Category: Social Justice

Did Twitter manage to fill its diversity quotas via the recent mass layoffs?

by philg

In a document written, I think, well before the Elon Musk takeover, Twitter wanted to hit the following quotas:

(Grammar police: Not “WHOM you work with?”)

They already had 46 percent “women”.

So they just needed to fire men and non-binary workers in order to achieve the 2025 dream in 2022. (Note that the quota of 50% for “women” necessarily meant that “men” would be less than half of the workforce because at least some of the workers would identify with the other 72 gender IDs recognized by Science.)

I wonder what Twitter meant for “At least a quarter of our US Tweepforce will be under-represented populations”. Would “over 60” be “under-represented”? How about 2SLGBTQQIA+? Members of the LGBTQIA+ were 13.5 percent of the workers before Black Friday:

If LGBTQIA+ qualifies as “under-represented”, Twitter could have filled its 25% quota simply by firing only workers who admitted to cisgender heterosexuality.

Who wants to guess what the diversity stats will look like the next time they’re released? (Or maybe part of Dark Elon’s plan was to fire the people who prepare these stats?)

Speaking of quotas, the United Nations is working toward a quota of 0% for the killing of journalists identifying as “women” (alternatively, a quota of 100% for the killing of journalists identifying with gender IDs other than “women”).

Full post, including comments

Will Harvard apologize for discriminating based on skin color if this is found unconstitutional?

by philg

The Supreme Court is pondering the fate of Harvard’s race-based admissions system (see It was okay to discriminate against white people, but maybe it is not okay to discriminate against Asians and What is Harvard’s argument for race-based admissions in the #StopAsianHate age?). From the Bad Guys (TM):

Here’s part of an email from the Harvard president, sent on Halloween:

When Harvard assembles a class of undergraduates, it matters that they come from different social, economic, geographical, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It matters that they come to our campus with varied academic interests and skill sets. Research and lived experience teach us that each student’s learning experience is enriched by encountering classmates who grew up in different circumstances.

Harvard is not alone in believing that we are more than our test scores and that our unique perspectives bring a wealth of educational benefits to a high-quality educational enterprise.

See if we can guess an ethnic group that is less than its members’ test scores…

The legal battle we have waged, which reaches its apex today, is as important to other colleges and universities, and to society, as it is to us. Educators and scholars, civil rights organizers, historians, and education advocates stand with us. Leaders in business and technology stand with us. Former military officers and the heads of the nation’s service academies stand with us. Their voices—ringing out in amicus briefs—are part of a chorus that has risen across our campus and throughout our country in defense of forty years of legal precedent, as well as the history of the 14th Amendment.

Today, individuals of great skill will argue in favor of our cause inside the highest court in the land.

Mediocre individuals were apparently scheduled to argue against Harvard’s Great Cause.

We now await the final decision of the court with earnest anticipation. Whatever it is, we will honor the law while also remaining true to our values.

Translation of “remaining true to our values”: “We will find a workaround so that we can continue discriminating against these Asian nerds without running afoul of the law.”

This academic bureaucrat is proud of the work that he has done for decades in sorting student and faculty applicants by skin color. Suppose, however, that the Supreme Court rules that the sort-by-skin-color policy is unconstitutional. By inference, then, Harvard and its bureaucrats have been depriving applicants of their constitutional rights to be judged by factors other than skin color. The big question for today: Will the president of Harvard and lesser bureaucrats offer an apology?

Speaking of unconstitutionality and appeals, what happened to the Biden administration’s appeal of Judge Kathryn Mizelle’s finding that the CDC’s mask order was unconstitutional? Joe Biden never apologized for violating Americans’ constitutional rights, I don’t think. The appeal was filed in April (heritage.org). In the meantime, it looks as though Joe Biden actually could legally order Americans to #MaskUpSaveLives. The courts seem to agree that this can be done via the TSA if not the CDC. “Supreme Court leaves TSA mask requirement ruling in place” (The Hill, Halloween):

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that allows the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to require mask-wearing on planes, trains and other forms of transport.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found no merit in Corbett’s claim and affirmed the TSA did have the agency to maintain security and safety within the transportation system, including imposing the masking requirement.

Biden has the power to keep us safe and secure! But why didn’t he reimpose the airport-and-airline mask order on November 1 after the Supreme Court failed to intervene? Even if most airline passengers are vaccinated we don’t want people gathering unmasked and breeding a vaccine-resistant superbug that will be deadly to the unvaccinated, as happened with Marek’s disease. Even if Democrats can control the entire United States and force everyone to get accept COVID-19 vaccinated there will still be billions of unvaccinated and/or unboosted folks in poor countries who would be vulnerable to the superbug that we created via our policy of widespread vaccination followed by mass gatherings.

Is Joe Biden following the Science, but waiting until after the election to bring the masks back?

Full post, including comments

It was okay to discriminate against white people, but maybe it is not okay to discriminate against Asians

by philg

“In cases challenging affirmative action, court will confront wide-ranging arguments on history, diversity, and the role of race in America” (scotusblog.com):

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that universities may consider race in their admissions processes as part of their efforts to achieve diversity on campus. On Oct. 31, the justices will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases asking them to overturn Grutter and outlaw race-based affirmative action in higher education altogether.

The challengers urge the justices to rule that the Constitution and federal civil rights laws bar any consideration of race in college admissions. But the universities at the center of the dispute, as well as their supporters, counter that overruling Grutter would have sweeping effects well beyond university admissions, affecting everything from the performance of U.S. businesses to the practice of medicine in an increasingly diverse society.

Both of the lawsuits were filed in federal court in 2014 by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, which describes itself as “dedicated to defending the right to racial equality in college admissions.” The group was created that same year by Edward Blum, a stockbroker and conservative activist who, though not a lawyer, has backed other prominent lawsuits challenging the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions as well as a challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. SFFA says it has more than 20,000 members.

The two universities being challenged are Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. But according to Harvard’s brief, over 40% of all U.S. universities — and 60% of selective universities — consider race in some form during their admissions process. The cases being heard on Monday could affect all of them.

“Consider race” = “discriminate by race” and it was legally okay for decades despite a U.S. Constitution that apparently barred such discrimination, at least for the government and its affiliates. I wonder if we can cut through all of the briefs that have been filed in this case. Can the issues be summarized with the following?

  • It is settled law that discriminating against white people is okay and, in fact, something to be proud of.
  • Asians now wear the “people of color” mantle.
  • It is not okay to discriminate against one subgroup within “people of color” in favor of another subgroup within that victimhood category.
  • Universities are not just discriminating against white people (permissible/legal/praiseworthy), but they’re also discriminating against Asians (impermissible/illegal/deplorable).

Who wants to bet on the outcome of these cases?

The current ruler is on the side of the righteous:

The Biden administration, which filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the universities, pushes back sharply against SFFA’s suggestion that the universities’ consideration of race as one factor in their admissions programs is inconsistent with the court’s decision in Brown. SFFA’s “persistent attempts to equate this case with Brown trivialize the grievous legal and moral wrongs of segregation,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar writes.

The Ivy League schools from which the Supreme Court justices graduated are on the side of the righteous and, in fact, are the most eager and aggressive sorters of applicants by skin color.

So if we think of courts as helping the powerful, this one should go in favor of righteousness (continued racial discrimination).

On the other hand, it is tough to think of a way for the justices to write a decision that would allow continued discrimination against whites (the oppressors) while forbidding discrimination against Asians (successfully established in the victimhood category). The previous decision was absurd: “Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Via this approach to Constitutional law we could say that slavery is permissible right now because we’re in an inflation crisis and high wages are driving up prices, which then drive up wages in a spiral. Since we can’t stop indexing government spending to inflation, the only way to break the spiral is for 25 percent of working-age Americans to be enslaved. “Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of slavery will not longer be necessary to stop the inflation spiral that was launched in 2021.”

Because I am not creative enough to envision how a decision barring discrimination only against Asians could be written, my prediction is that race discrimination by these universities that get taxpayer money will be outlawed.

