That's fair.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

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.

---

Life ain't fair and it's never going to be.

No university should get federal funding, we are already broke. If they need research money, let former students, businesses, foundations that support certain research, their endowment, etc. foot the bill. Or beg for financial support from the public.

Correct but to say the playing field is level for everyone is disingenuous.

Life isn't fair and it's up to the individual to make the most of themselves.

I'm a firm believer this country provides the opportunity to change one's circumstances with effort. But I saw way too many examples in my trailer park of kids just having poor guidance and never reaching their potential.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

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.

---

Guess, what, Smokey, I didn't exactly come from middle class either. But you know what else I was taught? Life isn't fair.

YOUR level playing field is everyone coming from the exact same place. MY level playing field is all of us having the same opportunity.

YOUR playing field requires discrimination, regulation, and the gov't gun being pointed at someone's head.

MY level playing field requires the gov't to remove barriers and get out of the way.

I'll choose mine, because, while it was hard, I worked my ass off to make it to where I am.

Lastly, the bold part above is exactly why the term, "Liberalism is a mental disorder," was coined. Just a few posts up, you literally state that you would discriminate against your own children simply because they have not had as hard of a life as someone else. That is truly insane. And I'll quote it for posterity:

Quote:

---

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:

---

Correct but to say the playing field is level for everyone is disingenuous.

Life isn't fair and it's up to the individual to make the most of themselves.

I'm a firm believer this country provides the opportunity to change one's circumstances with effort. But I saw way too many examples in my trailer park of kids just having poor guidance and never reaching their potential.

---

So what are you doing today to help just 1 kid you are concerned about?
Do you donate to a non-profit?
Volunteer your time to serve as a mentor?
Volunteer at poor school districts to increase 1 on 1 tutoring opportunities for these kids?

Or do you just wish government would come in and solve it with this magic wand via DEI?

If you want to make a difference and you think there is a real opportunity to do so, then maybe you can step up and act today. DEI doesn't help poor kids: white, black or Hispanic. It helps rich kids. As one should expect any non-merit based program to do.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

Correct but to say the playing field is level for everyone is disingenuous.

Life isn't fair and it's up to the individual to make the most of themselves.

I'm a firm believer this country provides the opportunity to change one's circumstances with effort. But I saw way too many examples in my trailer park of kids just having poor guidance and never reaching their potential.

---

Who is claiming that everyone has an equal chance? And why are you citing poor v. not poor in your examples when DEI doesn't use it in its "preferred candidate metrics"? The DEI crowd would never include the economic background because it would harm all those upper middle class students of color it admits or hires. Students that have had every advantage afforded to wealthy whites.

Generally speaking when it comes to DEI / affirmative action, the Ivies aren't admitting or hiring inner city kids, they're accepting middle and upper class blacks and Hispanics with good grades and decent SATs.

So the point has been made in this thread that Fed funds are imperative for Research and Development. So we are paying for R & D on the front end through massive tax dollars plopped in the laps of universities (who, btw hate most of us red-blooded Americans).

Then since we're Americans we have to pay premium prices for prescription drugs, to cover all the R & D. It's pretty obvious to me we're getting double-screwed here.

Convince me I'm wrong.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

**** Harvard. They are a nest of traitors.

---

THIS

Harvard in 1861 and 1862 sent many men to fight as officers in the Union Army.

Including Robert Gould Shaw of the 54th Massachusetts Colored Infantry Regiment.

now they actively support Hamas terrorists!

CDUB98 said:

---

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.

---

---

People must like you way more then they like me. You literally quoted my entire post (minus the quote I was replying to) and you got more stars then me!

This is a joke, not actually mad just thought it was funny.

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?

---

If you want true diversity, you pick the one who does not parrot progressive ideals. True diversity is not achieved by skin color, sexual preference, parental income or other identity based quotas. You pick the one with underrepresented values and perspectives. In the world of academia, particularly at the Ivys, you pick the conservative, the Republican, the 2nd Amendment advocate, the evangelical Christian.

