Naperville Councilman Josh McBroom has taken up another hot button. First it was migrant housing. Now it’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
DEI initiatives and the DEI director position were made part of City a few years back in the midst of nationwide civil unrest. George Floyd’s terrible death had been shown to the world. Locally we had the highly publicized Buffalo Wild Wings mess. There was a lot going on and there was a public mandate to try new things to improve fairness and help minorities in our country.
Hence DEI came and was unanimously passed by Council with virtually zero pushback from anyone. Mayor Chirico supported it. Hinterlong and Gustin supported it. Heck, even Right winger Kevin Coyne supported it.
A few years have now passed. The temperature gauge on the topic of race and race relations have cooled considerably since then. As has the popularity of DEI programs in our country.
As McBroom’s published letter correctly points out, companies have started to move away from DEI as it has become viewed by many as being as much about politics as progress. It’s contended that little can be pointed too as being achieved, with what is often considered controversial, DEI spending.
So should Naperville keep spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars every year on these programs and personnel despite the lack of any clear mandate or practical reason for doing so?
The Watchdog says enough of DEI spending in Naperville. The Council tried something new during a time of great political upheaval. Little has been achieved by it and it’s time to move on. The City should focus on promoting our wonderfully diverse community from the bully pulpit …. not through wasteful (not to mention political) spending of other people’s money.
Josh McBroom for President!
Agreed. The time for DEI has come and gone. The country (world) has been sensitized to DEI to the extent that there will always be “watchful eyes” on the issue. There’s no need for paid watchdogs, especially taxes-paid watchdogs.
DEI is a democrat construct intended to destroy our culture and country. All plans, policies, and programs on DEI instituted by Naperville city council should be discontinued immediately saving our taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Start by firing our city’s DEI director! Good for Josh for having the guts to confront this nonsense!
A few companies are stepping back from DEI because of political pressure to do so. The only reason DEI is a political issue is that a few radicals have decided to make it one.
There have been many studies published that show DEI programs, when properly structured, have resulted in improvements, but people who want to continue to make race relations about politics consistently ignore these studies.
Have some DEI programs failed to deliver? Of course, DEI is not a one-size fits all program and organizations that have approached it this way have programs that are not delivered as expected. Like all programs, DEI programs need to be designed to work with an organization’s culture, hiring policies, promotion policies, etc.,
DEI, like all management programs, is just as susceptible to cookie-cutter, quick fix, put something – anything in place, thinking that has always led to management programs that fail to deliver.
Should Naperville cut its DEI program? Hard to say, since the consultant organizations usually hired to help evaluate management programs have not been utilized by Naperville government yet. Until this kind of review is completed, no real conclusions can be made about Naperville’s DEI program. All that can be provided is anecdotal stories, which prove nothing.
How do you measure the results of an implemented ideology ?
When you implement a management program like DEI it becomes measurable whether you consider it an “ideology” or a management tool.
Trying reading this – https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/
Wow, talk about “sugar-coating” something. The best way to look at DEI is as a form of Social/Cultural socialism, or Communism, marxism, Woke, whatever you want to call it. It’s the active belief system that the world is divided into Oppressors and their Victims. The “Oppressors” have rigged the game somehow all the way down, and the only way to show “care” and reduce “harm” for these “victims” – never identified as specific people, by the way, instead labelled groups (didn’t THAT used to be called stereotyping, or racism, or sexism, like just yesterday, if you judged not INDIVIDUALS, but groups as a monolithic whole!) – the only way to show YOUR morality, care, and harm reduction is to WAIT FOR IT, prevent certain groups from getting jobs, or talking, or a whole bunch of other classically illiberal stuff. THAT’S WHAT IT IS! Not only is it illiberal, it’s basically illegal, and at the end of the day, it’s immoral. And Naperville is PAYING PEOPLE TO DO THIS? Oh, they are just setting up a festival for certain favored groups; this isn’t that BAD other stuff! All of this follows the classical Leftist shell game: 1) NO, it’s not happening! That’s made up! 2) It’s GOOD that it’s happening, and 3) Oh, there’s a mess? It’s Republicans fault!
Why is Naperville wasting its time with this political divisiveness, potential lawsuits, and at the end of the day, immoral nonsense? End it! Don’t pay another dollar for this stuff!
Socialism? Communism? Really!!!?
It is a management policy, not a form of government. But not surprisingly, the majority of people against DEI and other management programs designed to provide equality and transparency in the workplace describe these programs using these terms. They are political buzzwords at best and a blatant attempt to turn any effort to improve equality and transparency in the workplace into a divisive political issue at worst.
Read this – https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/
Nice dodge on your part. The core of socialism/communism/marxism is, equity. You know, everything is “more equal” as enforced by a group in charge, of course. DEI is the cultural vanguard of the same “equity” concept. There is a “need” for a group of people to “even things up,” you know, “spread it all around.” All of this in the name of making things “more equal” and “reducing harm” for labelled victims. Sound familiar?
As I pointed out at the end, your move is standard – 1) Deny it’s happening, 2) Claim it’s good that it’s happening, 3) Blame any downside on anyone that dares question you.
As for the PEW article, it’s highly misleading and critics have pointed out that it failed to explain what the definitions are for each word of the DEI acronym. For those that think DEI means it’s okay to have people of diverse backgrounds and make them feel included, then sure “DEI” “sounds” good. But once it’s explained that “Diversity” means choosing some people over others intentionally based on their immutable characteristics, and that “Equity” means equal outcomes, and “Inclusion” means quelling speech deemed “harmful,” THEN the polling goes significantly in the other direction. People don’t want DEI once they see it in action. You knew that of course.
There has been far more studies that show how ineffective and divisive DEI is.
This is just one –
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/dei-initiatives-not-supported-by-the-empirical-evidence-canadian-researcher-says
You’ve done this many times before: Dodge the main point, build a straw man on the other side, and then wave your hand and say whatever you want to do is “just harmless and for the good.”
You don’t have a leg to stand on with this one. People know what DEI means. It means illiberalism, illegality, quelling free speech, and the injections of left wing politics into everything.
No thanks.
As to dodge, you are doing a lot of that. Randomly and frequently throwing out labels like socialism, communism, straw man, etc to marginalize any position that does not agree with yours.
We can all see this is your “analysis” of the PEW report. Avoiding the real issue by shifting to a discussion of semantics and definitions. Looking at what you had to say about the PEW report makes me wonder if you actually read the article you linked to. It states in the first sentence there is not evidence DEI programs do any harm. As I stated before, Yes, some DEI programs have missed the mark. But as the PEW report shows, many others have hit the mark. So, condemning all DEI programs based on the shortcomings of a few, is like eliminating all high school athletic programs, because in some schools they never succeed, just losing season after losing season.
