It is relatively typical that I agree with Glenn. It's probably just as typical that I find at least a small nit to pick with John. That (possibly needless) preamble aside, I take issue with the second sentence in this statement.
"John and I have always maintained that, in the long run, DEI policies are not good for African Americans. They were necessary for a time, and that time is long gone. We both want an environment where black people can earn their place without stigmatization—that’s why we’ve been so critical of affirmative action."
Some part of me wonders WHEN DEI policies were good for blacks, and why? Furthermore, if they were good then, what makes them not necessary now? I think the "good for a while but no longer" gambit is a way to attempt to soothe those who continue to whine about DEI going away. For me it comes down to a couple stark questions. At what point were black people inferior? How did DEI fix that? If it didn't and it cannot, how the hell can it have been of apparently vanishing benefit, with some time horizon on its "goodness"? Lowering standards does not result in more people meeting the previous standard. I struggle to find a corollary in any field where merit is directly measured or accessed. (Sports, although an imperfect comparison, comes to mind.)
Anyway, I might assert that by soft peddling the fact that DEI was never the solution, we undermine the current (and historic) truth. Black people are capable. Don't treat us differently, period. (That means don't treat anyone else better, either. That should be obvious, but probably is not, for whatever reason.)
A better question than "are Glenn and John to blame for anti-DEI overreach?" (clearly not) would be whether they have any concern about Anti-DEI overreach or what line would have to be crossed for them to be concerned.
For example, DoD just removed this article about Jackie Robinson:
I've made it clear that I'm a huge Donald Trump fan, but even I can't but help notice that Trump seems to prioritize personal loyalty above all else. The current Trump administration certainly has a number of individuals in key positions who aren't necessarily the most conventionally qualified.
I remember there being a conversation on this blog about whether or not Claudine Gay was the least qualified president in modern Harvard history and I'm curious if one could make the same argument for someone like Pete Hegseth, that he may very well be one of the least conventionally qualified Secretaries of Defense in modern history. I'm not sure if I have enough knowledge to make that conclusion, but it seems to me that the Trump administration isn't necessarily all that more qualified to opine about meritocracy than the Biden administration was, Elon Musk aside.
I certainly support Trump's dismantling of DEI though.
“I think the president and the secretary have been very clear on this — that anybody that says in the Department of Defense that diversity is our strength is, is frankly, incorrect“
Thousands of photos have been removed. Some may be restored. Trump’s racial attack on government is a carbon copy of Woodrow Wilson. Black people can expect Conservatives to stay silent.
From a military perspective, The unit must act as a unit. They are all the same. Once you start labeling the individual and focusing on differences, it weakens the whole. There is no where more important to keep the unit as cohesive as possible than the military. Diversity in its very meaning divides physically, mentally and spiritually.
If you read the article there were lots of references to racism, oppression etc… don’t think it had anything to do with the picture of a black person. It the content of the article
Nonsense. The Buffalo soldiers excelled despite having second hand equipment. The Tuskegee Airmen were admired by the bomber crews they protected. The 761st Tank Battalion served above and beyond. The 6888 improved morale by improving communication with families and those serving overseas.
What is demoralizing is seeing a Black 4-star general replaced by a drunkard white weekend news host as Secretary of Defense followed by an unqualified white 3-star general who required a waiver selected to replace a fully qualified Black 4-star general as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
So, you want segregation back then? Because you are citing times when the military was segregated. Through your every thing is racist prism it appears you think am saying black soldiers can not excel or do not deserve to be in military... u know what... from reading the crap you post on here... not even engaging with you
The issue you cannot avoid though is that what we now have in gov't is cronyism, surely not meritocracy. Many distressingly unqualified people are running high-level divisions of gov't. Isn't the mandate to 'whitewash' and purge DEI a way for white men to occupy more and more places in government and institutions, as a tacit default? They become, once again, the presumptive subject. Is there a reason you don't criticize that?
Black students admitted to the elite (the most) selective universities such as Stanford, MIT, Harvard of Virginia, Yale, etc. are admitted using the same criteria as Whites, or Asians. Black student graduation rates are in the realm of 92%, 95% or better.
No, Whites were often either legacy admits or on athletic scholarships. The average combined SAT scores for Harvard admits is 1550-1600- ALL races. 96% of Harvard freshman graduate within 6 years, while 97% of Black Harvard students graduate within 6 years. Check out the Forbes Magazine article , July 3, 2023 by Shaun Evans in which he cites US Department of Education documentation on these factoids. The Court case found that Asians appeared to be held to a different standard for admission than any other group such as Whites or Blacks or Hispanics ,etc.