But the real diversity is not Harvard's objective, is it?

ehhh, okay

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

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.

---

Diversity of thought is much more important than diversity of appearance. And no leftists advocate for diversity of thought. In fact, they fight against it at every turn.

I do appreciate that you are articulating arguments and entertaining an actual discussion. We need to have discussion, and that is what many of us come here for. The trolling we normally get is irritating. Be honest about who you are and what you believe. We won't run you off.

Harvard Crew Team Unveils New U-Boat https://t.co/j6Oqxz2ba7 pic.twitter.com/1E17YQ9Ih2

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) April 15, 2025

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

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.

---

Just don't dismiss that the Great Depression wiped out much of what rural America previously had. Many people had to start from scratch afterward. My family certainly had no generational wealth to pass down. My dad was a self-made man, and I am thankful for his work ethic and values. Those were much more important to pass down than any other advantages.

texagbeliever said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

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.

---

---

People must like you way more then they like me. You literally quoted my entire post (minus the quote I was replying to) and you got more stars then me!

This is a joke, not actually mad just thought it was funny.

---

Dude, nobody likes angry micks.

Faigh lbtha!!

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.

---

This is just laughable.

"Even though I clearly implied X and every single person that read my statement knows and agrees I implied X with said statement, because I did not explicitly say X, you cannot hold me to account for actually saying X".

Here's the deal - you didn't say anything about financial background or any other criteria except race. You very clearly conveyed that you believe race should be used as a selecting factor and now that you have been called out on it you are crawfishing your position by trying to claim you never actually stated you think race is a valid criteria and are trying to move the goalposts by stating you would use other criteria. Not surprising, really.

You do realize it is far easier to have this "intelligent or intellectual discussion" you desire so hard if you have the ability to admit your position and stick to it rather than dancing around using technicalities and splitting hairs when you have been shown your position is incorrect or untenable. Own up to your statement and position.

93MarineHorn said:

---

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".

---

Yep. It also has a negative side effect of fostering distrust in a person's ability because of their race, gender, etc. because it waters the seeds of the question of "is this person actually qualified, or did they get this position because their skin color is dark or because they have a vagina, etc."

Long term it will have the opposite intended effect and do nothing but further promote a divide among races, genders, etc. in a professional setting.

schmellba99 said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

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".

---

Yep. It also has a negative side effect of fostering distrust in a person's ability because of their race, gender, etc. because it waters the seeds of the question of "is this person actually qualified, or did they get this position because their skin color is dark or because they have a vagina, etc."

Long term it will have the opposite intended effect and do nothing but further promote a divide among races, genders, etc. in a professional setting.

---

At this point, I'm convinced that the elitist left is well aware of this and why they wholeheartedly support it. They want to stir up division. They want to marginalize white men as much as possible.

engrish, ese

Confirmed. Team Trump wants their tax-exempt status looked into.

🚨 JUST IN: Karoline Leavitt CONFIRMS the Trump administration is exploring stripping Harvard of their tax exempt status

“All Harvard had to do was follow the law, but they cannot.”

“Why are the American taxpayers subsidizing Harvard which has a $50B endowment?”

GREAT POINTS! https://t.co/RlSVzZQclM pic.twitter.com/eExU6Hkixv

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) April 15, 2025

Harvard alumni/donors are the very definition of 'the rich' so I am sure this will be very popular among leftists.

Quote:

---

We don't want them to all suddenly stop doing research.

---

You mean like studying the habits of same-sex beta male couples indigenous to the Amazon Rain Forest?

Not with my tax dollars.

ETA: Now imagine if the dollars devoted to stupid research like this and all of the transgender insanity was spent on finding a cure for cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, etc.?

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.

---

I'll tell you it's because we used to cherish and protect Jews of which are the most Nobel prize winners. Maybe we are protecting our researchers.

