The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
White Multicultural Student Services Administrator's Race Discrimination Claim Against U Wisconsin Can Go Forward
From yesterday's decision by Judge James Peterson (W.D. Wisc.) in Hoffman v. Bd of Regents:
Hoffman previously worked in the Blugold Beginnings office at the university, which provides support to low-income, first-generation, and other underrepresented students. In 2022, Blugold Beginnings merged with the Office of Multicultural Affairs to become the Multicultural Student Services department.
After Hoffman was appointed interim director of the new department, students, faculty, and staff objected to her appointment because she was white. Hoffman [sues] …, contending that the university … demoted Hoffman from her leadership position, … forced Hoffman to transfer to a different department, and then retaliated in various ways against Hoffman for filing a racial discrimination complaint….
In late January 2022, Diaz {the vice chancellor of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Student Affairs} asked Hoffman to serve as interim director of the new MSS department and Hoffman accepted. Hoffman's appointment generated backlash from students. At open houses on February 14 and February 18, students asked Diaz why she "hired a white woman as the interim director" and questioned whether Diaz "personally fe[lt] that white staff can do as effective a job as a person of color, within a space for people of color." The student senate also released a resolution on February 28 expressing "concerns over placing white-identifying individuals in positions of interim leadership for major [equity, diversity, and inclusion] offices."
Some faculty and staff also expressed disapproval with Hoffman's appointment as interim director. In a private meeting with Diaz on February 11, non-white faculty members expressed concerns about the university placing white staff in positions formerly held by non-white staff. (It's disputed whether the faculty knew at this point that Hoffman was to be interim director of MSS.) After the student senate resolution was released, student coordinator Jensen said in a staff meeting that she agreed with the resolution. She also told Hoffman that Hoffman's white identity was "an issue" for Jensen. Hoffman says that staff members also "participat[ed] with the students" at the open houses, but Hoffman did not identify any specific statements made by staff members….
Diaz decided to remove Hoffman as interim director of the MSS department and make her the assistant director instead. In early spring 2022, Hoffman began using the assistant director title on a working basis. She also received overload salary payments for performing duties consistent with the assistant director role, including supervising new MSS staff and chairing a search committee to appoint a new MSS coordinator. In early June, Diaz initiated a "request to fill" application with the HR department to formalize Hoffman's position as assistant director of MSS….
Hoffman continued to experience opposition to her role in the MSS department. At open houses throughout the spring and summer, attendees criticized the appointment of white people to leadership positions in the MSS department. In May, … a native American professor[] emailed O'Halloran expressing concern that Hoffman and [a] MSS administrative assistant …, "two white women … who have overpowering voices," were chairing the search committee for four new positions in the MSS department.
A group called "UWEC BIPOC Alumni" posted criticism about the MSS department's staffing on social media: the group did not mention Hoffman by name, but they said that the department was "overwhelmingly white" and that "positions of decision-making authority [were being] strategically replaced by white folks." Some faculty and staff "liked" the alumni group's posts on social media. Over 100 faculty members also signed an open letter expressing concerns about the "marginalization" of students served by the equity, diversity, and inclusion department, the resignation of staff who served those students, and the "disregard for collaboration and shared governance" in the department….
The court allowed Hoffman's discrimination claims to proceed to trial as to her demotion from interim MSS director to assistant director:
Hoffman asserts that in January 2022, Diaz asked Hoffman to be interim director of the new MSS department and Hoffman accepted. But in early March, Diaz demoted her to assistant director because of the backlash from faculty, staff, and students who did not want a white person leading the department….
Hoffman lost job responsibilities when Diaz demoted her from the interim director role, namely supervisory responsibilities over student coordinators Maggie Jensen, Vaj Fue Lee, and Jacqueline Navarez. A reasonable jury could find that losing these responsibilities was an identifiable harm to her employment.
As for the causation element, the university contends that Diaz demoted Hoffman not because of discriminatory animus but to "shield [Hoffman] from the negative reactions of others." The university argues that Hoffman cannot show that the demotion occurred because of her race if the decisionmaker, Diaz, didn't hold racial animus. But this argument mischaracterizes the standard for a racial discrimination claim. Plaintiffs in discrimination cases frequently rely on evidence of a decisionmaker's racial animus to prove that an adverse action was caused by the plaintiff's race, but animus is not an element of a discrimination claim. Plaintiff must show only that the decisionmaker took an adverse action "because of" plaintiff's race. A well-intended but patronizing effort to shield an employee from racial hostility is enough to show causation….
Hoffman has adduced evidence that Diaz demoted her from the interim director position because "people … had questioned whether a white person" should be leading the MSS department. That's enough for a reasonable jury to find that Diaz would have made a different decision had Hoffman not been white.
