Quotas.Yeah baby. That's what we are really talking about.
Look, I've worked with people all over the country and planet for years, using phone, video, email, text and in person. I look for only one thing in all of those interactions - whether they have a clue, aka the requisite skills for their role. I also sniff around for hidden agendas, but that's just me. Point being, in most cases I would have absolutely no clue what their ethnicity, racial tribe or DNA strings from whence they spring was from via email or even phone most times and frankly, it wouldn't much matter anyway.
Main point I'm driving to is there is a lot of munging together of definitive words that are not meant to be munged, but are used to mask real intentions. As I see it, at the heart of it all, is do people have an equal opportunity to have a clue, because they have a clue or are they awarded or bestowed a clue because of pandering to them, because, you know, they just aren't all that sharp so we have to help them blow their nose and wipe their bums and give them reparations because their DNA just really kind of sucks. Seriously?!?
Soon we may get the noose to hang DEI and ESG from the Supreme Court and ironically enough, it may spring from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Go figure?!?
DEI, ESG and preparing for the Supreme Court ruling on race-based decision-making
May 3, 2023 - As we await the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions addressing affirmative action in college admissions programs, employers should contemplate how this decision may impact their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) commitments. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College.
While employer initiatives are subject to a different legal framework than the educational admissions programs challenged in these cases, we expect that the Court's decision may have broad-reaching implications across various civil rights laws, including those that impact workplace DEI efforts. As we wait for the Court's opinions, there are steps that employers can take now to best position their DEI programs for future success.
The two cases pending before the Court were filed in 2014 by the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) and challenge the use of race as a factor in admissions by Harvard University (Harvard) and the University of North Carolina (UNC).
SFFA alleges that the use of race in the universities' admissions programs violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance) and/or the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution (which prohibit federal and state governments from discriminating on the basis of race except when furthering a compelling government interest and using the least restrictive means available).
Harvard and UNC — along with most colleges and universities — are subject to Title VI because they receive federal financial assistance, such as research grants and federal student aid. UNC and other state universities are also subject to the limits imposed by the U.S. Constitution because they are state actors...
Side Note: Did ya catch the bit about "Strings Attached" in the last paragraph? Once you takes the money from Mr. Gubmint - he owns you...