As to infringing free speech, study after study has shown conservatives are just as guilty as liberals in this area. In fact, many of the examples used of “quelling free speech” around the pandemic were actually done by the Trump administration.
Further, even the SCOTUS has ruled that the government (federal, state, local) is doing nothing illegal in acting to prevent the spreading of misinformation when it comes to public health and safety.
On the issue of injecting politics into everything, DEI is a classic example of conservatives doing this very thing. They do it with religion, women’s rights, gender choice, spousal choice and a long list of other issues that have nothing to do with politics. Conservatives don’t just politicize these things, but they make them divisive political issues. Conservatives care more about dividing this country (thus weakening it) then in uniting this country (thus making it stronger) because, as every significant leader in US history has said in one way or another, we are strongest together and weakest divided.
Jim Haselhorst, sigh. For you it’s all about Blue vs Red. There’s no progress in any discussion. It’s just a “What about me?/What about YOU?” comeback, or a “experts support my view.” Exhausting.
The best way to think of DEI is as one thing posing as another. What it REALLY is, is a politically motivated effort to get someone on the payroll to “Get you and those like you, out. And to get the people we like and want, IN.” Politics, power, control, and you are their front man making apologies for it and telling people to not look at that man behind the curtain.
This is EXACTLY why DEI is shameless politics in action and should go. Naperville should stay in its proverbial swim lane: PRO FAMILY AND PRO BUSINESS. The BEST way to do that is to STOP obsessing about everyone’s immutable characteristics. DEI must go!
Thx!
You are the one that started the comments of DEI being a blue vs red issue, not me. Don’t project your views and belief on me, I don’t see DEI as political. I have stated this repeatedly. Just because you can’t accept or understand this does not make this any less of a fact.
I repeat – DEI is not political, as I have said before. Just because you believe it is doesn’t make it so. DEI is not an attempt to “weaponize” government like you clearly believe. And trying to paint it as such so you can marginalize any opinion to the contrary is a radical fallacy verging on a conspiracy theory.
DEI is about making sure every one has equal opportunity, eliminating institutional barriers that make equal treatment, equal pay, equal access, etc. more difficult for some base on what they are not who they are. Its basic civil rights, which apply equally to all citizens.
DEI is nothing more then the continuing evolution of civil rights.
Word-Salad-Haselhorst is going to have to get out the salad tongs for this one.
Just another study showing what we all know, that DEI is a corrosive (Left-Wing) concept meant to pit people against each other and raise racial, sexual, and overall tension and division – all in the name of “inclusivity” and “equity” of course.
Doh –
https://news.yahoo.com/news/study-finds-dei-initiatives-creating-160036795.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHm1SHvtLDsOrdAEtCpy5n5jzYfsGvFkYeRvEnkHQXR2GmFy99zcBPxcabEBNf-u6w_mIJM_4utcAzD2JacSwU-3shzPhXDWu8OdKBIepsljcRw6jOHDhvrzxaZVBwXP9rsKaWGFgq43T62ISYn_ZrastK1PgzBXMCn9KtJ2lRs0
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-study-finds-dei-initiatives-creating-hostile-attribution-bias
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/why-was-this-groundbreaking-study
We don’t have any need for DEI, nor the consultants that DEI says we need to hire to validate their existence. Consultants to tell us that hiring consultants to identify a problem that can only be solved by other consultants is exactly the kind of “management evaluation” that does nothing more than waste a lot of time and money.
The world of business has learned that a narrow appeasement policy directed at encouraging an entitlement class is a fail. It is not ” a few companies stepping back” it is is in fact a tsunami of outright rejection of fake science and and a harsh end to the racist practices involved. Naperville needs to end this travesty immediately, name the perpetrators behind this fraud, and hold them personally accountable for this fleecing. Any candidate for public office who supported this is so clearly out of touch with reality that they have no legitimate claim to serve and will never be acceptable to any of us.
If Naperville doesn’t need this type of program how come they are getting sued so much lately for actions viewed as racist and prejudice?
The very fact Naperville government has these issues tells you some program like DEI is needed in city government.
Naperville is getting sued BECAUSE they have DEI department. It’s a racist entity and the more you swim in those waters, the more you will get lawsuits.
Moreover, there are DEI grifter lawyers out there. They’re going to sue no matter what. Thinking that having it will get you LESS sued is comical and not reality.
How long have you lived in Naperville? Because anyone that has lived here more than 5 years knows that Naperville has been facing suits on DEI related grounds since long before Naperville had a DEI program (not a department).
In fact, Naperville has been facing these kinds of suits since long before the term DEI became in vogue.
No street named after our families downtown, so I guess you got us with that “I’ve been here forever, so I know everything” ploy. In the past 25 years, a quick Lexis/Nexis on Naperville’s growing notoriety as THE best source of legal precedent on this side of the Great Divide shows only one partial DEI-involved issue at trial- the pumped up enhancements of the Civil Rights Violations in the Notorious Air Pod Alleged Theft Racism Episode, which is arguably just the aftershocks of the over-policing charge that sits at #9 on the Top 10 Suits Shaming Naperville. And while each of those is a ground breaking precedent, especially in shutting down that rampant ageist discrimination in selecting volunteers at the Settlement, and requiring adequate levels of transparency for a City Council that loves the backrooms and shadowy meetings, I think all Napervillians of good character can agree that 10% of our notable oopsies in Court does not a mandate make. DEI and all programs, efforts, agendas, critical thinking, time and money wasted on it is an utter waste of effort chasing a chimera of social correctness. The only issue here is how fast we can end this corrupt practice here in our town.
As to NCTV… we have proposed a very workable solution- could we have a moment for debate before we start the auto da fe around the heretics who don’t want to subsidize agit-prop agendas?
Just to be clear, current, ongoing legal cases do not constitute a history. History means past cases, those filed, settled, gone to trial and resulting in a verdict. There have been cases involving city employees (defendant & plaintiff) that were settled out of court.
Mcbroom is silent on cutting funding to NCTV17. Must have missed his opinion piece on that
Probably because NCTV brings real value and offers tangible service unlike the DEI horse hockey.
Real value? Nothing to show for
It. They need to fend for themselves. It’s an easy service to cut to save money, welfare time is over.
Anyone else on city council comment on NCTV funding in an opinion piece? Honestly don’t know. I do know McBroom hasn’t posted pics of himself bare chested or posted about his marriage publicly, so there’s that…………..
This video demonstrates the very lack of understand of the institutional and social biases that exist, which programs like DEI are aimed at removing. If everyone had the same chance to excel (did not face social, economic and institutional barriers that for generations have prevented equal opportunity) then the question being read at the start of this video would be moot.