And the court allowed Hoffman's discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed to trial as to her transfer from the MSS department to the SSS department. The court rejected a third discrimination claim, however, as well as her hostile environment harassment claim.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What confuses me the most is how any of these DEI CRT etc departments can even survive, being so explicitly racist. There have been a lot of cases like this, yet the departments themselves never seem to have any problem surviving. Maybe Trump's DoJ suing a few will dismantle them all.
Well, they think they're fighting the good fight, that they're the righteous ones here, and a substantial portion of the judiciary agree, and until very recently, that was the position of the DOJ, too.
So, while their conduct has been illegal all along, they've been sheltered from the law until very recently.
I doubt many of the judiciary would defend this. The judge here was appointed by Obama.
The "illegal all along" claim requires as a predicate the belief that the law is what Brett Belmore says it is, not what the Supreme Court says it is. Brett has defended that proposition frequently, though Oliver Wendell Holmes, Karl Llewellyn and most post-Civil War luminaries would consider it ludicrous. If you go with the more conventional approach to jurisprudence, most university DEI activity was not illegal under Grutter, until the law changed with SFFA.
Grutter was based on highly distorted facts
CA6 changed the finding of facts with the de novo stunt, taking UM's pleadings as true while ignoring the district court's finding of facts that there was and had been a quota system in place for several years.
Wow, ready to re-litigate Grutter (a case from 2003). It's amazing what some people do for amusement, though I personally would have thought model trains were more fun, and equally capable of moving real world events.
Grutter was based on highly distorted facts
CA6 by intentionally distorting the facts held that quota's were constitutional. SCOTUS accepted the distorted facts.
When you lie about the facts, you are going to get the law wrong.
y81 44 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Wow, ready to re-litigate Grutter "
Wow Y81 - you brought up Grutter - yet fail to know the history and actual facts!
Dude, I know the outcome, which is all a practicing lawyer needs. Proving that the Court got it wrong is of no conceivable real world interest.
I'm not sure that "most" is illegal even after SFFA. Obviously preferences in admissions are. (And preferences in hiring were before SFFA.)
David:
At UMass Amherst, Graduate Assistants are unionized state employees, officially recognized by the Commonwealth as such.
At UMass Amherst, (some) Graduate Assistants are explicitly hired on the basis of their race.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ended slavery in 1803, some sixty years before UMass was founded (1863) and Massachusetts never had de jure segregation.
How is this not a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
I question whether the DEI folks think that they are fighting the good fight. They are just facilitating anti-White hatred. I am sure they know it.
Interesting.
You make the same jump from 'wants stuff I don't like' to 'motivated by hatred' regarding Prof. Somin.
Well, when you're not calling him a Jew and demanding he be deported.
Somin doesn't just want stuff for himself. He wants to destroy America by importing millions of undesired foreigners.
DEI , CRT has always been about promoting racism.
Promoting "anti-racism" with dei and crt has always been a charade, which surprisingly very defenders are blind to the obvious
https://studyfinds.org/ai-picks-white-names-over-black-hiring/
A study presented at the AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society in October 2024 revealed just how deep this digital discrimination runs. The researchers tested three state-of-the-art AI models on over 500 resumes and job descriptions across nine different occupations. They found that resumes with White-associated names were preferred in a staggering 85.1% of cases, while those with female-associated names received preference in just 11.1% of tests.
The study found that Black male job seekers face the steepest disadvantage of all. In comparisons with every other demographic group—White men, White women, and Black women—resumes with Black male names were favored in exactly 0% of cases against White male names and only 14.8% against Black female names.
These aren’t obscure academic models gathering dust on university servers. The three systems tested—E5-mistral-7b-instruct, GritLM-7B, and SFR-Embedding-Mistral—were among the highest-performing open-source AI tools available for text analysis at the time of the study. Companies are already using similar technology to sift through the millions of resumes they receive annually, making this research particularly urgent for working Americans.
See, that's the AI doing exactly what AWoNI advocates here, using race as a proxy. Only using it as a proxy for merit, rather than a proxy for disadvantage.
Statistically valid; If there's one thing AI's are good at, it's getting the statistics right. But horrible morally, because people are morally entitled to be treated according to their OWN merits, not the odds given their race.
Every law discriminates against somebody. Laws against murder discriminate against people who wish to commit murder. However, since we like that kind of discrimination. no one cares. But every law favors some to the disadvantage of others. So just saying "it's racist" or "it's discriminatory" is the first part of the analysis, not the last part. You then have to analyze whether the type of discrimination involved is good discrimination (pedophiles will not be offered employment as babysitters) or bad discrimination (blacks will not be allowed to live in certain neighborhoods).
And it's not a solution to say we simply won't discriminate against anyone, because the status quo favors those who are already doing well to the disadvantage of those who aren't. If you have to run twice as hard and fast to catch up to people who were born on third base, then the status quo favors them to your disadvantage. If you're really good you might catch up, but even if you're really good you might not.
