• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A can-do attitude is more important than race or social class

NatMorton said:
To compound Harvard President Claudine Gay’s sin of plagiarism, she not only stole words from Carol Swain, she stole the wrong words.

What’s extremely clear after reading this short article is that academia needs far fewer Claudine Gays and many more Carol Swains:

nypost.com

A can-do attitude is more important than race or social class

Dr. Carol Swain is one of the academics whom Harvard president Claudine Gay plagiarized. Swain has called for Gay’s firing and a “return to sanity” by Harvard University. Here, sh…
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" is all about identity politics. It is the newest form of leftist bigotry. Any company, university, or institution that practices DEI is actively promoting bigotry. DEI merely replaced the bigotted Affirmative Action, but it is no less vile by targeting individuals who they deem to be victims as a result of their imaginary "race." Only leftist filth practice this type of bigotry, exclusively.
 
It's interesting that Conservatives only ever bring up DEI or question the qualifications of a person holding a position of authority when that person is a non-white or non-male person.

Why does the Right assume that white males are always qualified, but anyone else must only get their positions because of racial policies?
 
Questerr said:
It's interesting that Conservatives only ever bring up DEI or question the qualifications of a person holding a position of authority when that person is a non-white or non-male person.

Why does the Right assume that white males are always qualified, but anyone else must only get their positions because of racial policies?
Click to expand...
Ding Ding Ding Ding.
 

Questerr said:
It's interesting that Conservatives only ever bring up DEI or question the qualifications of a person holding a position of authority when that person is a non-white or non-male person.

Why does the Right assume that white males are always qualified, but anyone else must only get their positions because of racial policies?
Click to expand...

What some may find interesting is that this is a reason minorities are not in favor of affirmative action, now called DEI. All people may be qualified. Thus no reason to put your hand on the scales. Doing this casts doubt on a minority who wins because he/she is the most qualified.
 
washunut said:
What some may find interesting is that this is a reason minorities are not in favor of affirmative action, now called DEI. All people may be qualified. Thus no reason to put your hand on the scales. Doing this casts doubt on a minority who wins because he/she is the most qualified.
Click to expand...

So because white supremacists cast doubt on minorities in positions of authority, we shouldn't have laws and policies designed to dismantle traditional white supremacist power structures?
 
Questerr said:
So because white supremacists cast doubt on minorities in positions of authority, we shouldn't have laws and policies designed to dismantle traditional white supremacist power structures?
Click to expand...

Where in my post do you see ANYTHING about white supremacists????? Is your premise so weak there can be no honest debate?
 
j brown's body said:
Only by accounting for the consequences of racism.

As I pointed out, if we don't account for race, we simply perpetuate racial segregation while allowing institutional racial discrimination do the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that "accounting for race" does anything but perpetuate and exacerbate racial discrimination.
 
washunut said:
Where in my post do you see ANYTHING about white supremacists????? Is your premise so weak there can be no honest debate?
Click to expand...

Because white supremacists are the assholes who cast doubt on the qualifications of minorities in office.
 
Argent said:
Credentials are the holy grail of higher ed and the Ph.D is the holiest of the holy. The ultimate degree signifies that one has survived the gauntlet of academia and performed the requisite rites of passage. It matters not that the degree may be unrelated to the job for which one is hired. It confers on the holder respect and admission into the highest rank of the holy of holies which is why plagiarism is a mortal sin among academics. There isn't a position that I can think of where cheating would be dismissed as irrelevant to the core work of a job. Cheating indicates a weakness in character and makes it difficult for the cheater to gain trust. Trust is particularly vital in leadership positions.
Click to expand...

Hi, Argent.

Thank you for your extensive response.

Hopefully, people will apply it to weigh properly the trust we can place in the statements of Mr. Donald Trump.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . informed.
 
BirdinHand said:
What brings you to that conclusion?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said. The lack of evidence that it does anything but perpetuate and exacerbate racial discrimination. But maybe you have evidence to the contrary?
 
BirdinHand said:
I'll tell you why I'm opposed to the slogan:

It infers that there was a singular point in time during which America was GREAT for all people.

And that point hasn't occurred.

America is an awesome country. I love living here. I think the US has been an incredible force for good in the world - and has a tremendous capability to continue to be an incredible force for good in the world. But there is room for improvement - and the path towards improvement is moving FORWARD not looking towards the past and trying to replicate it as "Make America Great Again" infers.

It is a shitty slogan. And offensive to women and minorities that find America TODAY better than it ever has been in the past (and are being drug backwards thanks to things like RvW being overturned on the quest of MAGA)
Click to expand...
Nothing will ever be good enough for all fringe groups,
 
BirdinHand said:
What brings you to that conclusion?
Click to expand...

Assume you have 10 qualified applicants and rank (number) them from most to least qualified, yet pick candidate #7 because they checked the right DEI (AA?) box(es). That means you cared more about meeting some ‘diversity’ goal (never calling it a quota, of course) rather than simply selecting the most qualified applicant.
 
tshade said:
Google it------I don't have 2 hours to type it all out..........
Click to expand...
You couldn't type in out in 2 minutes or 2 years for one very simple reason: there is no evidence she's been a good leader.

Do you really think this nonsense is hiding your inability to backup your assertion?
 
NatMorton said:
You couldn't type in out in 2 minutes or 2 years for one very simple reason: there is no evidence she's been a good leader.

Do you really think this nonsense is hiding your inability to backup your assertion?
Click to expand...
Asking generalized questions, as Trumpers do, is a copout.
Ask something specific, then prepare to concede.
 
tshade said:
Asking generalized questions, as Trumpers do, is a copout.
Ask something specific, then prepare to concede.
Click to expand...
Now you're just lying. In post 23 you made the assertion that she was a good leader. I simply asked you to cite examples of her leadership to back up that assertion. You've been stammering ever since.
 
Why do so many people who will never attend Harvard or probably never had relatives go to Harvard care about the president of Harvard?
 
NatMorton said:
Now you're just lying. In post 23 you made the assertion that she was a good leader. I simply asked you to cite examples of her leadership to back up that assertion. You've been stammering ever since.
Click to expand...
Will one do?? I never lie nor stammer. Shame on you for saying that. If one will do, just say so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom