Social University of Florida fires all DEI employees, halts contracts

[koquerelle]

Why wouldn't you? I know I'm in CA now but it's a flag of a tragic terrible time which is horrid. And anyone puffing their chest as a right to fly it is doing it for not nice means...as well as anyone who says otherwise knows completely.

I think it's weird to like that flag, but I'm not willing to put everyone in the same category.

 

[nostradumbass]

Europeans made up about 10% of US immigration the last few years. They make up about 10% of the worlds population. They migrate here, just as much as you'd expect.

5 million of so migrate here a year.

Europeans were 85% of immigrants 50 years ago, and now it's 10%?

That would be crazy enough, but that's not even
true. The number you got is from migrationpolicy on google, which says it's 10% of the immigrants currently living here, or 4.7 million out of 47 million, because the number of legal immigrants is definitely not 5 million/year.

It's not impossible that it's also close to 10% of legal immigrants, which is less than half of the total inflow, so more like 3-4% of people actually moving here, then subtract the people who leave the US, who aren't going to Bangladesh and Nigeria.

Whichever scenario you'd like to go with, none of it equals everyone clamoring for diversity, and does the exact opposite of the claim that the US is a country of white supremacy, considering we take in the most immigrants of anywhere in the world and 90% by your estimate are non white.

 

[koquerelle]

Must be some American phenomenon. I've never encountered people "wanting" diversity. At most they're OK with it. "Wanting" diversity sounds pathological.

I think diversity is fun because I'm curious af. I lived in places with no diversity for the first 20 years of my life and moving to Montréal was an eye opener. I was fortunate to work with good people from other countries and loved it.

That being said, I don't feel the need to push for anything. I just want to be around good people, wherever they come from.

 

[shockaholic12]

If you had any real world experience you'd be able to comprehend that my opinion is in fact a fairly common view point among the work force. Why would you think it would be a simple generalization to say that people want to work with others who actually do their jobs and do them well? Or that they want their supervisors to fire poor performers? How is that not something workers in the real world would support? What goes on in your head to make you think my comments are so far fetched?

I never said I was doing anything other than stating my opinion. It just so happens that my opinion is in line with how most workers with a lick of common sense feel . . . but by all means, prove me wrong. Show that people don't care about production, working with someone who knows how to do their job, or that people are perfectly fine with working in an environment where poor performers are rewarded with keeping their jobs and the hard workers continue to get the bulk of the work . . . show me my assumptions don't align with reality. Have at it.

Calling someone a dork means I'm triggered? Are you for real?

Yeah you're the only one with job no one else has the experience you do. Stupid take.

You're now listing off a bunch of random things that don't have anything to do with your original assertion. which was that DEI is creating divisions. DEI does't hire people who can't do things and doesn't stop you from firing people who suck. Many of the largest and profitable businesses in the world are the ones most invested in DEI. So you don't need to prove people don't care about poor performance to prove they desire diversity in their workplace.

You did more than state your opinion. You implied everyone generally agrees with it then spazzed when asked to show evidence of that, because the evidence doesn't support your assumption.

 

[spamking]

Yeah you're the only one with job no one else has the experience you do. Stupid take.

You're now listing off a bunch of random things that don't have anything to do with your original assertion. which was that DEI is creating divisions. DEI does't hire people who can't do things and doesn't stop you from firing people who suck. Many of the largest and profitable businesses in the world are the ones most invested in DEI. So you don't need to prove people don't care about poor performance to prove they desire diversity in their workplace.

You did more than state your opinion. You implied everyone generally agrees with it then spazzed when asked to show evidence of that, because the evidence doesn't support your assumption.

Bless your heart . . . I never said I was the only one with a job. But I will say that if you actually had one for more than a couple of years you would absolutely understand the point I was making. Common sense alone would tell you that it's true. So I guess that explains why you seem to have such an issue with it. And apparently whatever job you have hasn't provided you with one lick of experience or common sense about what a successful work environment looks like in the real world. You know you can't dispute what I've said about what workers prefer so you try to ignore it and move the conversation back into a different direction. Have businesses who focus on DEI become successful? Sure. Are there people who care more about working in a less accountable environment that focuses less on people getting their jobs done? Sure. Is DEI some magic pill for success? Nope. Not in every case.

My comments are based on my experience and directly related to you trying to widely apply your statements about people wanting work in more diverse environments. First you claim I was triggered . . . now I spazzed out. Sheesh girl . . . you must really like the drama.

 

[I Am Legion]

My company had hired a firm to do DEI training. We had a few zoom meetings about pronouns and gendering. Our normal HR didn't want the responsibility. The training was so cringe and agenda driven the owner fired the firm. He sent out a docu-sign that said "Call people by their names, if you harass someone on purpose you will be fired". Saved the company money, didn't piss anyone off, and made his point. Done. The truth is, I know companies will just not hire Trans people that seem like trouble to avoid this shit. It may be illegal and discriminatory according to the law, but it's impossible to prove.

 

[shockaholic12]

Bless your heart . . . I never said I was the only one with a job. But I will say that if you actually had one for more than a couple of years you would absolutely understand the point I was making. Common sense alone would tell you that it's true. So I guess that explains why you seem to have such an issue with it. And apparently whatever job you have hasn't provided you with one lick of experience or common sense about what a successful work environment looks like in the real world. You know you can't dispute what I've said about what workers prefer so you try to ignore it and move the conversation back into a different direction. Have businesses who focus on DEI become successful? Sure. Are there people who care more about working in a less accountable environment that focuses less on people getting their jobs done? Sure. Is DEI some magic pill for success? Nope. Not in every case.

My comments are based on my experience and directly related to you trying to widely apply your statements about people wanting work in more diverse environments. First you claim I was triggered . . . now I spazzed out. Sheesh girl . . . you must really like the drama.

"I never said I was the only one who had a job. bu bu but you...haven't worked a job as long me? I don't base my takes on evidence I base them on assuming my job means i know more than evidence" This is even more dumb then claiming others don't have jobs. Now it's others do have jobs but you're assuming your older and that means you know more and don't need evidence? This is literally gibberish.

Then you implied a diverse work place means people can't do their jobs. Another thing you completely made up with nothing to support it. Again, the real world is where the facts prove that wrong. How come more diverse workplaces are making significantly more money then less diverse ones if you like you claim, diverse workplaces have people who can't even do their jobs? That silly reality dunking on your assumptions again.

A Study Finds That Diverse Companies Produce 19% More Revenue

The diversity of ideas, minds, experiences, and tastes is an integral part of being a human. It is what makes our world beautiful. However, diversity also has a practical function and an important one for businesses -- a study found that it adds tangible value to the bottom line.

www.forbes.com

Inclusive Cultures Have Healthier and Happier Workers

Supporting employees’ mental and physical health is critical. So is creating an environment where people can be their authentic selves.

www.bcg.com

"Of employees who reported they work in an inclusive culture, 81% also said they are happy in their jobs—three times more than those who don’t feel included. Just 27% of respondents who said their employer lacks an inclusive culture indicated they are happy on the job."

But you said pushing for inclusion creates division in these workers. So were are these diverse but divided workplaces? How come in reality pushing for inclusion creates happier workers?

 

[spamking]

"I never said I was the only one who had a job. bu bu but you...haven't worked a job as long me? I don't base my takes on evidence I base them on assuming my job means i know more than evidence" This is even more dumb then claiming others don't have jobs. Now it's others do have jobs but you're assuming your older and that means you know more and don't need evidence? This is literally gibberish.

Now who's triggered . . . are you okay?

Then you implied a diverse work place means people can't do their jobs. Another thing you completely made up with nothing to support it.

You made that up in your head to yet again support your view and reframe my comments. Nice job.

