[Townhall] President Donald Trump's executive orders banning Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)-related racial and gender preferencing have ostensibly doomed the DEI industry.
But DEI was already on its last legs. Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic, or gender preferences. DEI had enjoyed a surge following the death of George Floyd and the subsequent 120 days of nonstop rioting, arson, assaults, killings, and attacks on law enforcement during the summer of 2020.
In those chaotic years, DEI was seen as the answer to racial tensions. DEI had insidiously replaced the old notion of affirmative action -- a 1960s-era government remedy for historical prejudices against black Americans, from the legacy of slavery to Jim Crow segregation.
But during the Obama era, "diversity" superseded affirmative action by offering preferences to many groups well beyond black Americans. Quite abruptly, Americans began talking in Marxist binaries. On one side were the supposed 65-70 percent white majority "oppressors" and "victimizers" -- often stereotyped as exuding "white privilege," "white supremacy," or even "white rage."
They were juxtaposed to the 25-30% of "diverse" Americans, the so-called "oppressed" and "victimized." Yet almost immediately, contradictions and hypocrisies undermined DEI.
First, how does one define "diverse" in an increasingly multiracial, intermarried, assimilated, and integrated society?
DNA badges?
The old one-drop rule of the antebellum South?
Superficial appearance? To establish racial or ethnic proof of being one-sixteenth, one-fourth, or one-half "non-white," employers, corporations, and universities would have to become racially obsessed genealogists.
Yet refusing to become racial auditors also would allow racial and ethnic fraudsters -- like Senator Elizabeth Warren and would-be new mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani -- to go unchecked. Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage to leverage a Harvard professorship. Mamdani, an immigrant son of wealthy Indian immigrants from Uganda, tried to game his way into college by claiming he was an African-American.
Second, in 21st-century America, class became increasingly divergent from race. Mamdani, who promised to tax "affluent" and "whiter" neighborhoods at higher rates, is himself the child of Indian immigrants, the most affluent ethnic group in America.
Why would the children of Barack Obama, Joy Reid, or LeBron James need any special preferences, given the multimillionaire status of their parents?
In other words, one's superficial appearance no longer necessarily determines one's income or wealth, nor defines their "privilege" or lack thereof.
Third, DEI is often tied to questions of "reparations." The current white majority supposedly owes other particular groups financial or entitlement compensation for the sins of the past.
Yet in today's multiracial and multiethnic society, in which over 50 million residents were not born in the U.S. and many have only recently arrived, what are the particular historical or past grievances that would earn anyone special treatment? What injustices can recent arrivals from southern Mexico, South Korea, or Chad claim, as they would know little about, and have experienced firsthand nothing prior from Americans, the United States, or its history?
Is the DEI logic that when a Guatemalan steps one foot across the southern border, she is suddenly classified as a victim of white oppression and therefore entitled to preferences in hiring or employment as someone diverse or victimized?
Fourth, does the word "minority" still carry any currency? In today's California, the demography breaks down as 40% Latino, 34% White, 16% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6% Black, and 3% Other -- with no significant majority and whites fewer than the Latino "minority."
Are Latinos the new de facto "majority" and "whites" just one of the four other "minorities?" Do the other minorities, then, have grievances against Latinos, given that they are the dominant population in the state? Fifth, when does DEI "proportional representation" apply, and when does it not? Are whites "overrepresented" among the nation's university faculties that are reportedly 75% white, when they comprise only about 70% of the population?
Or, are whites "underrepresented" as making up only 55% of all college students and thus in need of DEI action to bump up their numbers? Black athletes are vastly overrepresented in lucrative and prestigious professional sports. To correct such asymmetries, should Asians and Hispanics be given mandated quotas for quarterback or point guard positions to ensure proper athletic "diversity, equity, and inclusion?"
Sixth, DEI determines good and bad prejudices, as well as correct and incorrect biases. "Affinity" segregationist graduations -- black, Hispanic, Asian, and gay -- are considered "affirming."