You mean like Asians and Indians? Why do Asians and Indians excel in this country but not blacks? DEI is for blacks and you know it. You want a DEI candidate doing brain surgery on you or the surgeon with the most experience? How about an airline pilot? Personally I want the highest qualified person, male or female. I don’t care what color they are.
Again, your response and question demonstrate your lack of understanding of the objectives of DEI. DEI is not about who will do your brain surgery or be your pilot. It is about who gets the opportunity to get the education needed to become a brain surgeon or the training needed to become a pilot.
DEI does not lower any standard, it simply broadens the opportunity for more people to compete to meet a given standard.
Finally, the fact that some minority groups do well does not mean you ignore the needs of those not. The reality is that the barrier, generations of barriers, that blacks face are simply not faced by the majority of Asian and Indian minorities. So such comparisons are simply apples to oranges, red herring.
Yeah, Asians, Indians and Jews were never marginalized in America! Hahahaha! Funny how they all excelled in our society yet blacks can’t seem to. Why is that?
What you completely ignore and will not admit is it’s the culture NOT the lack of opportunity. No amount of DEI programs in Naperville will ever decrease the rate of out of wedlock births and fatherless homes in the black community. You know it and I know it.
Never claimed any minority group has not been marginalized in the US. What I am saying is that how they are marginalized makes a big difference in what barrier they have to overcome, and some barriers are easier to overcome than others. For example, no Asian or India community in the US has ever been attacked and destroyed for being successful. This, however, is exactly what happened to dozens of black communities across the US for decades, the most famous of these being in Tusla.
As to fathering children out of wedlock and fatherless homes, this is not a problem solely existent in black communities. I have seen this same thing in small towns in red states with a completely white population.
Your belief that fatherless homes only exist in black communities and that out of wedlock births only happen in black communities demonstrate your myopic view on these common social problems.
DEI isn’t going anywhere. Excellent counter opinion by Benny a white
“In a growing and increasingly diverse city like Naperville, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are vital for fostering a community that serves all its residents.
In 2000, the city’s population was 15% minority; today, that number has risen to 35%.
This shift is also reflected in the two school districts serving Naperville: Indian Prairie School District 204 now has a 66% minority student population, while
Community Unit School District 203 is 40% minority.
These changes underscore the need for continued DEl efforts, and it’s no wonder that our mission statement, passed unanimously by a politically diverse city council, commits to being “an inclusive community that values diversity.
Some claim there’s no public mandate for DEI, pointing to reduced corporate investment. However, these cuts often reflect economic pressures, not a diminished need or relevance for DEI. While companies may prioritize short-term profits, communities like Naperville cannot afford to overlook DEl, as its benefits extend beyond financial gains.
The idea that DEI divides people is simply false. DEl programs are not about creating division but about removing barriers that have long excluded certain groups. These initiatives foster unity by ensuring everyone has equal opportunities to succeed.
While some may argue that DEI stifles free speech, it actually encourages open, inclusive dialogue that helps us better understand and respect diverse perspectives. Critics who dismiss DEI as unnecessary spending overlook its broader societal value.
DEI isn’t about quotas or checking boxes; while its benefits may not always be immediately measurable in dollars, they are evident in reduced social tensions, increased community engagement and a stronger sense of belonging.
Finally, labeling DEI as political misses the mark. The real politicization occurs when DEI is used as a wedge issue in election campaigns, not when government works to ensure all citizens are treated equitably. Naperville’s DEl efforts aren’t about partisanship – they’re about building a community where everyone, from seniors to young people, LGBTQ+ residents, people with disabilities and all others, feel safe, valued and heard.
Benny White, City Councilman“
If Naperville demographics has shifted as the article states , then there is no need for a DEI program. Don’t people move to areas where they feel they are included ? Also Benny’s assertion that this is not political is nonsense. Imagine the outcry from the lefties if Naperville hired a Project 2025 director.
It’s even more reason for DEI. The political thing to do is to oppose it. Opposing DEI initiatives if very reactionary and is in line with reactionary politics. 2025 project is not
equivalent to DEI. You obviously don’t understand what DEI is.
“Don’t people move to areas where they feel they are included ?”. I can’t believe you would seriously ask this question! The reason Naperville had a sundown law was to keep people out of the community that weren’t welcome, but were coming into Naperville anyway.
It is a historical fact that black people moved into communities where they were not welcome because they provided advantages other communities did not have, like superior public schools, among other things.
The idea that people only move into communities where they will “feel included” is simply ludicrous.
Finally, the only reason DEI is in, anyway, political is because the right wants it to be and keeps claiming it is. They seem to believe if they say it enough times it will suddenly become true. Wishes are just wishes. They aren’t facts.
Naperville is no longer a cowtown, it’s 2024 not 1950.
Naperville’s sundown law was in effect throughout the 1960. MLK, when he spoke at North Central College, had to leave town by sunset and could not stay at any hotel or residence in the city.
Naperville has never been a “cowtown” since this term implies a city were the primary source of employment is the raising of cattle. If you are using this term in the sense of a small, isolated, or unsophisticated town, this description has not applied to Naperville since the early 1900’s
Reduced Social tensions? You mean like the ones stoked by Benny & Kim White? Easy for Benny to espouse spending more tax dollars on crap programs when he and Ian don’t have to pay for it. It’s hilarious to me that the White’s live a million dollar plus home, sent their kids to Ivy League schools and complain about how horrible Naperville is.
I’d suggest Benny and Kim look in the mirror and admit why they and their kids made it in Naperville. They stayed married. As Barack Obama has stated repeatedly the destruction of the black family is the most pressing issue facing black America today. Black immigrants from Nigeria, Uganda, etc. do well in this country. Learn a lesson from that. No amount of DEI is ever going to fix the black american family.
Haselhorst – What’s that line, “making sure.” Ouch. Remember, DEI is ideas so good they MUST be mandatory! Anywho….if you believe this line, then I have a bridge to sell you: “DEI is about making sure every one has equal opportunity, eliminating institutional barriers that make equal treatment, equal pay, equal access, etc. more difficult for some base on what they are not who they are. Its basic civil rights, which apply equally to all citizens. DEI is nothing more than the continuing evolution of civil rights.” Remember, the best way to think of DEI is as one thing posing as another.
Again, your belief that DEI is an attempt to “weaponize” the government clouds your view of the reality of DEI. You have presented no new facts, data, or even anecdotal stories to support your claims.
Read the posted statement by Benny, trying to keep an open mind, and you may gain some insight.
Jim Haselhorst – I wanted to address an earlier statement you made but only know I have the time so I apologize for the ‘lateness’.
Below is your statement that I want to respond to, if this case I mention is not the basis of your reply, please let me know. I am assuming you are referring the the SCOTUS ruling on Murthy v. Missouri (originally filed as Missouri v. Biden) om June 25, 2024.
