Quote:

---

You don't think Harvard should be given research dollars. So be it. I think they should and they should clean up a few things. I also recognize they are not going to change their admissions program.

---

If we were sure the money was being used for research, that would be a different story. I think every entity receiving federal tax dollars needs to account for it.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I have never claimed to be an expert. I used Google to do some reading. Not exactly earth shattering stuff.

---

My apologies , you were asserting opinions as if they were verified facts, so I made the mistaken assumption you knew what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

I thought this place was where discussions could be had. I was incorrect. Either agree with the majority or be attacked.

---

Unlike the forum where you spend the majority of your time, we don't all pat each other on the back and star every post 1000 times. Perhaps you would be happier staying there.

You weren't attacked. People disagreed with you, said so, and asked you to back up your statements.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

Nothing is generally back and white. Most issues are nuanced.

That doesn't hold true for all things but many complicated issues have complexities to reach a mutually agreed upon solution.

Sending demand letters is just not the most effective manner to work with someone unless you believe you hold all the cards.

If we want to go back to not being a leader in R&D, so be it but otherwise let's try to work with these universities to make improvements.

I don't understand how compromises cannot be made on both sides. This is where I see issues in the current political environment- lack of compromise on both sides.

I'm not a leftist but way more of a centralist.

---

Compromise on what?

I'm not going to compromise with the idea that jews shouldn't be able to safely attend class at their university.
I'm not going to compromise that hamas which baked babies alive and raped women to death are the victims.
I'm not going to compromise that each person is unique and valuable and that sexual orientation, gender nor race make someone more or less valuable.

You should read the managerial revolution written in 1940s. You will see that compromising with the bureaucratic force leads to its dominance and with it facisim.

100% agree. They should be completely transparent with the use of their funds.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

100% agree. They should be completely transparent with the use of their funds.

---

They NEVER will, because then they'd have to end the scam.

For every dollar of direct research expense, they've been getting 69 cents more to cover "indirect expenses." This has led to incredible administrative bloat, and, as a side effect, the use of federal funds for political purposes like DEI indoctrination.

These institutions don't want to reform. They feel entitled to the money. The best thing to do is to cut them off, and let researchers move to institutions who will actually use the money for research.

I agree on most of what you said. I agree that Jews should be safe - I mean everyone should be safe and be given equal opportunity.

Where I disagree some is in the end you could have two students who are very equal in qualifications and I'm agreeable to using things like race to create a more diverse class. I believe having some level of diversity brings varying backgrounds and opinions. I know many here completely disagree with that and accept that.

Should they be a prime consideration - I don't think so but I'm agreeable to it being used when margins are close.

But again, I really just want to have civil discussions on these difficult topics.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I agree on most of what you said. I agree that Jews should be safe - I mean everyone should be safe and be given equal opportunity.

Where I disagree some is in the end you could have two students who are very equal in qualifications and I'm agreeable to using things like race to create a more diverse class. I believe having some level of diversity brings varying backgrounds and opinions. I know many here completely disagree with that and accept that.

Should they be a prime consideration - I don't think so but I'm agreeable to it being used when margins are close.

But again, I really just want to have civil discussions on these difficult topics.

---

You may believe that, and Harvard may believe that, but, that is discrimination by definition, under statutory law and under the constitution. So long as Harvard refuses to concede this, then there is no point in funding their illegal operations.

You can have the doctor that got in on diversity, I'll take the one that made it on merit.

I think you read what I said- you have two candidates that both qualify but you have 1 spot. It doesn't make the make diverse candidate less capable.

I'm not def not encouraging changing the standard such that didn't deserve it.

Yet you chose the "diverse" candidate with no other information

How would you solve this issue? You have two candidates that both deserve to be in but you have one spot.

How do you pick?

Again, I didn't say that. I said I'm agreeable to using that criteria.

I swear people read what they want vs what was actually stated.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

Address the issues you see but cutting off the funding only hurts America in the long term. As you can guess Harvard attracts the best researchers who we want doing research for us.

Why do you think the US has way more Nobel award winners than any other country and it's not even close - federal research money. This money benefits us.

Again- address issues in a rationale manner.

---

Highly - and i mean HIGHLY - debatable. H.I.G.H.L.Y.

I'd agree it's debatable but to cut off funding from all these research institutions at the same time seems like a horrible idea. If the Fed wants to take over these research labs and fund that, so be it. Let's just keep the research going for the benefit of the US.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I agree on most of what you said. I agree that Jews should be safe - I mean everyone should be safe and be given equal opportunity.