DEI programs survive, to answer your question, because they serve the laudable goal of trying to help people who weren't born on third base -- but rather were born at home plate after the batter already has two strikes -- to catch up. The people who were born on home plate can mostly take care of themselves. They don't need DEI.
And the hostility to DEI mainly comes from people who are perfectly content to let the people born with all the advantages keep them while providing no help to those who weren't. DEI is discrimination against the already advantaged. Whether that's good social policy is up to the reader.
WNP
"DEI programs survive, to answer your question, because they serve the laudable goal of trying to help people who weren't born on third baseDEI programs survive, to answer your question, because they serve the laudable goal of trying to help people who weren't born on third base "
That rationale has been a charade. Most everyone can see through that charade.
Discrimination against murderers is one thing.
Discrimination against BLACK murderers is another, one which SCOTUS has repeatedly addressed.
It's making the distinction on the basis of skin color that is verboten.
And here we have the fundamentally racist element of DEI.
The programs don't discriminate on the basis of what base you were born on. They treat race as a reliable proxy for which base you were born on and then discriminate on the basis of THAT.
And that's the essential core of racism: Ignoring the actual individual before you, treating them as just an instance of their group rather than according to their own merits.
Except that race frequently is a reliable proxy. Not always, and it can be discounted in cases where it is not. But so long as the goal is legitimate, who says we can't use proxies? You just don't like helping the disadvantaged if you think it might come out of your pocket.
Helping vs intentional discrimination
Does 14A ring a bell?
OK, so Joe doesn't understand basic definitions. Color me shocked.
DEI as practiced is intentional discrimination
Color me shocked that you either intentionally distort the meaning of words or dont understand basic facts.
I might color me shocked if I thought you could actually follow a logical argument from A to B to C to D.
Distortion and deflection
you used the term "disadvantage" to hide your embracement of race based discrimination.
And there you have it: It's legitimate to treat people as mere instances of the group, even if you have them right before you, and could instead treat them as an individual.
That's the fundamental basis of racism, really. Treating people according to the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. Treating them as instances of the group, not individuals in their own right.
Brett, you have a 40 watt analysis for a 100 watt world. The group that is being helped is "disadvantaged." Not black, not brown; disadvantaged. As it happens, a Venn diagram of "black" and "disadvantaged" is going to have a significant overlap. Not a complete overlap, but a significant one. So using it as a proxy in the first instance is not completely unreasonable. But the analysis doesn't end there; other factors then come into play.
And you use that same method yourself probably multiple times a day. Mostly for stuff that doesn't matter much, so no one really cares. But you use proxies in decision making all the time, and it seems the only time you care about it is when there's a risk it might adversely impact white males. Your racism schtick is hypocrisy of the first order.
No, if you wanted to help the "disadvantaged", you'd ignore race, and just look at whether people were disadvantaged. You wouldn't use a proxy, you'd use the real thing.
And if I did that, you'd then be complaining that it still produces the bottom line of helping black people.
You keep distorting the term "helping" to justify your embracement of intentional discrimination. Objective individuals can see through your charade.
Back in the '90s, the NAACP said that there were more White families on welfare than there WERE Black families.
I think that's true today. Hence the bottom line would also help White people. Probably more White people.
if you wanted to help the "disadvantaged", you'd ignore race, and just look at whether people were disadvantaged.
You mean like with diversity statements?
No, you'd have "disadvantage" statements if that were your goal. Not statements to explain exactly how you're not a straight white male.
Because I know someone there, here from U Tulsa law school admissions:
“ factors may include, but are not limited to, writing ability, the seriousness of purpose regarding the pursuit of a law degree, employment history, capacity for leadership, maturity, obstacles overcome, discipline, passion for law, service within the community or within the campus community, diversity of thought, background, and experiences.”
You don't even hear the racism in your own voice, do you? It doesn't matter how "reliable" the proxy is when there is absolutely no reason to rely on proxies at all. If you're not "born on third base" and think that's a problem, provide incentives based on that actual economic disadvantage! Using race as a proxy is just racism.
And to rebut your moralizing, I absolutely believe we should be helping those who are actually disadvantaged and I already donate to help them.
She said: "And the hostility to DEI mainly comes from people who are perfectly content to let the people born with all the advantages keep them while providing no help to those who weren't. DEI is discrimination against the already advantaged."
You called that fundamentally racist. That's a weird interpretation.
Yes, I call that fundamentally racist, because the help and hurt aren't actually being distributed according to advantage or the lack thereof. Status as advantaged or disadvantaged is assigned to people based on immutable characteristics, instead.
No, it's not "assigned" to them. It's a first-level proxy that helps with an initial sorting. But other factors come into play as well, and if it turns out the proxy is wrong in a particular case it's disregarded. This is another example of things you know that aren't so.
She had a pretty race-neutral argument.
You wedged in affirmative action, and then called it racist.
You're not engaging with the comment, but with your white resentment brain.
https://record.umich.edu/articles/u-m-announces-important-changes-to-dei-programs/
Racist or no or ~secretly racist~
How the hell is using race as a proxy for anything but the melanin content of your skin race-neutral? Race neutral is exactly what it isn't!
You don't use proxies when you can measure the real thing, unless the proxy is what you really care about, not the nominal criterion.
I'll leave the proxy discussion to WoNI.
measure the real thing
WoNI didn't really talk about measuring anything in her OP you called fundamentally racist.
Brett, if scientists are looking for research subjects for sickle cell anemia, they're going to advertise to blacks, not because they're racist but because that's where they are most likely to find suitable candidates. Same thing applies here. Do you honestly not get that, or are you deliberately being obtuse?
And "disadvantage" is somehow genetically linked to your race, so that basically nobody encounters hardship growing up unless they have dark skin? Listen to yourself!
Look, even in a sickle cell anemia study, we have blood tests to determine if somebody has it, so we're not just going to use race as a proxy for whether or not you have sickle cell anemia, you'll directly test for it because you know that most blacks don't have it, so that 'proxy' is going to be mostly false positives.
the Blugold Beginnings office at the university, which provides support to low-income, first-generation, and other underrepresented students. In 2022, Blugold Beginnings merged with the Office of Multicultural Affairs to become the Multicultural Student Services department.
The Blugold Beginning is legitimate race-neutral outreach. But what usually happens is that the combined office pretends to be race-neutral when actually being racist. After all, affirmative action for White males, regardless of circumstances, is not permitted.
OTOH there are lots of low-income, first-generation minority students qua low-income, first-generation students and my guess is that this woman ran her office that way. The Black students with 6-figure family incomes (and there ARE some) not getting handouts while the Poor White kids getting them.
That, of course, is intolerable.
And as to how universities get away with this, it is a combination of two things -- first, FERPA precluding an actual public audit of who gets and doesn't get stuff and then no one wanting to commit career suicide by making an issue of this.
From what I can tell of the timeline laid out above, the protests started as soon as she was announced for the position, well before she could have actually run the office as you say or in any other way. The protests were based on her status as a white person with no accusations or even comments that I can find about her actual performance.
The university's claim that their action was taken in response to student andd faculty complaints, not on account of racial animus, seems very weak, being no more than a resurrection of the "customer preference" bfoq argument uniformly rejected 50 years ago in sex discrimination cases involving airline stewardesses and the like. (It's actually even weaker, since there is no bfoq exception for racial discrimination.)
I recall when the feds went after Hooters for only hiring female waitresses. Hooters ran some billboards of a chubby hairy guy with a mustache and a Hooters T-shirt, "Brought to you by the Clinton administration."
If the EEOC really wanted to go after Hooters, it could have. The public response, I think, made discretion the better part of valor in that one case. y81 is generally correct that "customer preference" is not considered a valid basis for engaging in what would otherwise be discrimination. E.g., Pan Am v. Diaz, where the airlines tried to argue that their (mostly male) business travelers preferred attractive young women as stewardesses.
I never understood why foreign flagged airlines didn't exploit this.
Sorry, new here. Just to make sure. You were being sarcastic right?
Welcome to the conspiracy. You will soon learn, it's Dr. Ed's world and we're just living in it. His connection with actual facts is...subservient to whatever points he wants to make.
There are some special exceptions for sex discrimination, which has a different standard from race discrimination.
It’s worth pointing out that with no exceptions, liberal folks could ban same-sex bathrooms, and conservative folks could shut down porn.
Didn't happen. The EEOC declined to intervene in a private class action.
Any discriminating business could make exactly this claim. Our customers prefer to eat in a whites-only dining room. We are not discriminating ourselves. We are just responding to our customers’ wishes. This is no different.
There is a long-acknowledged exception in sex discrimination cases for personal privacy considerations, permitting single-sex bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, dorms, etc. There are disputes about its scope. Does it cover gyms? swimming pools? (In general, does it require complete nudity to trigger the exception, or just being scantily clad?) But a claim that an ordinary university program like a diversity office is a “safe space” involving privacy considerations anything remotely like a bathroom, shower, or changing room strikes me as extremely weak and a non-starter.
All true and interesting history but ultimately irrelevant since there is no recognized privacy interest or race discrimination. And that's the essence of the students' & faculty's complaints - that the university had the audacity to hire a white woman for the role instead of a BIPOC.
"But a claim that an ordinary university program like a diversity office is a “safe space” involving privacy considerations anything remotely like a bathroom, shower, or changing room strikes me as extremely weak and a non-starter."
UMass once made it.
University counsel told them to leave me alone.
Even better, is their excuse "...the university contends that Diaz demoted Hoffman not because of discriminatory animus but to "shield [Hoffman] from the negative reactions of others." Since money doesn't buy happiness, we're giving you less money to make you happier.
Also the purpose of segregation. We’re just protecting the black children from the negative reactions of white ones.
Some Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) plans can break U.S. laws by favoring certain groups over others, which counts as unfair treatment. The law, called Title VII from 1964, says you can’t pick or treat workers differently because of their race, sex, or similar traits. DEI plans that set goals to hire or promote specific groups might unfairly push others aside, like in the 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano case, where tossing out test scores to balance races broke the law. Also, for government-run DEI efforts, the Constitution’s Equal Protection rule says race-based plans must have a strong reason and be tightly focused, as shown in the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, and many DEI setups don’t meet this mark.
To stay clear of trouble, DEI plans must focus on fair, skill-based choices and avoid giving special treatment to certain groups, which means they can't be DEI as being practiced today. The Adarand Constructors v. Peña case says even well-meaning race-based plans must pass strict scrutiny to avoid causing division.
Some? Pretty much all want to do just this. It's just a matter of whether they can camouflage it adequately with other pretexts. The movement's problem is that its most vocal advocates want you to know what they're doing and why. (Because they think white people, or should I say White, can't be discriminated against.)
The same crowd that disclaims the "racism inherent in DEI" (paraphrase) and trumpets the value of free speech also fights to censor teaching about the history of slavery and systemic racism in America.
Oh, I'm glad to teach about the history of slavery in America, I just don't want it exaggerated any more than I want it minimized.
LOL!
You can't racially discriminate against white people!
They're white!
The same people complaining about whitey in "people of color" (white's not a color, guys) spaces are also football purists who will ensure that only white quarterbacks and black wide receivers ever play for Wisconsin.
Both of those positions are safe spaces for people of very particular colors. As they should be!
After Hoffman was appointed interim director of the new department, students, faculty, and staff objected to her appointment because she was white.
Tell me again why public money should be supporting higher education?
Good lord you've taken a turn.
No, higher education has. If you haven't noticed, it's because they bundled you into the trunk with a blindfold.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
You're being lied to via confirmation bias.
And, with respect to Harvard, just straight being lied to.
Not responsive.
You appealed to incredulity; that's a fallacy.
Gaslighto never fails.
Today he's his most gaslightiest self.
Not even Sarcastro can defend higher education being on the government tit.
Tell me more about your non-sequitur.
Public education in the South was de jure segregated. Was that a reason not to fund it at all?
The Third Morrill Act addressed that...
I would have sent the harassment claim to the jury. And I find the Court’s reasoning for not doing so troubling. The court said that whether white people belong in a university diversity office is a question of public concern, so saying they don’t - even to their faces - is simply expressing an opinion on a matter of public concern, and can never be harassment.
But of course whether black people should be in universities, indeed educated AT ALL, is equally a matter of public concern. If the Court is right, then professors, iniversity administrators, guidance counselors, etc. repeatedly telling black students that they have no business being in college and really ought to be in vocational school training as janitors and sanitation workers because only white people belong in college, is also simply expressing an opinion on a matter of public concern, and is in no way harassment. So is telling black people that college is a safe space for white people and their presence there makes them feel very uncomfortable.
That is not correct. The court broke it into three categories: things she didn't know about (can't be actionable as harassment), statements made about the issues (questions of public concern that people are entitled to discuss), and things said directly to her (can be, but in this case were scattered stray remarks insufficient to meet the legal standard).
Nope. Repeatedly telling that to someone is different than merely publicly discussing it.
I would have found the totality sufficient to be a jury question. Chop things into enough categories, and there is never enough in any one category to be actionable.
The plaintiff was given a consistent strong sense that she wasn’t wanted and didn’t belong. I don’t think that came out of nowhere.
Also, I’m not sure the distinction between repeatedly saying “black students don’t belong in college” to others in the student’s presence and directly telling the student “you don’t belong in college because you’re black” really makes quite the difference you and the judge say it does. Given the totality of the circumstances, whether the statements the judge placed in the second category were really intended as mere abstract general discussion of matters of public concern or had a different motive strikes me as a fact question for a jury.
Yep, this looks pretty bad.
Can't even give them much benefit of the doubt that it was all talk if they come back with that weak-ass "shield from the negative reactions of others."
Makes me wonder if white members of the LGBT community would be adequately served by a DEI department at an institution like that.
No. I've seen it happen.
As I keep saying, the people most fervent about implementing DEI think this is exactly what it requires and is allowed to do: discrimination on the basis of race.
When people accuse DEI, as practiced in most institutions, of violating civil rights laws, this is what they mean. It's no mystery.
You sound pale.
You keep saying it and we keep reading between the lines.
I'd suggest your tirade against affirmative action and its recognition of the historic and endemic harms of bigotry in this country threatens to throw the baby out with the bath water but I believe that is, in fact, what you want to do. Discrimination on the basis of race continues to be baked into our society with white Americans nearly always benefiting from it. Hoffman's horrible experience isn't evidence of rampant anti-white discrimination any more than a single snowy day is evidence that our climate isn't warming.
You call it "reading between the lines" but what you're actually engaged in is some combination of projection and attempted mind-reading. Your claims about the motivation of your political opponents comes across as uninformed speculation, making me believe that you've never had a sincere conversation with anyone who disagreed with you.
as practiced in most institutions
As surveyed by MaddogEngineer's vibe-o-meter.
"white-identifying individuals"
LOL
So dedicated to jargon and "woke".
I identify as Bill Gates. I went into a bank and asked to withdraw $ 1 billion. But they declined. Bigots.
Time to settle! I hope the white-identifying majority in Wisconsin likes the amount of the check that she will be getting
the white-identifying majority in Wisconsin
You calling for white solidarity now?
You were always terrible, but not this flavor of terrible.
You never did have any sense of humor.
True. And ironic considering his blog name choice.
I'm mocking the "white-identifying" jargon.
Keep your eye on the prize, it was your friends at UW being racist.
I agree with you re: UW. I posted about it above.
Anyhow, given how race works "white identifying" seems an accurate term to use.
I don't like it, but every non-white group organizes by race as you can see in this very article. Racially neutral is best, but if non-whites choose racial solidarity, then it's suicide for whites to not do the same thing. If you don't like racial solidarity, take it up with the non-white groups that are forcing us into this situation.
it's suicide for whites to not do the same
Whites are doing fine without explicit affinity groups. It's good to be the dominant culture.
So long as you don't spend all your time afeared of losing it. Then it gets scary and racist.
Which groups are allowed to preserve and celebrate their culture and which groups aren't?
Do you have a guiding principle?
What is white culture?
I like Ben Folds, BBC Radio 4 podcasts, and Subnautica. That makes me pretty fucking white.
But someone hating all those things would also be pretty fucking white.
If your only thing you share in common is your skin color, your 'cultural celebrating' is sus.
By that logic, there's no such thing as culture-- name any non-trivial group you like (10,000+ members) and you won't find a single universal preference. This is anti-white special pleading.
Universal preference wasn't my point. This isn't some science to be solved with algorithms.
My point is that white culture is not a thing - white people are numerous and various and don't have any kind of shared affinity.
You want to make an Appalachian cultural affinity group, that'll work.
Or a Young Republicans group, have fun!
Or even like fans of the UK, I don't think people would have an issue.
But whites? Yeah, that's sus. The fact that you haven't managed to define white culture is a tell.
Even without the fraught history of "white pride"-type groups.
There certainly is a White culture. Wake up and look around.
I doubt I share a culture with you, Roger.
You are using the English language.
Eh, it's got a ton of French.
You got a weird definition of culture.
Whites are doing fine despite being discriminated against in every facet of society, a testimony to the strength of white culture. Doesn't mean they should let other groups play the racial politics game and not respond. If everybody else is organizing by race, then it's a losing play to not do the same. In this very article, non-whites banned together when a white person got a job previously held by a non-white person. This never happens in reverse. Politicians always say what they'll do for black people, NEVER what they'll do for white people. There's non-white affinity groups, but every white person is on their own, operating without any white groups or institutions that help them. Etc.
Whites are doing fine despite being discriminated against in every facet of society, a testimony to the strength of white culture.
Just say the 14 words, coward.
Whites are not discriminated against. Maybe it's a personal problem - I'm white and I've had so many doors opened to me I thought they were hallways for a while.
And here it is on display again. "Whites are".
"Whites" aren't anything, any more than blacks are. Because whites, like blacks, are INDIVIDUALS, and every individual has their own life.
First, you generalize about black culture and how criminal and lazy it is all the fucking time.
Be consistent.
But there sure are cultural touchstones black folks generate in a way that only a subculture can manage.
Jazz, hip-hop, black twitter, sneaker culture...Not exclusively black, and not every black person, and oftentimes broadened to a general cultural arena. But would you argue any of those weren't products of black culture?
See also gay culture.
An example folks might throw out regarding white culture is country music. That's a genre that has, until recently, been really white. And it has it's own touchstones and callbacks, as any product of a subculture would.
But it's not a touchstone of broad white culture. It's more a subculture distinct from the undifferentiated mass of 'white people.'
Is it vibes? Yeah, but it's also not. I'm not going to look up a sociology paper locking it down. But rest assured there's plenty talking about this kind of thing.
There are a lot of music genres that are predominantly White. Not exclusively, but Jazz is not exclusively Black either.
Predominantly white people doing the music is not the same as it being white music.
As I discussed in the comment you replied to re: country music.
You could similarly say that jazz music is a subculture among Blacks. Most Blacks do not listen to it. White culture is much more of a thing than Black culture or gay culture.