I said people want their boss to hire someone who actually does the job. Anyone with one day of real world work experience would be able to see this as a common sense comment.

Again, the real world is where the facts prove that wrong. How come more diverse workplaces are making significantly more money then less diverse ones if you like you claim, diverse workplaces have people who can't even do their jobs? That silly reality dunking on your assumptions again.

More stuff you're reframing to argue over. Every work place has people who aren't doing their jobs. I see this every day as a Federal employee. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when it comes to working in the Federal sector. Which is what I pretty clearly stated I'm basing my comments on since that is where my experience has come from.

We've already discussed this and beat this dead horse in that other thread.

A Study Finds That Diverse Companies Produce 19% More Revenue

The diversity of ideas, minds, experiences, and tastes is an integral part of being a human. It is what makes our world beautiful. However, diversity also has a practical function and an important one for businesses -- a study found that it adds tangible value to the bottom line.

www.forbes.com

Inclusive Cultures Have Healthier and Happier Workers

Supporting employees’ mental and physical health is critical. So is creating an environment where people can be their authentic selves.

www.bcg.com

"Of employees who reported they work in an inclusive culture, 81% also said they are happy in their jobs—three times more than those who don’t feel included. Just 27% of respondents who said their employer lacks an inclusive culture indicated they are happy on the job."

There are so many factors that come into play as it relates to whether someone is happy on the job. Diversity is far from the most important. All someone needs to do is look at the historical FEVS results to see how everything contributes to job satisfaction.

Look, you seem to be all butthurt about stuff you think I've said. So until you can be honest with yourself and actually understand where I'm coming from and what I've said (not what you make up in your head) we're not going to get anywhere.

But you said pushing for inclusion creates division in these workers. So were are these diverse but divided workplaces? How come in reality pushing for inclusion creates happier workers?

I've worked in a diverse environments since 1990. Some were great and others not so much. Giving the diversity hire the job because they were a female Indian didn't always end up being the best choice and did cause division until the person was fired 8 months later for not doing the job. You can flaunt all of the studies you want, but none of that changes what I've experienced personally. You can dump all over it as being purely anecdotal as well. Doesn't impact how things actually played out at all.

Has the work environment changed over the years? Sure. Have all of the personnel issues gone away or been solved by diversity and inclusion? Nope.

 

[TrueBias]

When I was at UF they set up a designated "safe space" for minority and LGBT students only who could potentially get triggered because some people in small towns in the state still fly confederate flags. I guess that counts for something?

I didnt see that but I've not been at the school since 2010. Where was it? What do students do once they enter?

 

[TrueBias]

if what your pitching was true it would easy to support with studies as this topic has been researched throughly. Show us evidence from the REAL WORLD. But you haven’t done that. You just keep repeating your personal opinion and projecting it on society.

Pretty much all research shows the opposite of what you’re claiming. No on cares about whatever “organic” means you think should be used. They simply want diversity

To be fair, you havent linked them either, but I may had missed them.

Regardless, hes saying hire the best folks for the job. I'm thinking, at best, you're saying DEI does that but chooses cultural differences if the hiring pools are becoming, let's say, too white.

Now, in his example, hiring the best for the job should support the business the best cuz they're the BEST.

In yours, were hoping the differences can help the business, discovering a 'new or different' BEST.

To me, that's a risk. These people that are hired cuz of cultural differences may not even agree with the training. Therefore, the others that are BEST on paper, will take up the slack, and do what the company trained and expect them to do...

Perhaps your studies are seeing something else.

 

[shockaholic12]

Now who's triggered . . . are you okay?



You made that up in your head to yet again support your view and reframe my comments. Nice job.

I said people want their boss to hire someone who actually does the job. Anyone with one day of real world work experience would be able to see this as a common sense comment.



More stuff you're reframing to argue over. Every work place has people who aren't doing their jobs. I see this every day as a Federal employee. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when it comes to working in the Federal sector. Which is what I pretty clearly stated I'm basing my comments on since that is where my experience has come from.