A Harvard job ad for an astronomy professor requires “Statement describing efforts to encourage diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past, current, and anticipated future contributions in these areas” and “Demonstrated strong commitment to teaching, advising, and broadening institutional diversity is desired.”

Full post, including comments

Stop Jewish Hate

by philg

Any time that a friend in Massachusetts drives by a #StopAsianHate sign, he says “I wish those Asians would stop hating so much.” Let’s check in with #StopJewishHate starting with a tweet from the Tyrant of Tallahassee:

Here are some of the responses:

  • TAKE OUR NAMES OUT OF YOUR VILE FASCIST MOUTH. We do NOT accept wishes for our fasts from an antisemite like you. How dare you, after all the harms you’ve done to the Jewish people. You deserve only scorn from us. I forgive everyone this Yom Kippur but not truly evil men like you
  • We hate you….you have no Jewish friends
  • Sorry Ron you wishes mean nothing to us Jews,gays,veterans or 86 million Americans when you say nothing about nazis marching in Orlando and seeing how you speak about immigrants many of us were birthed by Holocost survivors you are disgusting
  • You have zero jewish friends🖕🏼 AbortionRightsAreHumanRights #AbortionIsHealthcare #GOPWarOnWomen

Meanwhile, in D.C., “White House calls Trump’s remarks about American Jews ‘antisemitic'” (NBC):

“We need to root out antisemitism everywhere it rears its ugly head,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

The White House criticized former President Donald Trump on Monday for telling American Jews over the weekend to “get their act together” and “appreciate” Israel “before it is too late.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a news briefing that Trump’s comments on his Truth Social website were “antisemitic” and “insulting” both to “Jews and to our Israeli allies.”

“For years now, Donald Trump has aligned with extremist and antisemitic figures,” she said.

I’m still trying to figure out when it works to tell someone who is filled with hate to “stop hating”!

Finally, we have Kanye West. He said that Jews control the media. To prove him wrong, Jews got him expunged from all media. Here’s an interesting angle on the Kanye story:

And no discussion of Kanye would be complete without the following:

a version with printed lyrics:

Full post, including comments

How much more successful would Rishi Sunak have been if he had been born white?

by philg

The UK has a new prime minister. Because they could not find anyone 78-86, which Science proves is the age range in which a human exhibits optimum decision-making skills, they’ve chosen 42-year-old Rishi Sunak.

“Rishi Sunak to become first British PM of colour and also first Hindu at No 10” (Guardian):

Rishi Sunak is about to become the UK’s first prime minister of colour and the first Hindu prime minister, both milestones in Britain’s evolution as a multicultural and multi-faith society. … the UK has never had a black or brown prime minister before.

Neema Begum, assistant professor in British politics at the University of Nottingham, said Sunak’s appointment “shows how far ethnic minority representation has come in politics”. “Sunak as prime minister is not necessarily a cause for celebration for all ethnic minorities. It shouldn’t be used to refute the ongoing existence of racism or obscure the fact that there are well-documented systemic racial and ethnic inequalities in housing, health and education.”

“New British PM Rishi Sunak is richer than King Charles III. How wealthy is he and where did it come from?” (Forbes):

Rishi Sunak and his wife, Akshata Murty, have a combined net worth of around £730 million ($826 million), … That’s around twice the estimated wealth of King Charles III.

So… this guy overcame racism and, as a “brown” person navigated a society in which white privilege is a huge advantage. This leads to the question How much more successful would Rishi Sunak have been if he had been born white? Instead of having to wait to age 42, at what age would he have become prime minister? Instead of being worth $826 million, how much would he be worth if he’d enjoyed white privilege?

Here’s a recent sunny Saturday near the Palace of Westminster. Almost impossible to walk on the bridge because nobody can decide whether to walk on the left or on the right.

And a young Heroine of Faucism who is wearing a non-N95 mask as defense against an aerosol virus while on a 30-minute nearby London Eye ride in close proximity to the unmasked:

Just for fun, a photo at the top:

On the subject of systemic racism, a newspaper that I picked up on my way into a multi-million-dollar electric vehicle:

Full post, including comments

The religion of Diversity and the failure of the recent UK government

by philg

“Liz Truss has appointed the most diverse cabinet ever.” (Guardian, 9/7/2022):

None of the four most senior jobs in the British government will be held by a white man.