“Further, even the SCOTUS has ruled that the government (federal, state, local) is doing nothing illegal in acting to prevent the spreading of misinformation when it comes to public health and safety.”
Your above statement is incorrect. As I am assuming that an intelligent man like yourself knows that the SC did not rule on the case details but only to rule that the current plaintiffs did not have “standing”, a very big difference! So your above statement is inaccurate, and you probably just made a mistake and your weren’t trying to mislead anyone. Correct?
The SCOTUS has made many rulings over the last century that touch on the issue of free speech and the government’s authority to limit free speech where public health and safety are concerned. None of the recent rulings (in the last 10 years) of the SCOTUS has changed any of the prior rulings placing limits on free speech (protected speech).
Yes, the development of internet outlets (websites) does present new challenges to the existing established precedence, but again, these have not been changed. Like it or not, the SCOTUS has made no ruling that determined the government did anything that violated the established standards for protected speech, was unconstitutional or, in any way, illegal or an abuse of authority.
Even the multiply, lengthy congressional hearings on this matter have not found any grounds to make a legal referral to the DOJ for a criminal investigation. Lots of politically motivated rhetoric, but no recommendation for legal action.
I admit I am not familiar with the many rulings that the SCOTUS has made over the last century as you stated:
“ The SCOTUS has made many rulings over the last century that touch on the issue of free speech and the government’s authority to limit free speech where public health and safety”
Please provide me with specifics so that I will know what you know.
In regards to your statement, “ Even the multiply, lengthy congressional hearings on this matter have not found any grounds to make a legal referral to the DOJ for a criminal investigation.”, I assume you are referring to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that is still proceeding with the last hearing on
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 10:00 AM. So the ability to refer their findings to the DOJ is still in front of us. I will be candid with you, I don’t believe the Garland/Biden DOJ will bring charges for any of the House investigations.
I am more confident in the Judicial system with the Berenson v Biden case as Berenson indeed has ‘standing’ and appears to have been truly ‘harmed’ by Twitter and specific members of the Biden administration that censored him from the Twitter platform. BTW: Twitter settled with Berenson and is cooperating with the Plaintiff. More to follow. Please stay on top of that case as I will.
On SCOTUS rulings limiting free speech or more specifically ruling that free speech is not absolute the two main cases are Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. There has also been roughly a dozen cases as well were people have tried to claim they were excising their constitutionally protected free speech (1st Amendment) right when criminal charged and convicted of making statements that lead to violate or illegal actions. In each case the SCOTUS rule their actions were not protect by the 1st amendment based on the precedence of these two cases.
In short the, in the Schenck v. United States, the majority ruling used the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. There had been several high profile cases at the time were a person had actually done this resulting in mass panic leading to deaths and major injuries. This is the foundation of the principal of protected speech vs free speech. Hate speech, spreading false information, misleading information, etc is free speech but they are not protected speech under the first amendment.
I agree, that is also my understanding of our country’s (as established by SCOTUS rulings) acknowledgement of 1st Amendment speech protections. Another element of ‘not protected speech’ is related to the ‘timing’ of the speech which is potentially inciting the violent behavior. If it’s immediate it’s not protected. If not an immediate call to action it becomes more vague whether protected speech or not.
Thank you for the intelligent discourse. It is still possible to disagree but still be respectful of the other person.
Naperville libs need to stop bringing up sun down laws as though naperville had such policies last week. Is your point to continue racism division and cause angst. It was 100 flipping years ago! No one alive today was either involved in nor harmed by these laws from generations ago.
Clearly you need a refresher in US History. It is a well documented fact that when MLK came to Naperville to speak at North Central College he had to leave by sundown because of Naperville’s sundown law.
As a further lesson in US history I will point out that sundown laws did not exist in the US until the middle of the last century, i.e. there were no sundown laws “100 flipping years ago”
I admit I am not familiar with the many rulings that the SCOTUS has made over the last century as you stated:
“ The SCOTUS has made many rulings over the last century that touch on the issue of free speech and the government’s authority to limit free speech where public health and safety”
Please provide me with specifics so that I will know what you know.
In regards to your statement, “ Even the multiply, lengthy congressional hearings on this matter have not found any grounds to make a legal referral to the DOJ for a criminal investigation.”, I assume you are referring to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that is still proceeding with the last hearing on
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 10:00 AM. So the ability to refer their findings to the DOJ is still in front of us. I will be candid with you, I don’t believe the Garland/Biden DOJ will bring charges for any of the House investigations.
I am more confident in the Judicial system with the Berenson v Biden case as Berenson indeed has ‘standing’ and appears to have been truly ‘harmed’ by Twitter and specific members of the Biden administration that censored him from the Twitter platform. BTW: Twitter settled with Berenson and is cooperating with the Plaintiff. More to follow.
On the issue of the United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearings.
There have been three hearings, none of which has yet to provide any evidence supporting any claim that any government official violated anyone’s protected speech rights or, in any way, abused the authority of their office.
The first hearing was a joke because they failed to produce the “whistleblower” witness they claimed would prove that government officials acted illegally. This failure left Jordan looking foolish.
The second hearing was solely about the testimony of two witnesses, who made many claims about what they believe was going on but provided zero actual documents, affidavits, or evidence of any sort to indicate criminal behavior.
The third hearing was about the testimony of three FBI “whistleblowers” whose actual testimony was underwhelming at best. Further, it has since been shown that one of these “whistleblower” was under investigation for leaking clasified documents and two others were paid for their testimony by Patel, a radical right supporter (think conservative – George Soros).
This committee, like so many of its predecessors, has failed so far to deliver anything but rhetoric. And will most likely, like its many predecessors, simply be allowed to fade away with conservative hopes it will be forgotten.
I admit I am not familiar with the many rulings that the SCOTUS has made over the last century as you stated:
“ The SCOTUS has made many rulings over the last century that touch on the issue of free speech and the government’s authority to limit free speech where public health and safety”
Please provide me with specifics so that I will know what you know.
In regards to your statement, “ Even the multiply, lengthy congressional hearings on this matter have not found any grounds to make a legal referral to the DOJ for a criminal investigation.”, I assume you are referring to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that is still proceeding with the last hearing on
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 10:00 AM. So the ability to refer their findings to the DOJ is still in front of us. I will be candid with you, I don’t believe the Garland/Biden DOJ will bring charges for any of the House investigations.
I am more confident in the Judicial system with the Berenson v Biden case as Berenson indeed has ‘standing’ and appears to have been truly ‘harmed’ by Twitter and specific members of the Biden administration that censored him from the Twitter platform. BTW: Twitter settled with Berenson and is cooperating with the Plaintiff. More to follow. Please stay on top of that case.
