re being turned away.

A second judge now has told NY to stop deporting the undocumented. It’s your problem now. This from Breitbart.

A New York Supreme Court judge has blocked New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) from busing any more border crossers and illegal aliens to Orange County, New York, a decision that comes after a judge blocked the city from sending new arrivals to Rockland County, New York.


Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights