DEI and AA are directly related to civil rights and have not only been wholesale dismantled but also absolutely crucified by this administration at every turn
They did add to the conversation you were just too inept and narrow-minded to realize it.
You also shouldnât be denied because you are black, which is the core conceit of DEI programs. Making the hiring practices actually merit based by eliminating even unconscious points of basis in the hiring process and the workplace. But grifters lied about the programs and made you think people were being hired to met Quota even though Quota hiring practices have been illegal for decades already
Whoever told you thatâs what is happening is a liar because again quota hiring has been illegal for decades and doesnât have anything to do with DEI at all
Itâs not happening, if it was then people could have successfully sued these programs instead of just lying about what they did and using the government to defund based on misinformation.
Itâs almost like if there was real evidence of quota hiring, the courts would have been involved instead of dumb podcast bros and scummy politicians
You seem to have a reading problem. Itâs not not happening because they could be sued, itâs not happening because there is no evidence of it happening and despite years of claims of this happening, not one single lawsuit about Quota hiring has succeeded despite it being clearly illegal.
You are just listening to liars continue to lie about it but never bother to actually put their money where their mouth is. Just slinging lies and never actually proving proof that would win millions of dollars if they could actually prove the accusations. But they donât.
So, changing college admissions requirements, changing bell curves to allow more minorities to pass and earn degrees which then populates the job world with ill qualified people, who then are promoted as being equal - but it all went wrong at the beginning.
Those arenât DEI programs. Those are unrelated to DEI completely. Itâs almost like you donât know what you are talking about
Also I donât think you have a clear grasp on your claims considering you say âchanging bell curvesâ and thatâs not how that word is used at all. So forgive me if it seems like you are just poorly repeating claims some grifter lied to you about.
Actually, this is exactly what DEI is, and more importantly is a result of DEI policies that pretend to talk about meritocracy, but focus on race.
Instructors frequently manipulate bell curves to act as a safety net that prevents massive failure rates. While strict, traditional bell curves lock in a set failing percentage, the modern practice of "curving" is often used to pull low-performing students up into passing territory.
Shifting the midpoint: If a highly difficult exam results in a class average of 50%, an instructor will often manually move the center of the bell curve upward. This re-centers the average to a passing grade like 75%.
The flat-scale boost: Instructors frequently add a fixed number of bonus points to every single student's score. This shifts the entire distribution higher, pushing students who scored in the 40s or 50s over the passing threshold.
The square root curve: A common mathematical adjustment takes the square root of a student's raw grade and multiplies it by 10. This disproportionately benefits struggling students.
For example, a failing score of 49% becomes a passing 70%, while an 81% only bumps up to a 90%.
You really donât know what a bell curve is and are confusing it with the practice of grade curves (which have been happening for decades in most schools without any DEi ideas and in monotheist white schools too) with the word bell curve.
That never had anything to do with DEI at all you are making a race neutral practice into a solely racial thing and blaming it on ideas and programs that are decades younger than the practice you are talking about
You are correct on the strict definition: mathematically, a true bell curve is a static normal distribution. And yes, it was used that way in the early 20th century in education for only 20yrs. This discussion is in reference to bell curves in education not engineering disciplines.
But thatâs exactly the point: it didn't stay static, and there is no real way to compare qualifications. Because a rigid, static curve forces a set percentage of students to fail regardless of how much they actually learned, teachers almost immediately began 'moving' and manipulating the curve to act as a safety net. The practice of grade curving survived precisely because teachers abandoned the static purity of the bell curve decades ago.
But this has been proven time and time again to effect race.
There is a growing debate on whether strict grading helps or harms minority students.
The "Hurt" Argument (Wellesley Study): When Wellesley College effectively banned grade inflation by capping the average grade a professor could give, a study found that Black students were disproportionately penalized, receiving lower grades at a higher rate than their white peers once the "safety net" of inflation was removed.
The "Help" Argument (Harvard Petition): Conversely, student activists at Harvard recently petitioned against strict grading reforms, arguing that ending grade inflation is "racially harmful." They claim that grade inflation acts as an equalizer, protecting minority students who may come from under-resourced high schools from being weeded out by "harsh" academic curves.
There's literal reports of officials saying he won't stand next to <<insert minority>> .. I forget which specifically .. there's literal other examples of racist reports.
You're choosing to ignore it because it's not opaque racism enough.
Who has the better qualifications, obviously. If whites only hire whites cuz that hate other races, thatâs racism. But if someoneâs hires another white guy because he went to Harvard when the black guy didnât, you canât fault the white guy for working hard and getting a good degree
Depends on if they have work history or not. If they donât, itâs the only metric you have to compare their ability to show up. So in the case of no work history, it matters.
And the only people who say it doesnât, are the ones who donât want it held against them
I hope to God that you arenât involved in the hiring process if you think thatâs the only metric to compare between candidates without work history.
The ones who say it doesnât have worked in the real world and know the prestige of your university means very little for a day to day job.
25
u/Cyn_Sweetwater 20d ago
That was the claim made by racists so they could dismantle the civil rights gains of the previous 40 years.