I've often bragged about our daughter who was a fighter pilot. Every CO she ever had (including a former member of the Thunderbirds) went out of their way to tell us how good she was. This was reflected in her extra assignments, such as Flight Test (being the first to fly a T-6 when it came out of maintenance)

Yet, I'm sure many people, including people that post here, assume she was a diversity hire. DEI is poison.

CDUB98 said:

---

Lastly, the bold part above is exactly why the term, "Liberalism is a mental disorder," was coined. Just a few posts up, you literally state that you would discriminate against your own children simply because they have not had as hard of a life as someone else. That is truly insane. And I'll quote it for posterity:

Quote:

---

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.

---

---

Amazing. Time to take a step back from the virtue signaling when you are ready to discriminate against your own kids.

I haven't read the thread. Why is the government funding Harvard or other universities BILLIONS when

HARVARDS ENDOWMENT IS 53B!?!?!

$53 BILLION !!!

I find it kind of funny that this group seems to think they have no innate biases in their decision making. From my life's experience, the vast majority of people have some bias based on their background.
So if I favor self made people, I'm so bad person. It seems we often celebrate when someone is self made but if I used that as a criteria I'm completely out of line.

And yes, if I was hiring I'd def hire me over my kids!

Ag87H2O said:

---

With a 53 billion dollar endowment, Harvard shouldn't be getting a dime of federal funding.

---

Agree completely

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I find it kind of funny that this group seems to think they have no innate biases in their decision making. From my life's experience, the vast majority of people have some bias based on their background.
So if I favor self made people, I'm so bad person. It seems we often celebrate when someone is self made but if I used that as a criteria I'm completely out of line.

And yes, if I was hiring I'd def hire me over my kids!

---

Keep throwing crap at the wall and see what sticks. No one on this thread has claimed they have no biases. You should stop now. We have been very clear about the negatives of DEI and the explicit racism/sexism/bigotry it practices. You keep tossing out strawmen and other diversions. What is it about DEI that you like? DEI does NOT account for low income applicants in its metrics because that would bring in way too many whites so please let that one go.

Good news, but I'm sure some ****ing Obama judge will come in and stop it.

Slicer97 said:

---

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

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.

---

Life ain't fair and it's never going to be.

---

I had a post grad educated minority woman tell me that I had an unfair advantage in life because….my parents were married.

Trying to explain to someone with this type of thinking….that my parents CHOSE to get and remain married was a conscious decision. One that every set of parents can decide for themselves AND children was a waste of my time. She simply could not understand how I didn't see how much of an advantage I had.

Touch luck. Life is hard and some people choose to make really bad decisions that affect them and their children for years to come.

Don't blame me. Blame your parents and grandparents.

Quote:

---

I find it kind of funny that this group seems to think they have no innate biases in their decision making. From my life's experience, the vast majority of people have some bias based on their background.

---

That's a talking point BINGO for me. My card is now 100% full on this thread.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I find it kind of funny that this group seems to think they have no innate biases in their decision making. From my life's experience, the vast majority of people have some bias based on their background.
So if I favor self made people, I'm so bad person. It seems we often celebrate when someone is self made but if I used that as a criteria I'm completely out of line.

And yes, if I was hiring I'd def hire me over my kids!

---

You must be fun at family gatherings. You can take the kid out of the trailer park but not the trailer park out of the kid.

AtlantaGaAggie said:

---

I find it kind of funny that this group seems to think they have no innate biases in their decision making. From my life's experience, the vast majority of people have some bias based on their background.
So if I favor self made people, I'm so bad person. It seems we often celebrate when someone is self made but if I used that as a criteria I'm completely out of line.

And yes, if I was hiring I'd def hire me over my kids!

---

Nobody has said that, implied that or made anything remotely close to such a statement.

Quit trying to turn yourself into a victim on this thread. Also, quit moving the goalposts.