We are informed that Diversity leads to superior results and that this has been proven as a Scientific fact. “There is a wealth of research that says diverse teams perform better because each team member brings a different perspective to the table.” (NYT 2018). “Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter” (Harvard Business Review, 2019):

In recent years a body of research has revealed another, more nuanced benefit of workplace diversity: nonhomogenous teams are simply smarter.

So the Liz Truss government was more diverse and more intelligent than any previous British government. Science would have predicted high performance for this group. Yet the same folks who tell us that diverse teams are better says that the Liz Truss team was incompetent:

Prime Minister Liz Truss announced on Thursday that she would resign, just days after her new finance minister reversed virtually all of her planned tax cuts, sweeping away a free-market fiscal agenda that promised a radical policy shift for Britain but instead plunged the country into weeks of economic and political turmoil.

Ms. Truss’s political viability had become tenuous after her proposals for broad unfunded tax cuts roiled markets and sent the pound’s value plunging. She suffered a grave blow on Monday, when her newly appointed chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, said that the government was undoing the last vestiges of Ms. Truss’s tax proposals.

That announcement constituted one of the most dramatic reversals in modern British political history, and a humiliating repudiation of Ms. Truss’s leadership. In recent weeks, support for her Conservative Party had collapsed in opinion polls and unrest among its lawmakers intensified, undermining her ability to remain in office.

How do we maintain our faith in the religion of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion after this spectacular failure? Do we point out that not enough people on the Liz Truss team were members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community? (and do they have the “2S” over there?)

Speaking of diversity and “2S”, the Elizabeth Warren section of the Diana, Princess of Wales’ Memorial Playground:

Going forward, Britain will feature high tax rates and rule by white men? Here’s the new money guy:

Full post, including comments

Math for Democrats: 30 is less than 19

by philg

“Young Aviation Record-Setters Share Secrets to Success at 2022 NBAA-BACE” (NBAA.org, today):

Barrington Irving, founder and CEO of Flying Classroom, moved with his family from Jamaica to the U.S. and grew up in a rough neighborhood in Miami. In 2010, at age 23, he became the youngest and first African-American to fly solo around the world.

Shaesta Waiz, founder and president of Dreams Soar, came to the United States from Afghanistan with her family and quickly became fascinated with aviation. In 2017 that drove her, at age 30, to become the youngest single-engine pilot at the time to circumnavigate the globe solo.

Unless Mr. Irving had a multi-engine airplane, which a Google search reveals is false (he flew a Columbia/Cessna 400), we are forced to conclude that 30 is less than 23. Folks who remember Matt Guthmiller’s 2014 flight are forced to conclude that 30 is less than 19. (The current record-holder was just 17 years old at the time (August 2022).)

Here’s a problematic paragraph:

“To be honest, I did not resonate with Amelia Earhart,” Waiz said. “Yes, she’s a woman. But she had such a different background than me. When I read Barrington’s story and how he kind of grew up in the ghetto of Miami – a similar background to how I grew up – and I saw that he did it, that was my proof that I could do it, too.”

I hope that she was not saying “I figured that if a Black person could do it then it must be pretty easy”!

In case the article is memory-holed:

Full post, including comments

Climate Change and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Aviation

by philg

Starting right now at NBAA in Orlando… “Climate Risks & Business Aviation” taught by a friend from Maskachusetts (an aviation lender):

Join us for an introduction, categorization and explanation of the climate risks facing business aviation. We’ll also include predictions and estimations of the impact climate has on the industry. Participants will walk away from this session with a better understanding of why this is so relevant for our industry, and how climate risks could impact the industry’s future survival.

The first casualty of climate change is diversity, apparently, because “DE&I in Business Aviation – Practical Implementation” is scheduled to conflict with the above:

How can a variety of business aviation organizations, like aircraft operators, FBOs and other service providers, successfully introduce diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) principles into their daily operations? Attend this session to get guidance and practical tips to building your organization’s DE&I strategy.

Hope to see everyone there!

Full post, including comments

Should we start a $36.6 million GoFundMe for Oberlin College?

by philg

From the Daily Mail:

Woke institution Oberlin College has finally paid out the full $36.5 million it owes an Ohio bakery it defamed with false racism claims, one week after the store owners begged college officials to pay up.

The liberal arts college had been ordered to pay after jurors ruled that it had, in fact, defamed Gibson’s Bakery by blasting the institution as racist after a storeowner chased down three black students who stole from the business in November 2016.

With legal fees and interest, the amount rose to over $36.5 million.

Oberlin College had tried to appeal the case to the Ohio Supreme Court, which announced on August 30 it would not take up the issue.

Finally, in a statement on Thursday, the college announced it ‘has initiated payment in full of the $36.59 million judgment in the Gibson’s Bakery case and is awaiting payment information from the plaintiffs.

Former Oberlin dean of students Meredith Raimondo led the woke mob’s attacks against Gibson’s, and even turned up outside the business to screech accusations while toting a bullhorn.

While named as a defendant in the suit, she won’t have to pony up any of the cash.

And despite the disgrace she heaped on her former employer, Raimondo has now landed a cozy job at Oglethorpe Liberal Arts College in Atlanta, and has yet to speak over her role in the costly scandal.

Who will join me in starting a GoFundMe for Oberlin?

Let’s see what’s important to Oberlin right now. From the Mission and Values page:

Related:

Full post, including comments

Following the Science at Columbia University

by philg

Prepping for a deposition last month in an inter partes review, a guy joined the call who is in his first year at Columbia University’s Law School (he knows enough about patents that it would make more sense for him to be teaching at Columbia, but that’s irrelevant for our purposes). Of course, after asking whether his student loans have already been canceled, I asked what percent of the righteous Ivy Leaguers were wearing masks in class. “100 percent,” he responded. “It’s required for at least the first few weeks of the semester.” Are the Scientists wearing N95 masks? “Cloth masks aren’t allowed, but you don’t need an N95 mask. A surgical mask is okay.”

In “COVID-19 Precautions for Fall 2022”, Columbia says “Students are required to be vaccinated” and “Masking will be required everywhere indoors when the COVID-19 risk is high”, but apparently this is an add-on idea that somehow the first part of the semester is the riskiest (students will get cleaner every day that they spend in the respiratory-virus-free environment of Manhattan).

What is our young colleague going to learn? Let’s check in at

They have a statement on the Supreme Court’s latest outrage:

This opinion is a devastating setback for the long-term struggle for sex equality, bodily autonomy, civil rights, and basic dignity for all. While we do not expect progress to be linear, we do expect our highest court to serve as gatekeeper to the foundational values in which our nation is rooted—equality, liberty, dignity, justice—rather than using their power to dismantle well established constitutional norms, causing the pain and suffering of millions in its wake.

Restrictions on abortion are a fundamental equality issue because: (1) Abortion is singled out for more onerous treatment than other medical procedures that carry similar or greater risks; (2) Restrictions further perpetuate harmful and discriminatory gender stereotypes that limit equal participation in society; …

(Is there a medical procedure that carries greater risks to a 33-week-old baby than abortion care (perfectly legal at all stages of pregnancy in Maskachusetts)?)

What if he wants to save $25,000 on his third year? The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion page:

The Fellowship in Support of Careers in Racial and Social Justice, provides a $25,000 grant in the fall of the 3L year to J.D. students who intend to pursue racial justice legal work after graduation and/or students of color who intend to pursue other social justice legal work after graduation.

So the tax-exempt federally-funded institution will allocate these $25,000 grants according to race and/or willingness to follow Justin Trudeau’s example. This has to be legal/Constitutional since the Law School knows everything about law.

Separately, here’s an ad posted within our local Costco:

“Air is life. Make it perfect.” Columbia Law School seems to share this perspective. Make air perfect by adding a saliva-soaked mask in front of your face!

Full post, including comments