Finally, on the Berenson case (who, by the way, was one of the two witnesses in the second hearing discussed in a previous reply to you).
This case was heavily dependent on the aforementioned Murphy case, which has been dismissed. Also, this case is not about the government’s efforts to moderate content on social media, but is about Twitter shutting down Berenson’s account and eventually banning him from the site. Twitter settled because one of its managers made a promise to deliver documents to the plaintiff without first seeking advice from counsel. This promise created a legal technicality that put Twitter in an undefendable position, resulting in their legal counsel forcing them to settle. So, this settlement was not based on the merits of the case but on the unfortunate legal mistake of a Twitter manager.
Berenson’s case basically claims he was banned because of government pressure on Twitter. Legal experts agree that since no one is claiming the government threatened legal or regulator action against Twitter if they did not comply with the government’s requests, this case has little chance of prevailing. In short, just because the government requests some action does not change the fact that the ultimate decision to honor that request was made by Twitter managers. Nor does is prove that the only one requesting action against Berenson was the government. It leaves open the possibility that many users also requested his banning based on violating Twitter’s Terms of Use, casting further doubt on any claim Twitter’s actions were based solely on any government request.
All of these cases involving content moderation brought against the current administration are considered by legal experts as having little chance of success, just like the election fraud cases. This is based on two factors:
First, the previous administration (Trump) had engaged in similar actions and none of these plaintiffs acted under this administration and have failed to include the Trump Administration’s actions in their suits. Failing to do this causes these to be examples of “capricious” legal actions, which is unconstitutional since it violates a major tenant of Due Process under the Constitution.
Second, none of the cases have shown that the government’s request was in anyway substantially different from the requests of other users seeking similar action by the site management for violation of the sites’ terms of use.
In short, these politically motivated cases are more about generating negative media attention toward the Biden administration then protecting anyone’s constitutional rights and, as such, should fail in court.
Didn’t Zuckerberg just send a letter to the judiciary committee acknowledging that the government did pressure Meta to remove content ? Now if the government pressured Meta, isn’t the probability high that they pressured Twitter as well ? Because of this letter Berenson is amending his lawsuit against the Biden administration.
Again, the Zuckerberg letter addressed his and Meta’s action with regard to the Hunter laptop. He apologized for downgrading (making the post not shareable) but it was not removed. Zuckerberg stated this was not done as the result of any government pressure or request. It was done based on an FBI report that this story was likely Russian propaganda.
The post was only downgraded long enough for Meta to do its own fact checking of the story. Once Meta determined it was unlikely to be Russian propaganda, the post’s full status was restored.
Nothing in the Zuckerberg letter indicates he or Meta were in anyway threatened with regulatory or legal action if they did not comply with the government’s request. At no point in this letter or during this testimony did Zuckerberg state he or Meta were coerced into granting the government’s moderation request.
Ultimately, in the absence of coercion or threats, the government can not be accused of forcing Meta (or Twitter) to grant their request. No matter how much pressure the government might have used, in the end Meta (Twitter) was not forced to act by the government.
It is important to remember that every time something happens (most recently the dismissal of the Murphy case), Berenson files a motion to amend this case. Berenson has done this roughly two dozen times in the last year, simply to keep his case “alive”.
Proving “standing” and “harm” is not enough to win this case, he must prove the “harm” was solely caused by the government’s actions and nothing said by Zuckerberg or anyone else demonstrated the government was at most anything other than one of several contributors (including Meta).
We’ll just have to watch how the Berenson case proceeds through the Justice system.
The Administration emails that have been received so far as a result of discovery seem strong that it was more than the government expressing their disagreement with the individuals’ contrary opinion.
If you are waiting for a Marion Barry videotape or a wiretap that states “you do this or else!” as evidence then this type of government censorship will never end. An old Mafia saying, “as long as we both understand, there’s no need to say anymore”. This is then followed by a wink and a nod.
The government has the bully pulpit. They can express their disagreeing opinion any where they want! Why do they have to tell the media outlet to censor?
Sorry folks Jim and I have steered way off course of the original post so this will be my last post here on this topic.
Jim- please take the last word if you would like.
The best way to think about DEI is as one thing posing as another. It is racial, sex, and sexuality preferences for preferred Left leaning activists. That’s what it is. Full stop. In practice it’s divisive, gets everybody obsessed with other people’s immutable characteristics, it’s illiberal (speech restrictions and anti-merticratic), and illegal (picking people because of race, sex, and sexuality is illegal).
But the worst thing about it is that to supporters it’s all rainbows and sunshine, just about “making things fair.” Oh, if we could ONLY understand how wonderful DEI is, then our ignorance would be vanished and utopia would be one step closer!! Cue the tears shed for the loss of this wonderful (“It’s the future!”), innocent, desire to “just give people a chance!!” You know, cookies and milk! Don’t mind that man behind the curtain!!! Nothing to see here!! And to think, all of this sunshine is available for just a few tax dollars!! Let’s not let our short-sidedness and, dare we say, greed, get in the way of this Benny White, Hasselhorst, you name the other apolitical supporters, teensy-weensy little job post!
Marginalizing the issue by using politically triggering labels, that’s the best you’ve got? As Clara Peller would say “Where’s the beef?”
This is just another one of your “the Leftists are weaponizing the government” posts crafted to use every variant phraseology that does not include any form of the word weapon.
Casting DEI as some kind of conspiracy theory with myself, Benny White and anyone that does not agree with your political views (“apolitical supporters”) as the masterminds is lame at best.
Well put Jim.
https://pdfupload.io/docs/d421593a
https://pdfupload.io/docs/6f26541f
Click the links above to see Ian Holzhauer and Kim White’s thousands of dollars in campaign donations but for some reason they can’t pay their property taxes? That is so offensive to me and it should be to you too.
It is a violation of Illinois Campaign Finance Laws to use campaign funds to pay property tax. In fact these laws very narrowly define what these funds can be used to pay for legally. Until recently, it was actually illegal for a candidate to use these funds to pay for someone to watch their children while they were engaged in campaign activities. A bias in these laws that hurt female candidates more than male candidates.
Can you say “structural gender based bias that justifies DEI”?
You can’t use campaign donations for personal use. The legitimate benefits military veterans qualify for has been discussed many times here and elsewhere. If you’re offended then your hurt feelings is your problem, not everyone else’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-gCsXMVVo&ab_channel=TheGlennShowClips
DEI is dead.
Surprise, Surprise. A politically right-biased Reagan Republican that is against DEI. A position he can not support with any academic peer reviewed research, despite his constantly reminding every one of his academic credentials in a attempt to give his political positions credibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjgXQDyqno&ab_channel=RealTimewithBillMaher
Your white fragility is showing.
If you are right then that would mean your bigotry is showing.
Nice dodge. They use their personal funds for campaign donations yet can’t pay their property taxes. Disgusting and two faced.
First, where in either of these elected official’s campaign finance disclosures does it show they used personal funds for campaign donations? Even if they did, they would not be doing anything that every other current member of city council has done.
Second, they did nothing illegal nor did they do anything that could be considered an abuse of their city council offices. Neither of these candidates have faced censure or even an attempt at censure. These are things several other members of the city council can not claim.
Maybe you should be more concerned by the actions of city council members that raise concerns about official abuse of elected office authority (which is clear-cut corruption) than the perfectly legal actions of other council members.
Where does it show that they didn’t use their personal funds? Where did I say it was illegal? I made no such argument.
Clearly, you are fine with them dodging their civic obligations unlike the rest of us in Naperville. I am not fine with it. It’s up to the voters to decide if these two grifters deserve any shot at their respective seats during election time when their terms are up. I for one, will vote against them and I will continue to bring their tax dodge issue up to everyone I can. It’s unseemly and disgusting.
Campaign finance disclosure laws in the state of Illinois require reporting all sources of donations unless the total amount donated in a year is less than $100. So if it doesn’t appear in these reports, then it either did not happen or a law has been broken. What is your proof that either of these candidates committed felony campaign finance fraud?
What civic obligations are dodged? Are you saying any veteran that takes advantage of this legal property tax relief program is dodging their civic obligations? Please explain to me how anyone volunteering to serve in this country’s military, defending this country’s national security, and our way of life is dodging one’s civic obligations?
And how are they grifters? The single largest income tax deduction of most homeowners is their property tax deduction, so if you pay no property taxes you don’t get this deduction, which means, instead of paying property taxes, you pay more income taxes. How is paying more income tax grifting? How is paying more income taxes instead of property tax a “tax dodge”?
The only thing “unseemly and disgusting” in this matter is the way some people have been telling half-truths and misrepresenting the facts to support their own political agenda against two veterans that served with honor!!!
DEI won’t go away in Naperville even if they somehow cut funding to it. Conservatives will lose this battle.
So then we are in agreement that DEI is leftist ideology ?
No, that is not the take on what she is saying, that it is a leftist ideology, only that it is an ideology the right has taken exception to and decided to label and attack as a leftist ideology.
Conservatives have become so defensive of their political beliefs that, rather than being open to any dialog on ideologies, they have gone on the offensive, attacking any ideology they disagree with by labeling it as “leftist”, “socialist”, “communist”, “anti-democracy”, etc.
In Naperville I prefer “champagne socialist” or cultural Marxist “. For my use of the latter I received a lifetime ban on the Nextdoor app.
Anything Bob doesn’t like is woke and leftist.
I’m with ya! Ideas so good the MUST be mandatory, right Jim?
What idea is mandatory? If you are talking about DEI, these are all voluntary programs that are not mandated in anyway other then one’s own conscious and sense of social justice.
No one, in any of their posts, are saying DEI should be made mandatory. Only that telling half-truths and misrepresenting the fact to support an agenda to eliminate DEI programs is a dodge to avoid discussing how these programs have made a difference and how to improve these programs to better meet their intended objectives.
In his recent video post, Mcbroom just proved that cutting DEI has never been about saving money. It’s always been about his politics. He should have just said that from the beginning.
DEI was/is about spending money to bolster politics.
Not that long ago Naperville hired people based on qualifications and not race, gender or sexual orientation. The best candidate for a position should be hired based on their experience and qualifications, not social categories.
Anyone that has ever been in a hiring position knows that what constitutes best qualified and most experienced is relative.
What should be the qualifications for a job? College degree? If so, what type? What “qualification” can be substituted for a college degree? Does the experience have to be in the same exact job with the same duties and responsibilities? If not, then what is “close enough” to count?
The fact is, what constitutes “most qualified” is not a hard science. If it were, then all company, government and other organizations would not have different job descriptions for the same jobs. There would be one universal index for all jobs that everyone uses, like the International building codes, National Fire and Safety standards or Websters dictionary. And until such a jobs index is created “most qualified” will continue to be a subjective matter.
NOTE: I have also seen some of the most unqualified people on this planet get hired for a job simply because of who they know, not what they know. And this is most on display in politics, where who you know, who funds your campaign and not being the most qualified is what matters most.
As to social categories, college degree is a social category. So is union member (blue collar) and management (white collar). Again “social category” is a subjective term. But the real irony of your social category argument is that social standing was the common justification used by racists for not hiring minorities.
On gender, simply getting past all the obstacles many people face because of their gender (or sexual orientation) is only the start. They frequently are not chosen for supervisory or management track training and opportunities made available to their heterosexual male co-workers. In the case of women they are frequently paid less then their male co-workers who are doing the same job under the same job description. Please don’t try to tell me these things don’t happen because I have witnessed them first hand in my close to half a century of working.
Name one person naperville hired because of race?
Glad you are in agreement that the DEI Director adds nothing to the effectiveness of government operations or hiring process Joan. Looks like we just saved the City some money and can reduce the FTE headcount by one.
So you agree with Joan that no one has been hired by the city based on race?
All this proves is that the DEI program and policies of the city are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, making sure diversity, equity and inclusion are alive and well in our local government.
Claiming that DEI is anything other than Leftist/Dem indoctrination and enforcement is a flat out lie. Ole Word-Salad-Haselhorst will defend DEI unto his last breath. Hmmm, any more proof needed? We thinks not.
That’s easy. Both DEI directors.
Jim,
The DEI hires were and remain a solution to a nonexistent problem. Prior to their hiring there was no problem and there currently isn’t a problem for them to address. Some people “feel” better but a solution they do not provide.
Robert, That’s actually a fair point. Can you imagine if Naperville hired white DEI directors? Some people would have lost their collective s**t.
It remains that the golden rule and content of ones character remain solid guidelines.
Until you have someone directing a DEI program it does not exist. So how can you hire someone based on race under a program that does not yet exist?
Grant,
If the city didn’t have a problem, then why has it had to deal with so many complaints about race-based actions?
As to your comment about not hiring a white DEI director: So you know that there were qualified white candidates? That one of these candidates was the best qualified? After all, weren’t you one of the people saying city hiring policies should be about hiring the most qualified candidate?
It speaks volumes about you that you implied there were qualified white candidates for the director position, and they were better qualified than any minority candidate. Implying the only reason they weren’t hired was because they were white.
Your comments implying you agreed with Robert that the director hires were race-based hires is simply further evidence of your belief that whites are always better qualified, in fact the best qualified, for any job. We all know what that attitude is called.
Jim, To be clear, you do not EVER get tell anyone what their beliefs are. How arrogant can you be?