My point is that no, you can't. Jazz is tied up in black culture and history in a way that country music is not tied up in white culture and history.
It is about vibes? Sure. Though there is scholarship about subcultures as other within a larger group.
I'd say you should start calling country music white music, or tell people Jazz isn't really black music. But you'd probably do that; you'd rather feel right than be right.
Why are you trying to tell me to stop appreciating White culture? If you don't like White culture, why don't you move to China or Africa?
So far the best example of white culture you've come with is the English language.
That's kind of a sign to me that what you're defending isn't white culture...
Do you have much of a self-image beyond white conservative engineer?
It would take me a few hours to list the major aspects of White culture. Maybe I will do that and post it.
It would take me a few hours to list the major aspects of White culture
I'm not sure you know what a list is.
My predicted list.
1. Whites like good things.
2. Whites do not like bad things.
3. White culture built America. This is a definition, somehow.
My list would definitely include a lot of good things that Whites like, and a lot of American things.
"First, you generalize about black culture and how criminal and lazy it is all the fucking time."
No, I don't. Will you stop confusing that filter you apply every time you read anything I write for what I'm actually saying? I routinely say that there's a dysfunctional culture in the US that's disproportionately black, but some whites are members of it, too, and most blacks aren't. That it's all about the culture, not the skin color, the skin color is only incidentally correlated with culture for historical path dependence reasons.
You're just an obsessed idiot at this point. I live in a nice, peaceful, middle class neighborhood that's about 50% black. Why the hell would I think that blacks all belong to the same culture when every day I see proof that they don't?
Prior to SFFA, nearly every university was discriminating against whites, they just call it "diversity." Wherever you find discrimination-- as in this case-- it's nearly always anti-white and sometimes anti-asian. Discriminating FOR blacks and latinos is inevitably discriminating against everybody who isn't in the favored racial groups. I've succeeded in my life despite the massive barriers imposed by having white skin. Sounds like you have as well, but that's no reason to continue discrimination. Some blacks succeeded in the Jim Crow era, that doesn't justify continuing discrimination.
" Wherever you find discrimination-- as in this case-- it's nearly always anti-white and sometimes anti-asian."
Nope. If you look at the actual statistics, the discrimination is largely a wash for whites, it's the Asians taking the brunt of it.
See, here's the stats from Harvard.
In the highest decile of academic qualification, the average admit rate for all applicants is 14.6%.
For blacks it's 56.1%, for Hispanics 31.3% for whites 15.3%.
And for Asians it's 12.7%.
Yes, in most deciles whites are disadvantaged relative to the average, but the bias against Asians is brutal.
Brett loves disparate impact, but only for whites and Asians!
No, disparate impact is when you do something on the basis of X, and X happens to be correlated to race, so what you're doing ends up correlated to race. This isn't disparate impact, Harvard is directly discriminating on the basis of race, because they're setting out to discriminate on the basis of race. They expressly make sure the decision makers are informed about the race of candidates!
Inside Harvard's Discrimination Machine
"For years, Harvard’s DEI department has explicitly sought to engineer a more racially “diverse” faculty pool. The university-wide Inclusive Hiring Initiative provided “guidelines and training” for those involved in the hiring process and was explicitly tied to Harvard’s DEI goals. The stated mission of the initiative is to “[i]nstill an understanding of how departments can leverage the selection process” to build “an increasingly diverse workforce.”
In another hiring guide, “Best Practices for Conducting Faculty Searches,” the university recommends several discriminatory practices. At the beginning of the hiring process, Harvard instructs search committees to “ensure that the early lists include women and minorities” and to “consider reading the applications of women and minorities first.” The university counsels that committee chairs should “continually monitor” the racial composition of the candidate list and, as they narrow it down, “attend to all women and minorities on the long list.”
Harvard deliberately factors race into the hiring process. The university gives committee chairs privileged access to “self-identified demographic data, including gender, race, and ethnicity” and encourages chairs to “use this information to encourage diversity in the applicant pool, long list, and short list.” Harvard admits that some of its hiring programs have explicit “placement goals” for women and minorities—which, despite the university’s denial, function as a soft quota."
And, what was Harvard's response to this report? They took down their hiring guidelines. But, wayback machine, baby.
Fucking Chris Rufo?? That man is a proud and open liar. About literally this thing you linked to him for.
Also a big fan of authoritarian Viktor Orbán.
I'd ask why you would believe him, but I know why.
You're so deep you link to stuff that not only doesn't say what Rufo says it does, disproves what you claim about intentional discrimination
Your link to Harvard doesn't evince any discrimination:
"Initiative Goals
-Provide foundational knowledge on compliant and inclusive hiring
-Offer resources and practices that can be implemented into department hiring strategies
-Teach strategies for engaging with diverse talent for open positions
-Instill an understanding of how departments can leverage the selection process to promote a more inclusive hiring process overall
-Facilitate conversations with Subject Matter Experts around best practices"
...