But would a similar affinity graduation ceremony for European-Americans or Jews be considered "racist?" Is a Latino-themed house on a California campus -- that is de facto segregated -- considered "enlightened," while a European-American dorm would be condemned as incendiary?
In truth, DEI had long ago become corrupt. It is falling apart under the weight of its own paradoxes and hypocrisies. It is a perniciously divisive idea -- unable to define who qualifies for preference or why, who is overrepresented or not, or when bias is acceptable or unjust. And it is past time that it goes away.
Posted by: Grom the Affective ||
08/08/2025 02:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[54 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic, or gender preferences."
So half still do.
"DEI had long ago become corrupt."
And the beneficiaries are dug in.
I'm not as cheerful about the situation as he is.
Posted by: James the lesser ||
08/08/2025 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
#1
I was never able to sit through more than a minute of any South Park episode. I remember somebody once told me she thought the show is funny because it's "sick and twisted". Sorry. I think sick and twisted is sick and twisted, not funny.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/08/2025 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
[Kevin] Morris is known in Washington for not only funding Hunter Biden’s legal bills to the tune of millions but also as Biden’s biggest art patron.
The legal eagle earned his multimillions by representing Matt Stone and Trey Parker of “South Park” and doing all the “South Park” deals. article
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/08/2025 17:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Historically, they gore everyones' sacred cows. I hope they are just trying to cash in on last episode's re-tread of a 20+ year old joke, and not a season theme picking low hanging manchineel.
[Breitbart] Bill Clinton gave America a lot of things: an affair with a young intern, an “assault weapons” ban that had a negligible impact on crime, and gun-free military bases that force troops to run for their lives when a bad guy pulls a gun.
On September 17, 2013, Breitbart News pointed out that “gun-free zones” on military bases were enacted under Clinton.
According to a Washington Times editorial, written days after a Nov. 5, 2009 attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, one of Clinton’s “first acts upon taking office… was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.”
Clinton’s actions birthed Army regulations “forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.”
As the Times editorial board put it, “Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood.”
President Trump was focused on ending the gun-free zones on military bases as he headed into his first term, but the goals he had for his first term were largely curtailed by the fake Russian collusion scenario created by the left and relentlessly reported by the establishment media.
In 2015, Trump told Ammoland: “President Clinton never should have passed a ban on soldiers being able to protect themselves on bases. America’s Armed Forces will be armed.”
Perhaps the good that will come out of this week’s Fort Stewart attack is a renewed focus on making sure our military personnel can be armed on stateside bases for self-defense. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time until someone else figures out how to get a gun onto a gun-free military base for the purposes of shooting at people who cannot shoot back.
Our troops deserve better; they deserve the ability to defend their lives from hostiles, whether those hostiles are wearing the uniform of friend or foe.
#3
Sorry but I can't help saying this - where the heck is our marksmanship program. This bozo with multiple years in the service can't put rounds downrange effectively at point black range? He wounded 5 people. I'm not supporting him at all but I sure hope the other folks in his unit shoot better!
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
[Korrespondent] SCENARIOS FOR THE END OF THE WAR
There is an option that the negotiations will agree on new negotiations later, after the onset of cold weather, which will lead to a freezing of the front in all senses around October, CNN outlined five possible scenarios for ending the war that the aggressor country Russia has unleashed against Ukraine.
CEASE-FIRE
As CNN author Nick Payton Walsh writes, it is highly unlikely that the Russian dictator will agree to a ceasefire that leaves the front lines unchanged - the US, Europe and Ukraine have already demanded such a break in May 2025 under threat of sanctions, but the Kremlin has not agreed.
“Trump has abandoned sanctions in favor of low-level talks in Istanbul that have gone nowhere. A 30-day ceasefire earlier this year on energy infrastructure has not been fully observed and has not been successful,” Welsh said.
According to the journalist, even Trump's threat to impose secondary sanctions on China and India, which seem to be resisting US pressure, will not change the situation by the end of the summer.
“At least until October, Putin will want to fight because he is convinced that he is winning,” Walsh said.
FROM FROST
There is a possibility that the negotiations will agree on new negotiations later, after the onset of cold weather, which will lead to a freezing of the front in all senses around October, the author writes.
"If Putin can perhaps capture the towns of Pokrovsk, Konstantinovka and Kupyansk by then, that would give him a position to winter and regroup his forces. Russia could then resume fighting in 2026," Welsh said.
In addition, the journalist believes that Putin may raise the issue of holding presidential elections in Ukraine, temporarily postponed due to the war, in order to try to question the legitimacy of Volodymyr Zelensky.
UKRAINE FIGHTS FOR TWO MORE YEARS WITH WESTERN SUPPORT
US and European military aid to Ukraine should help Kyiv minimize temporary territorial losses on the front in the coming months and force dictator Putin to seek negotiations - since the Russian occupiers will once again fail to achieve their goals, the article says.
“Pokrovsk may fall and other strongholds in eastern Ukraine may be threatened, but Ukraine may see a slowdown in the Russian advance, as it has in the past, and the Kremlin may even feel the effects of sanctions and an overheating economy,” Walsh said.
Moreover, as the journalist notes, Europe has already developed detailed plans for the deployment of “guarantee forces” in Ukraine.
“These tens of thousands of European NATO troops could be positioned around Kyiv and other major cities, providing logistical and intelligence assistance to Ukraine as it rebuilds, and creating enough of a deterrent that Moscow decides to leave the front lines as they are. That’s the best option Ukraine can hope for,” Welsh wrote.
DEFEAT OF UKRAINE AND THE WEST
Putin may press on cracks in Western unity - after a possible meeting with Trump that would improve US-Russian relations but could leave Ukraine to its fate.
"Europe can do everything it can to support Kyiv, but without American support it will not be able to turn the tide. Putin may see small gains in eastern Ukraine turn into a slow rout of Ukrainian troops in the flat, open terrain between the Donbas and the Dnieper, Zaporozhye, Kiev," Walsh believes.
European countries believe that it is better to fight Russia in Ukraine than later on EU territory, the author notes.
"But European leaders ultimately lack the political mandate to engage in a land war in Ukraine. Putin is moving forward. NATO cannot come up with a unified response. This is a nightmare for Europe, but it is already the end of a sovereign Ukraine," he writes.
RUSSIA'S DEFEAT
“Russia could continue to make mistakes, losing thousands of troops a week, gaining relatively little, and watching sanctions erode its alliance with China and revenues from India. Moscow’s sovereign wealth fund could shrink and revenues could fall,” Welsh predicts.
Moreover, the journalist believes that in such a scenario, President Trump will become a “lame duck” (an American idiom meaning a politician whose authority, influence or effectiveness has significantly declined), and, after the midterm congressional elections, the US will return to traditional foreign policy norms, which consist of confronting Russia and its ally China.
“In this scenario, the Kremlin may face a point where its resistance to the banal inconveniences of reality and the economic hardships of its own people becomes toxic,” Welsh writes.
Such political miscalculations ultimately led to the Soviet Union's fruitless occupation of Afghanistan in another war of its own choosing. Similar moments of unexpected Kremlin weakness have already been evident in the war in Ukraine, when Wagner PMC chief Yevgeny Prigozhin apparently accidentally led a short-lived uprising in the capital, the journalist believes.
But the problem with this scenario, Welsh argues, is that it remains the best hope for Western policymakers, who can neither accept NATO countries entering the war fully to help Ukraine win, nor Kyiv being able to push back the Russian army militarily.
“None of the options are good for Ukraine. Only one of them means the actual defeat of Russia as a military power and a threat to European security. And none of them can come about as a result of Trump’s meeting with Putin alone – without Ukraine later becoming part of some agreement,” the journalist concluded.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