I read that article. Harvard did not. in fact, does not admit students with SAT scores lower than 1400 except on very rare circumstances. SAT scores are NOT mandatory for Harvard applicants, as only 54% of applicants include them in their packets. SAT scores are voluntary
SAT scores for admitted Black students are generally significantly lower than for white or Asian students at top universities, despite the fact that a non-trivial percentage of whites are legacy/athletic admits. You're right that Asian Americans tend to have the highest average test scores and academic credentials, but that doesn't mean that there's not a significant gap between Blacks and non-Blacks at the top schools.
Yan, the article shows that the average composite SAT score for Black Harvard admits, not applicants, to Harvard is ABOVE 703/800 or 1406/1600. Since SAT scores, according to Harvard, are only submitted by 54% of applicants within their application packets, 46% of Harvard admits did not submit SAT scores. It has been estimated that 4900 Asian-Am students apply to Harvard vs 1900 Black student-applicants, (Apparently, there are only 1700 slots available for ALL students.) I submit that the admission rate for Black Students may be higher at Harvard precisely because those who have lower test scores, etc lower than 1400 do not get admitted or do not even apply. Harvard is an expensive project - more than 2.5 times as many Asian-Ams applicants as Black applicants
My main point is that the GRADUATION rates for Black students at Harvard or any of our more select schools is very high- 97-98% for Harvard Black undergrads vice 98% for Asians. If you obtain your degree from an institution such as Harvard, Stanford, Bryn Mawr, or University of Virginia, chances are you deserved to be there.
I’m not sure if a certain amount of overreach is unavoidable. We are witnessing a class shift of control of the government, from an alliance of the corporate elite and the upper middle class, and to the working class and middle America. When such class shifts in power occur, the victorious underclass now in power must take decisive action in defense of its platform, in order to solidify and expand its base; and the previous ruling class will push back with all available methods. If the revolution from below manages to consolidate its power, rectifications can be made. But at the intense moment of power struggle, full consideration of all the implications of a given new policy are nearly impossible.
DEI is wrong for the same reason Indian Hate is wrong. We are all made in the image and likeness of our creator. Our differences are details compared to the things we have in common. In addition, racial and sexual preferences perpetuate prejudice, because they treat people differently because of race or sex.
The primary blame for the backlash against minorities and women that has resulted from the death (I hope) of DEI belongs to the racists and sexists who denigrate individuals because of their race and sex. The idea behind ending DEI is to end invidious discrimination, not to reverse it. The secondary blame is on the champions of DEI, who perpetuate the idea that we are defined by our race, sex and sexuality rather than our character and abilities, and thus enable the racists and sexists.
The two of you are truth tellers, and continued to be truth tellers when it was professionally damaging to tell the truth. And it will eventually pay off. To paraphrase something Churchill apparently never said, “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all of the other possibilities have been exhausted.”
Damn I hope everybody including Dr Loury and Dr McWhorter enjoyed lucky Saint Patrick's Day only in America. As the son of immigrants I want to be hired because of my ideas, natural talents and whatever I learned from my traditional parents and life.
Dr Loury said "...baked into the cake.." I admire my African American heros who made it in America with natural talent, whether in the arts, sports, entertainment or business.
They achieved the pinnacle of
American success against incredible odds.
Dr McWhorter said
".... under lower standards," then I hear Loury say "up to snuff" I flopped at a prestigious university but transferred to zero prestige state university where I graduated then pursue educator career where no one cares about your degrees! Gracias Dr Glenn y Dr John
You know, all of this hubbub about DEI and merit seems to only gain media traction when we are talking about black and brown people. I am certain there are people of all stripes who are currently in highly selective positions, whose resumes may pale in comparison to someone else interested in the same position. I’ve always thought that affirmative action just allowed others to benefit from that same lack of complete adherence to merit that some other individual/groups may enjoy. Perhaps we should shout just as loudly the names on non minority individuals who are currently in positions whose resumes may be sufficient for the job but not better than someone who has demonstrated more merit. But nepotism and in-group out-group dynamics don’t create the same emotional response as DEI these days.
I believe you are 100% correct Glenn. Both in your original criticism of DEI and reasoned defense of your position. However, your response and reasoned defense require an understanding of nuance that seems to be lacking these days. There is a good chance that the people responsible for removing the history of the Code Talkers were relying heavily on AI software and not enough on knowledge and nuance. If that is the case, hopefully the historical reference and significance of The Code Talkers will be reinstated fully. I won’t hold my breath though, as nuance and reason are in short supply on the extreme right just as they are on the extreme left.
This piece is full of false statements about DEI that Glenn has been promoting for years (as he admits minus the false part). Of course he’s not going to see himself as having any culpability because he either has an inability to acknowledge he is wrong or more likely he knows he’s substantially manipulating the truth for profit and wants to take the spotlight he embarrassingly earned off of himself. It’s unjustifiable either way.
Black people have never and will never need some kind of government policy for people to look at us as undeserving of jobs or education. People looked at us as undeserving of LIFE for GENERATIONS, sir. Many still do. To imagine that somehow racism suddenly lost its teeth in less than a quarter of the generations it was being government sanctioned is contrary to your belief that your argument is sound and you have no culpability.
Your argument is not sound, and you do have culpability because there’s no good reason for your ignorance and/or evil, whichever the case(s) might be. You cannot write about race for decades and then surgically remove it from a discussion where it’s incredibly relevant and claim to be writing in good faith.
Each further piece you compose disgusts me further, and your cowardice in preventing yourself from being confronted about your mistakes, willful or not, is pathetic. The fact that you felt you had to write a piece to defend yourself says it all. You’re too old, stubborn, and greedy to rethink your path, but I’ll remain someone fighting steadfastly against your poisonous rhetoric for as long as possible.
Thank you for this. Backlash to DEI is no different than Trump 1.0 instituted by Woodrow Wilson. One simply has to look at the incompetent s in Donald Trump’s cabinet. Blacks ar the scapegoats. Pockets are being picked by the likes of Peter Thiel who boasts “Howard is not Harvard”. The people who praise whites at Harvard tell the unwashed that elite education is trash. People understand the gaslighting. I share your disgust.
We live in a world where hiring managers jump through the fucking roof to hire minorities like yourself and others. Whatever racism you experienced in the past is surely counterbalanced by this modern phenomenon? Even just a little bit?
DEI was not 'fighting racism'. It was putting a foot on a scale because even in an environment where non-racists were utterly enthusiastic about hiring minority candidates for kudos and brownie points, it wasn't enough to really tip them like you hoped. So they fudged it even further. And now we've had enough.
If your Substack is just more 'we're still living in the shadow of Jim Crow' pablum, no thanks.
We absolutely do not live in a world where hiring managers jump through the fucking roof to hire minorities. That is a story you told yourself or were told by someone else that is not supported by reality. I suggest you examine why you decided this represents truth and review your process. Feel free to read my Substack or not. Your call. But since you’re already deciding what it is without reading it, I doubt you’d get much out of it. So long.
While it’s possible for people to twist John’s or Glenn’s words to promote a political agenda like the anti DEI crusade, I don’t feel they (or any of us) have any significant control over which direction our society moves.
I had two effectively two options at the ballot box last November and I didn’t live in a swing state.
I think everyone here has well thought out and nuanced views on many political issues, but few people can hear us.
It is relatively typical that I agree with Glenn. It's probably just as typical that I find at least a small nit to pick with John. That (possibly needless) preamble aside, I take issue with the second sentence in this statement.
"John and I have always maintained that, in the long run, DEI policies are not good for African Americans. They were necessary for a time, and that time is long gone. We both want an environment where black people can earn their place without stigmatization—that’s why we’ve been so critical of affirmative action."
Some part of me wonders WHEN DEI policies were good for blacks, and why? Furthermore, if they were good then, what makes them not necessary now? I think the "good for a while but no longer" gambit is a way to attempt to soothe those who continue to whine about DEI going away. For me it comes down to a couple stark questions. At what point were black people inferior? How did DEI fix that? If it didn't and it cannot, how the hell can it have been of apparently vanishing benefit, with some time horizon on its "goodness"? Lowering standards does not result in more people meeting the previous standard. I struggle to find a corollary in any field where merit is directly measured or accessed. (Sports, although an imperfect comparison, comes to mind.)
Anyway, I might assert that by soft peddling the fact that DEI was never the solution, we undermine the current (and historic) truth. Black people are capable. Don't treat us differently, period. (That means don't treat anyone else better, either. That should be obvious, but probably is not, for whatever reason.)