Having been on many hiring panels for the city I can speak from vast experience that the City receives many great CV’s a resumes for positions. None of them ever said what color, religion or sexual orientation the applicant was. Nor should they.
May point… that so clearly you missed… was simply stating that hiring a white DEI director would have raised some peoples blood to well past boiling. A simple statement that you are trying to squeeze and contort into something that it isn’t.
Grant,
Interesting you should be lecturing anyone on the subject of the arrogance of telling other people what they believe, by contorting some comment they made into something it is not, considering the numerous times you have done this very thing with comments made by me and others on this site.
And if what you say is true about not knowing the color, religion or sexual orientation of applicants for city jobs, then any statements by you, and others, implying the city has hired anyone other than the “most qualified” candidate for any job is completely baseless. Making any attacks of the city’s DEI program on these grounds just as baseless.
Grant name one DEI hire in the city of Naperville.
None Joan and that’s the point. It remains illegal to hire based on race, religion or sexual orientation. Just as it is illegal to discriminate or formulate policy based on those criteria. (Kind of ironic here tbh) DEI remains a canard for politics and has no place in units of government or business. I’ll say it again, the golden rule and the content of ones character remain the best guiding light.
That’s my point. There are no hires based on race. That’s not what DEI is.
DEI should stay in our local government employees and has a place. It’s had a place the last several years and there have been no complaints from employees. Only complaints are local right wing activists.
I will support it.
Word-salad-Haselhorst at it again before dropping the Leftist canards and tropes at the end. First, there is no “gender.” That’s a word the Left appropriated from grammar in order to posit the fable that there are more than two sexes. So, there are no genders, only sexes, and there are two – and you can’t switch them (If you want to cosmetically appear as the opposite sex, have at it. Just don’t play women’s sports, and stay out of women’s spaces – there, not that hard (cough)).
The “pay gap” between men and women has been studied by economists for years and it’s false. Once you control for the types of occupations men and women choose, the roles, the amount of time in and out of the work force, on and on, THERE IS NO PAY GAP. In short, whatever “gap” there is is a natural consequence of choices that men and woman freely make. This canard will NEVER go away because the Left gets so much milage out of it. Ugh.
Lastly, like every card carrying leftist, “bias” is at the root of everything. It’s not.
Jim will reply with another word salad, but enough roughage for one day. Too much roughage leads to bad gas! Look out!
McBroom is right: DEI is a Leftist boondoggle meant to eat taxes and advance leftist ideology. We’re all full here. No thanks.
On the subject of word salad…WOW, right back at ya.
Not sure where you got your degree in linguistics, but whoever gave it to you should lose their accreditation. You are so off the mark on why linguists use the term gender to describe nouns and adjectives, it is comical. First, it has nothing to do with grammar. Most adjectives come in forms that apply to all noun genders to insure they match the gender of the noun they describe. Second, a noun’s gender is based on sex. Typically the sex society associates with a given noun (man, husband, boy – male gender / woman, wife, girl – female gender in English).
But you are right, gender is not just about sex, it’s also about the cultural and social constructs a society associates with each sex. That is exactly why it is the most appropriate term to use when discussing social mores, beliefs and behaviors in regard to a person based on their sex. Any discussion of hiring practices based on sex can not be separated from the social constructs members of a society associate with a person based on their sex. Your own comments demonstrate this clearly.
Your comments about the pay gap being because of the “natural consequence of choices that men and women freely make” simply does not hold up when looking at studies where both men and women are doing the same job under the same job description but are still paid less. Yes, studies that look at the average pay of all women compared to all men can be biased by the type of jobs most women do compared to men, but this bias is a direct result of social gender role models that affect what jobs are readily available to a person based on their sex. So, while these studies are not an apple to apple comparison, they are a clear commentary on the gender biases (for and against) a society places on a person based on their sex as a result of the social constructs related to a person’s sex (gender).
As a closing note, it is worth mentioning that the Equal Rights Amendment was attacked as being a “Leftist boondoggle” as was the Civil Rights Movement post WWII. It was only the assassination of JFK that made it finally possible for government to move beyond this kind of polarizing, divisive political propaganda and finally pass the Civil Rights Act.
An emergency polling blitz of the NNLF constituency has shown unanimous consent in our statement that we are REALLY GLAD Swami Jimmy will NEVER be in charge of hiring practices for any public entity in this time zone, let alone in our little town. The actual real irony is that discrimination of any type based on “social” anything… category, credit, status, influence, or historical bias, whether done as an expression of personal animus or as a means of healing the historic injustice that some feel has a compensatory price tag is just wrong.
And, Swami- are we going to trot out sexual orientation protectionism as a debate nuclear option? That you chose to admit to gender and sexual orientation bias in your hiring choices over the past 50 years of being a terrible hiring manager does little to counter the succinct and well reasoned arguments that you are flailing against.
Again, you suffer from comprehension failure. I never said anything about providing anyone with any preference. In fact, the whole point of a properly executed DEI program is to insure equity and inclusion regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. The only person that could rationally be afraid of a DEI program is someone that is already benefiting from an unjust hiring system.
Thanks for telling all of Naperville that the NNLF stands for continuation of policies that deny equal opportunity in the work place to a person based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., it shows us your groups true colors. This is the only way someone could interpret your comments about my witnessing people being denied equal opportunity (training, experience) based on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. in the workplace over the last 50 years.
My comments on “social category” were a direct result of Wehrli’s own comments on this issue. If you had exercised proper comprehension of my comments you would have realized this as well as my not supporting this type of thinking. As I pointed out, “social categories” are subjective and have been used in the past to justify inequality and exclusion. Again, the belief that things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc are “social categories”, says a lot about you and none of it good.
I also noticed that you completely ignore the fact that what constitutes the “most” qualified person is also a subject decision. Again, anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in the working world knows this. There is a very good reason why the statement “it’s not what you know, but who you know” is so commonly heard in discussions about who does and does not get hired.
Gender was never used before the 70s. It’s a left-wing term appropriated to advance the leftist wish that a person can be “born in the wrong body.” That’s a “belief,” not reality. Not having that properly grasped is why we have natal males playing girls sports. Start with the false premise and roll it downhill from there.
Any time anyone uses the world “social construct,” as you do, that lets everyone know it’s left-wing horse-hockey time. Why? Because to the Left, any “disparity” MUST be caused by bad, evil demons and their “Bias.” A cartoonish, low-fi, black and white way to interpret the real world.
Again, studies (reputable ones, NOT the ones that need this canard to keep the grift going) show that claiming there is a “pay-gap” is bad economics and bad science. This has been known for a long time now, but studiously ignored because it doesn’t “fit the narrative.”
And think about it, if employers could systematically pay women less for the same job, why even bother hiring men?
Lastly, your romanticization of the “Civil Rights Movement” (Gonna guess you are a 70+ Boomer) needs to be updated. What once was well intentioned legislation to stop mostly southern dip-sh*ts who insisted on using local laws to enforce segregation, has over the decades been weaponized (by leftist activists) to support racist policies against asians and whites (See Supreme Court Rulings on Admissions), to force businesses to get into the business of somehow “eliminating harassment” (Hello PC), to weaponize Title IX to eliminate certain male sports teams and to get colleges into everyone’s sex lives, to basically end freedom of association, to overall chill free speech, and much more. As the saying goes, “Yeah, it’s a mess, BUT WE MEANT WELL.”
Lastly, you don’t get to live in some rose-colored “post WWII” era where you forever are marching down to Birmingham to save the world. That’s OVER. The Left is now the side of elite snobbery, censorship, and cultural oppression. The recent election delivered that message – which no doubt will be ignored.
The phrase “social construct” comes straight from Black’s Law Definition for gender (you know the dictionary used by every lawyer and court in this country!!). Are you saying that this dictionary, every lawyer and court in this country are leftist?
Please provide even a single link to a study that directly references a study on the pay gap based on the same job, same job description and refutes its accuracy or challenges its scientific methodology.
Your constant labeling of social justice, like Civil Rights, as leftist/socialist/communist not only speaks volume about the kind of person you are, but also your lack of knowledge about the subject of social justice, socialism and communism.
Finally, nothing you claim was proved by the latest election outcome was actually proven. The polling shows that the results of the latest election were based on the perception that one candidate could better handle the economy (inflation, job creation, unemployment) better than the other. None of the polls show any vote was cast based on social issues like immigration, DEI, censorship, etc. This delusion of yours that it did, is just late, a delusion.
Seriously, you can’t search yourself to find the studies? There are literally thousands of entries on this. But for you, the general reader, here’s a book – and it’s old, 20 years old. This is not new stuff, this is a well documented canard, in your mind it is because as we all know, men are “patriarchal oppressors!”
Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — and What Women Can Do About It Hardcover – by Warren Farrell
On the trajectory of discrimination: A meta-analysis and forecasting survey
capturing 44 years of field experiments on gender and hiring decisions https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000560
These are but two. How do WE ALL KNOW that somehow you will either read these or not but either way, you’ll come out claiming the same old leftist clap trap as always: Women good, Men Bad!
Hey 60s Boomer, make that effort!
The very least you could do is drop the rose colored glasses about “the civil rights” movement and acknowledge the legion of abuses since done in its name.
Lastly, your take on the election is perfect! Oh, it was a bad time for incumbents! The economy was bad – anybody would lose! What Dems should do is double down on calling Trump Hitler! After all, he’s a Fascist!!
The study you posted does not address the question I asked. In fact, it does not even address the issue of pay bias, only hiring bias, which is a totally different issue. And even at that it conclude a hiring bias still exist, not as great as it once was, but it is still there.
As to your boomer comments. There is an old saying: if everyone is upset with what you say or done, then you must be saying or doing something right. It is worth noting that I have people on both the right and left sides of the political spectrum trying to marginalize my comments as being those of an out of touch boomer. Interestingly enough, the people making these comments on both sides of the political isle consistently vote for boomer candidates like Trump and Biden.
Your ability to hand wave is remarkable. There is no male female “pay gap” once you factor in career choices and other freely chosen career path decisions. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence to show that the pendulum is already swung too far in the other direction and that if there is a bias, it’s against males. You won’t accept that because what would your life be without the perceived bias of a giant bogeyman? Of course, then you’ve be left with the boring reality that life is nuanced. But why bother? It’s so much better to live in a fantasy world where you’re always marching hand and hand down to Birmingham to change the world back in 1965! A dinosaur in a tar pit but now makes things worse rather than better.
Again, you choose to completely ignore studies where women doing the same job with the same job description are being paid less than men. You claim these studies have been shown to be incorrect, yet you have provided no link to any reputable show actually showing these studies are wrong. You continue to try and claim this is all about free choice of career paths even though the one link you did provide contradicts this very claim.
Your continued attacks on me, rather than actually addressing the issue, makes it clear you are the one living in a fantasy world and doing all the hand waving.
Once again, rather than provide any data or studies that actually support your claims, you resort to labeling and personal attacks.
Sorry, but lame attempts to cast dispersion on my character only cast a clear light on your own. I have been bullied by the best and your sorry attempts would even qualify you for the farm team.
DEI now has a controversial connotation because of right wing activists. It’s majority white males complaining about it. But the hard facts show that it can greatly contribute to a corporation’s growth that benefits everyone–not just a select few.
https://fortune.com/2024/04/19/dei-under-attack-real-reason-it-makes-white-men-uncomfortable-careers-leadership-diversity/
First of all, use your search engine and figure it out for yourself. Debunking this Leftist canard is ancient news. Get with the times! But no, the tactic is always the same: no matter what is brought up, somehow it’s not good enough. I sent you link to an entire book on it, a book that’s 20 years old! (Again, debunking your fantasy “pay gap” is NOT new) and a study that went even further showing that another Left disinformation cesspool, hiring bias, is bunk as well.
It’s all bunk! There is no pay gap and there is no “hiring bias”! Oh my, what to do??? Let’s all lock arms, put on our p* hats, and march down to Birmingham and pretend it’s 1963 and us on the Left are saving the world!! Ooops, a “personal attack,” but, come on, admit it, it’s true! You should admit that at this point in your late Boomer life, your responses are basically muscle-memory reflexes in which what sounds virtuous IS virtuous!! Ha!
Jim, you won’t listen anyway, but instead of some magical paper that would miraculously get you to “see the light,” how about a YouTube video!! Ha! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w
ROTF LMAF… Your on link, post on this site, to a study you claim proved your point in fact did not. You claim there is not hiring bias yet this same study you provided a link to concluded there is a hiring bias.
I have used my search engine and I can find no study that refutes any study claim that both a hiring bias and pay bias exist. I can only conclude the reason you keep telling me to find these studies is because you can’t find any either.
If anyone has bought into any political fantasies it is clearly you. And again attacking boomers as being out of touch with the world today while voting boomers into elected office tells everyone, everything they need to know about your critical though process and your ability for rational thinking.
Sorry Joan, you love the idea of a group of people paid by the taxpayers to run around and push left-wing ideas and concepts within local government – all in the name of “fairness” and “equity” of course.
Look in the mirror: Own it. You are gaslighting the taxpayers of Naperville. Shame. If it’s so harmless then it’s not needed – cue the howls of “resistance” from the Dems.
For it is ever true. The progression goes as follows: 1) Whaaaat, that’s NOT happening!!” 2) Well, it’s good it’s happening! 3) It’s those right-wing republican’s fault!!
Rinse Repeat