"We launched our first live, virtual training: Between the Lines: Discerning and Mitigating Bias in the Selection Process. This course used hands-on scenarios to provide participants with an understanding of the top biases in the selection process and the framework needed to mitigate these biases."
Here's some "Diversity-Related Sample Interview Questions"
https://web.archive.org/web/20240615234501/https://hr.harvard.edu/files/humanresources/files/diversity_sample_interview_questions.pdf?m=1610552013
"• The University has a diverse workforce (in terms of ethnicity, class, culture, language, sexual orientation,
and disabilities). Can you tell us about your experience working with and serving such a diverse
population?"
You can say this'll weed out people who don't like diversity, but I'm not seeing the racial discrimination.
Scotus also found that Harvard discriminates.
They did not.
They overruled their past precedents in the area. No more, no less.
Scotus also ruled against Harvard.
How dare I link to somebody who provides actual documents from Harvard, when they're a fucking person who you don't agree with?
You can read Harvard's damned hiring guidelines yourself, I provided a link. You don't need Rufo to read them to you.
And, yes, the Supreme court found that Harvard was discriminating.
I excerpted the document you linked. It doesn’t say that you claim.
Nobody is claiming that Harvard is ONLY interested in race and/or sex. Just that they ARE interested in race and/or sex. So demonstrating that they don't JUST talk about race and sex doesn't accomplish anything.
Harvard information for Employees (HARVie):
"These resources will support efforts to reaffirm the University's commitment to inclusive hiring, to building an increasingly diverse workforce, and to more fully realize the promise of Harvard as a place where everyone can flourish."
But I've already linked to their hiring goals. For example, staff assistants to the school of dental medicine are currently 70.37% female. If you actually wanted more diversity, as it is conventionally understood, you'd be prioritizing hiring MEN for that job! Instead their goal is to hire 91.76% women.
Staff assistants for the Business School are already 72.54% women, so of course their goal is to hire 91.57% women in the coming year, to enhance diversity.
The only way this makes any sense at all as a way of increasing "diversity" is if "diversity" is just a code word for "minimizing the number of white men", regardless of whether they're only a tiny minority of the positions already. So we know what they mean when they use the word "diversity" elsewhere.
In other words, you've utterly failed to establish intentional discrimination despite calling in a fabulist and putting in plenty of effort yourself.
Yeah, proving intentional discrimination is a high bar; it sucks. Welcome to the world of civil rights in court.
You seem to want to ignore that the Supreme court has already ruled that Harvard was racially discriminating. Which substantially lowers the evidentiary bar for arguing that they're still engaged in discrimination; They have a history of it, and recent history at that.
I easily cleared that bar by demonstrating, using their own document, that they have hiring goals that are wildly discriminatory. For more than one department that is already over 70% female, their explicit, POST Students for Fair Admission goal is hiring over 90% women.
And they're calling that the pursuit of "diversity". So they obviously don't mean by "diversity" anything like what you'd get out of a dictionary; Taking a department from 70% women to 90% women only increases "diversity" in some kind of Orwellian sense.
That being the case, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they're using that Orwellian sense in other places when they use the term "diversity".
I'm not fan of racial preferences - bad policy; too blunt an object. But in the end a pretty minor policy in the grand scheme of most Americans' lives.
But you pivot from that to shit like, "I've succeeded in my life despite the massive barriers imposed by having white skin."
Did it occur to you the barriers might be because you get really melodramatic?
You admit you've done fine, and here you are resentful and hateful, and insisting I should also be like that.
Nah, not gonna.
Of course, I've talked to real-life black people about their lives. In STEM even.
They've got as plenty as much reason as you to talk about massive barriers. None of them complain as loud as you.
No, I haven't faced any massive barriers, I'm an old fart whose career got started before all this crap got going. I'm concerned about the people going into college TODAY, not back in the 70's. Like my son, who starts taking college courses this fall.
“ Whites are not discriminated against.”
Didn’t you agree, in this very thread, that the white person in this case was discriminated against?
re: "You calling for white solidarity"
No, he wasn't. He was opining that the real victims will be the majority of the students with no involvement in this case whose tuition will nevertheless go up to pay for the settlement when the university loses this case.
I thought the only way to stop discriminating based on skin color was to stop discriminating based on skin color. As an entertaining thought experiment substitute black for white in the legal filings above and send it to KBJ for commentary.
It sounds like this office was supposed to serve low-income students and first generation college students, as well as students of color. Presumably some of the low income and first gen students were white. Or what the purpose of merging the offices to ensure that only those low income and first gen students who happen to also be people of color got services?
More importantly, it is interesting how two different objectors to her role refer to her white "identity". Are we supposed to believe that (1) anybody asked her what her racial identity was, and that (2) had she said "I am a person of color", anyone would have responded more favorably to her? Because that does not seem plausible.