We've already discussed this and beat this dead horse in that other thread.



There are so many factors that come into play as it relates to whether someone is happy on the job. Diversity is far from the most important. All someone needs to do is look at the historical FEVS results to see how everything contributes to job satisfaction.

Look, you seem to be all butthurt about stuff you think I've said. So until you can be honest with yourself and actually understand where I'm coming from and what I've said (not what you make up in your head) we're not going to get anywhere.



I've worked in a diverse environments since 1990. Some were great and others not so much. Giving the diversity hire the job because they were a female Indian didn't always end up being the best choice and did cause division until the person was fired 8 months later for not doing the job. You can flaunt all of the studies you want, but none of that changes what I've experienced personally. You can dump all over it as being purely anecdotal as well. Doesn't impact how things actually played out at all.

Has the work environment changed over the years? Sure. Have all of the personnel issues gone away or been solved by diversity and inclusion? Nope.

You said this stuff, don't run from it now. You implied the general workforce feels DEI is creating division in work places and support this assertion by claiming you don't look for evidence because "one time they hired this one women where I work" so you know how the workforce in general feel about it. That's a joke. When people actually show you evidence the opposite is true you hand wave and say "who knows what's making people happy at work it's so many things".

"Why would you think it would be a simple generalization to say that people want to work with others who actually do their jobs and do them well? Or that they want their supervisors to fire poor performers? How is that not something workers in the real world would support? What goes on in your head to make you think my comments are so far fetched?"

What is the point of bringing up this topic in this thread if you aren't relating to companies focusing on diversity and inclusion? You make these connections then when people point out they are bullshit you claim you never made the implication. You got to have a little more of a backbone.

 

[shockaholic12]

To be fair, you havent linked them either, but I may had missed them.

Regardless, hes saying hire the best folks for the job. I'm thinking, at best, you're saying DEI does that but chooses cultural differences if the hiring pools are becoming, let's say, too white.

Now, in his example, hiring the best for the job should support the business the best cuz they're the BEST.

In yours, were hoping the differences can help the business, discovering a 'new or different' BEST.

To me, that's a risk. These people that are hired cuz of cultural differences may not even agree with the training. Therefore, the others that are BEST on paper, will take up the slack, and do what the company trained and expect them to do...

Perhaps your studies are seeing something else.

The best person for the job is the person who makes the company the most successful. There is ample research that shows many, many benefits both to work culture, efficiency, profits, new markets, when diversity is achieved in companies. The folks triggered by DEI are too narrow focused on these hiring situations and not considering the larger picture companies have to plan towards.

It's not a risk "According to research conducted by the Harvard Business Review, teams and companies that are diverse in terms of composition are 70% more likely to capture a new market than firms that are not diverse"

Could spend all day linking studies and research that shows companies becoming more diverse perform better. As much as folks who don't contribute to diversity may wish that their resumes and experience will somehow always outweigh these benefits, many companies simply disagree. It's likely their skills already exists on these teams and can be trained to new members who probably are near or at their skill level anyway.

 

[spamking]

You said this stuff, don't run from it now. You implied the general workforce feels DEI is creating division in work places and support this assertion by claiming you don't look for evidence because "one time they hired this one women where I work" so you know how the workforce in general feel about it. That's a joke. When people actually show you evidence the opposite is true you hand wave and say "who knows what's making people happy at work it's so many things".

"Why would you think it would be a simple generalization to say that people want to work with others who actually do their jobs and do them well? Or that they want their supervisors to fire poor performers? How is that not something workers in the real world would support? What goes on in your head to make you think my comments are so far fetched?"

What is the point of bringing up this topic in this thread if you aren't relating to companies focusing on diversity and inclusion? You make these connections then when people point out they are bullshit you claim you never made the implication. You got to have a little more of a backbone.

Goodness . . . you're really dense dude. DEI by definition comes from a position of division. It looks to separate people into groups so those groups can supposedly be included in applications pools to make sure there are people from each division (i.e. identity group) in our workforce.

I said what I said . . . said it again . . . clarified it . . . again. I'm definitely not running from anything. You still don't get it and choose to insert your own interpretations to yet again. You haven't pointed out anything. Nice try though. I'm sure it's good enough for a diversity hire.

I'm not going to list every example I've experienced over the years to try and prove anything to you. It would do no good.


Now feel free to reply to me once again saying things I didn't say and how wrong I am . . .

 

[shockaholic12]

Goodness . . . you're really dense dude. DEI by definition comes from a position of division. It looks to separate people into groups so those groups can supposedly be included in applications pools to make sure there are people from each division (i.e. identity group) in our workforce.

I said what I said . . . said it again . . . clarified it . . . again. I'm definitely not running from anything. You still don't get it and choose to insert your own interpretations to yet again. You haven't pointed out anything. Nice try though. I'm sure it's good enough for a diversity hire.

I'm not going to list every example I've experienced over the years to try and prove anything to you. It would do no good.


Now feel free to reply to me once again saying things I didn't say and how wrong I am . . .

It recognizes the blatantly obvious, people come from different backgrounds and develop different traits companies can benefit from and also recognizes that consumers consider a companies culture. It looks to bring people from these different background together not divide them so they can work on a team with a common goal... as in work together. What about this is offending you?

Everyone has a job, that doesn't mean they don't need evidence to make assertions about general the workforce. You don't have any special knowledge or experience everyone else here doesn't have. You said what you said, which implied diversity focused companies were prone to hiring people who couldn't do the job. That doesn't make sense when they are more successful. How do you get more successful by starting to hire people who can't do the job?

 

[nhbbear]

Good. Dei stands for diversity Exclusion initiatives, with the exclusion being white and Asian people.

 

[BFoe]

Good. Dei stands for diversity Exclusion initiatives, with the exclusion being white and Asian people.

It stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

If you were being sarcastic, my apologies, my Sarcasm Meter is in the shop currently.

 

[RoastBeast]

DEI does't hire people who can't do things and doesn't stop you from firing people who suck.

It does exactly both of those things. It's actually much more difficult for HR to fire someone in a protected class than a 30 year old white guy. Which in itself is racist and discriminatory.

 

[spamking]

It recognizes the blatantly obvious, people come from different backgrounds and develop different traits companies can benefit from and also recognizes that consumers consider a companies culture. It looks to bring people from these different background together not divide them so they can work on a team with a common goal... as in work together. What about this is offending you?

Everyone has a job, that doesn't mean they don't need evidence to make assertions about general the workforce. You don't have any special knowledge or experience everyone else here doesn't have. You said what you said, which implied diversity focused companies were prone to hiring people who couldn't do the job. That doesn't make sense when they are more successful. How do you get more successful by starting to hire people who can't do the job?

What offends me is you blatantly lying about what I said again. Thanks for not letting me down.

 

[nhbbear]

It stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

If you were being sarcastic, my apologies, my Sarcasm Meter is in the shop currently.

Yeah, you gotta get that fixed-it’s broken. Yea, I know what they claim it means, but it is basically “anyone but white people.”

My wife has been interviewing for university president/provost jobs and that is always one of the questions-“what have you done for dei in your university?” And my wife is like “hello, I am a female” and someone pointed out “yes, a white female.”

I welcomed her to the bottom a few years ago

 

[shockaholic12]

It does exactly both of those things. It's actually much more difficult for HR to fire someone in a protected class than a 30 year old white guy. Which in itself is racist and discriminatory.

If DEI is mired in constantly hiring people who can’t do the job they hired to do….why do the companies who use it find increases in productivity, employee retention, capturing new markets, etc?

If what you claimed was true they should be doing much worse, not better.