Where I disagree some is in the end you could have two students who are very equal in qualifications and I'm agreeable to using things like race to create a more diverse class. I believe having some level of diversity brings varying backgrounds and opinions. I know many here completely disagree with that and accept that.

Should they be a prime consideration - I don't think so but I'm agreeable to it being used when margins are close.

But again, I really just want to have civil discussions on these difficult topics.

---

Yeah the issue with dei isn't two candidates that are equal. The issue is candidates with clearly lower performance indicator metrics being chosen over others. Look at SAT scores, grades, research etc. Especially when the goal of quotas don't even reflect the populace pool.

I'm not in favor of that. People need to be qualified and not given something they didn't earn.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

How would you solve this issue? You have two candidates that both deserve to be in but you have one spot.

How do you pick?

---

I wouldn't illegally consider their race.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I'm not in favor of that. People need to be qualified and not given something they didn't earn.

---

That is what dei does.
You are either being intellectually dishonest or are ignorant on how dei works.

A company i worked for had a new hire referral bonus.
White and Jewish people 1k bonus.
Non- white/Jewish 2k bonus.

That is dei in action.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

Nothing is generally back and white. Most issues are nuanced.

That doesn't hold true for all things but many complicated issues have complexities to reach a mutually agreed upon solution.

Sending demand letters is just not the most effective manner to work with someone unless you believe you hold all the cards.

If we want to go back to not being a leader in R&D, so be it but otherwise let's try to work with these universities to make improvements.

I don't understand how compromises cannot be made on both sides. This is where I see issues in the current political environment- lack of compromise on both sides.

I'm not a leftist but way more of a centralist.

---

DEI is absolutely black and white.

The federal government, and by proxy the taxpayers of this country, have very plainly spoken that they disapprove of anything DEI. Especially since it is nothing more than classy racism.

It isn't a hard issue - anytime money is given or loaned, public, private, doesn't matter - it comes with strings. Your bank loans you money with strings attached. Your mortgage company loans you money with strings attached. Your credit card companies loan you money with strings attached.

You either agree to the conditions of those strings and get the money, or you do not agree and they tell you to head down the river and find somebody else.

The strings attached with a very large amount of taxpayer dollars are pretty simple here - and that is to end any and all DEI practices, because they violate federal law and the taxpayers of this country voted to put an end to a practice that is nothing more than racism against the majority.

Demand letters are sent because if you were to call Harvard up and say "hey, why don't we work together and you end your DEI practices" they would - very smugly while looking down upon you because they are Harvard after all - tell you to pound sand. I don't want to waste time negotiating with an institution that makes it clear they hate folks like me anyway - using a sledge hammer is pretty much the only tool that can be used effectively. And as others have said - if the research is that important, the researchers will go where there is money to do the research. It happens all of the time. Harvard isn't the only place in the country that has the infrastructure to do scientific research. There are hundreds - thousands - of facilities that can do the same research.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

How would you solve this issue? You have two candidates that both deserve to be in but you have one spot.

How do you pick?

---

You sure as hell don't use race, gender or sexual orientation. Using those immutable traits should never have been made legal. And the diversity they provide is only superficial.

I think it's hilarious that you believe that DEI practices just come down to a "coin flip" decision between two equal candidates.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I think you read what I said- you have two candidates that both qualify but you have 1 spot. It doesn't make the make diverse candidate less capable.

I'm not def not encouraging changing the standard such that didn't deserve it.

---

It doesn't make them more capable either.

Contrary to the liberal mindset - diversity is not a strength. Especially when it is used for the sake of diversity and no other reason, which is the very foundational principle of DEI, along with the whole racist aspect of it.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I have never claimed to be an expert. I used Google to do some reading. Not exactly earth shattering stuff.

---

My apologies , you were asserting opinions as if they were verified facts, so I made the mistaken assumption you knew what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

I thought this place was where discussions could be had. I was incorrect. Either agree with the majority or be attacked.

---

Unlike the forum where you spend the majority of your time, we don't all pat each other on the back and star every post 1000 times. Perhaps you would be happier staying there.

You weren't attacked. People disagreed with you, said so, and asked you to back up your statements.

---

To be fair, in the mind of a leftist this is being attacked. You either agree with their point of view or else they become the victim.

Quote:

---

Yeah the issue with dei isn't two candidates that are equal. The issue is candidates with clearly lower performance indicator metrics being chosen over others. Look at SAT scores, grades, research etc. Especially when the goal of quotas don't even reflect the populace pool.

---

Quote:

---

Where I disagree some is in the end you could have two students who are very equal in qualifications and I'm agreeable to using things like race to create a more diverse class. I believe having some level of diversity brings varying backgrounds and opinions. I know many here completely disagree with that and accept that.

---

This is not reality.

You are either ignorant, or obtuse, to how DEI truly executes work.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

How would you solve this issue? You have two candidates that both deserve to be in but you have one spot.

How do you pick?

---

The best one for the job.

No matter what one may believe, there is always one that ranks above the other from a pure merit standpoint.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

Again, I didn't say that. I said I'm agreeable to using that criteria.

I swear people read what they want vs what was actually stated.

---

You did, in fact, say that:

Quote:

---

Where I disagree some is in the end you could have two students who are very equal in qualifications and I'm agreeable to using things like race to create a more diverse class. I believe having some level of diversity brings varying backgrounds and opinions

---

Unless you are seriously trying to argue that your own words do not say exactly what they say.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I agree on most of what you said. I agree that Jews should be safe - I mean everyone should be safe and be given equal opportunity.

Where I disagree some is in the end you could have two students who are very equal in qualifications and I'm agreeable to using things like race to create a more diverse class. I believe having some level of diversity brings varying backgrounds and opinions. I know many here completely disagree with that and accept that.

---

That is called "racism." There is no place for it in our society. We have dumbed down ALL of our institutions of learning because of racism and "inclusion."

I said I'm agreeable to using other criteria like race but I never said I picked the dei candidate.

Again, race could be one criteria. I'd consider financial background too- for example I'd generally select someone who had an impoverished background over someone who had a middle-upper background because that person had to go through a lot more to be successful.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

Again, I didn't say that. I said I'm agreeable to using that criteria.

I swear people read what they want vs what was actually stated.

---

So if you're agreeable to using "diversity" as a factor, then you're agreeing to DEI

If you truly have two candidates that are 100% equal in every way, I don't think the next question should be "Are they a white male?" and then accept or reject them on that basis

Give it to whoever applied first, or flip a coin

schmellba99 said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I think you read what I said- you have two candidates that both qualify but you have 1 spot. It doesn't make the make diverse candidate less capable.

I'm not def not encouraging changing the standard such that didn't deserve it.

---

It doesn't make them more capable either.

Contrary to the liberal mindset - diversity is not a strength. Especially when it is used for the sake of diversity and no other reason, which is the very foundational principle of DEI, along with the whole racist aspect of it.

---

DEI is poison to society. It elevates and marginalizes people based not on ability, performance or work ethic, but on superficial physical characteristics or sexual behaviors. It weakens the confidence the public has in our institutions because they know the game that is being played. It creates an unearned sense of entitlement in those it favors while signaling to those it doesn't to "shut and up and know your place".

Quote:

---

Again, race could be one criteria. I'd consider financial background too- for example I'd generally select someone who had an impoverished background over someone who had a middle-upper background because that person had to go through a lot more to be successful.

---

And every bit of that is discrimination, in some form, against a characteristic the individual has zero control over.

You are so eaten up with cultural Marxism that you truly believe an level playing field is discrimination. Truly sad.

Let me say this - I apologize for using race as the example. It could be a variety of decision criteria to make a final decision.

I will also say this - candidates need to earn their way into whatever they apply - school, work, etc.

I also believe having some diversity is not a bad thing. It brings unique perspectives to an organization and sometimes that different perspective helps solve problems in a new way.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I said I'm agreeable to using other criteria like race but I never said I picked the dei candidate.

Again, race could be one criteria. I'd consider financial background too- for example I'd generally select someone who had an impoverished background over someone who had a middle-upper background because that person had to go through a lot more to be successful.

---

The only criteria I'm using is, "Which one of you can earn my company the most money without committing ethics violations or breaking the law?"

To believe the playing field is level for everyone is so incorrect. It's not level- not even close.

I am that person that came from the impoverished background and it was way harder for me than many of my peers who had more financial resources.

Now, thankfully my children have the benefits I did not but I remember what it was like.

I can assure you - the playing field was not level.

Diversity in and of itself is not a bad thing. Diversity being the driver of decision-making is.