A better question than "are Glenn and John to blame for anti-DEI overreach?" (clearly not) would be whether they have any concern about Anti-DEI overreach or what line would have to be crossed for them to be concerned.
For example, DoD just removed this article about Jackie Robinson:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240915202349/https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2490361/sports-heroes-who-served-baseball-great-jackie-robinson-was-wwii-soldier/
I've made it clear that I'm a huge Donald Trump fan, but even I can't but help notice that Trump seems to prioritize personal loyalty above all else. The current Trump administration certainly has a number of individuals in key positions who aren't necessarily the most conventionally qualified.
I remember there being a conversation on this blog about whether or not Claudine Gay was the least qualified president in modern Harvard history and I'm curious if one could make the same argument for someone like Pete Hegseth, that he may very well be one of the least conventionally qualified Secretaries of Defense in modern history. I'm not sure if I have enough knowledge to make that conclusion, but it seems to me that the Trump administration isn't necessarily all that more qualified to opine about meritocracy than the Biden administration was, Elon Musk aside.
I certainly support Trump's dismantling of DEI though.
Article was put back up. Most likely AI is running rampant and catching trigger words and articles getting removed automatically
According to a DOD spokesperson
“I think the president and the secretary have been very clear on this — that anybody that says in the Department of Defense that diversity is our strength is, is frankly, incorrect“
Thousands of photos have been removed. Some may be restored. Trump’s racial attack on government is a carbon copy of Woodrow Wilson. Black people can expect Conservatives to stay silent.
From a military perspective, The unit must act as a unit. They are all the same. Once you start labeling the individual and focusing on differences, it weakens the whole. There is no where more important to keep the unit as cohesive as possible than the military. Diversity in its very meaning divides physically, mentally and spiritually.
Does this mean that the militsry should celebrate the heroism of great white officers and soldiers, but not of great black ones?
If you read the article there were lots of references to racism, oppression etc… don’t think it had anything to do with the picture of a black person. It the content of the article
Nonsense. The Buffalo soldiers excelled despite having second hand equipment. The Tuskegee Airmen were admired by the bomber crews they protected. The 761st Tank Battalion served above and beyond. The 6888 improved morale by improving communication with families and those serving overseas.
What is demoralizing is seeing a Black 4-star general replaced by a drunkard white weekend news host as Secretary of Defense followed by an unqualified white 3-star general who required a waiver selected to replace a fully qualified Black 4-star general as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
and you mean that black general who didnt even inform the president that he was out sick and having surgery… got it
Yes, the 4-star general has more qualifications than the alcoholic weekend news anchor.
So, you want segregation back then? Because you are citing times when the military was segregated. Through your every thing is racist prism it appears you think am saying black soldiers can not excel or do not deserve to be in military... u know what... from reading the crap you post on here... not even engaging with you
More Conservative crocodile tears
I point out incompetent white men being put in positions of military power.
You totally overlook the double standard.
The issue you cannot avoid though is that what we now have in gov't is cronyism, surely not meritocracy. Many distressingly unqualified people are running high-level divisions of gov't. Isn't the mandate to 'whitewash' and purge DEI a way for white men to occupy more and more places in government and institutions, as a tacit default? They become, once again, the presumptive subject. Is there a reason you don't criticize that?
Black students admitted to the elite (the most) selective universities such as Stanford, MIT, Harvard of Virginia, Yale, etc. are admitted using the same criteria as Whites, or Asians. Black student graduation rates are in the realm of 92%, 95% or better.
Lies
No it is true based on the schools own figures. To think otherwise , would make you a denier of the truth or something much worse.
Harvard literally just got sued and lost because blacks were not being held for the same standards for admission as Asians and whites.
No, Whites were often either legacy admits or on athletic scholarships. The average combined SAT scores for Harvard admits is 1550-1600- ALL races. 96% of Harvard freshman graduate within 6 years, while 97% of Black Harvard students graduate within 6 years. Check out the Forbes Magazine article , July 3, 2023 by Shaun Evans in which he cites US Department of Education documentation on these factoids. The Court case found that Asians appeared to be held to a different standard for admission than any other group such as Whites or Blacks or Hispanics ,etc.
Here is part of Harvard Dean testimony that contradicts every part of your argument. https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/
I read that article. Harvard did not. in fact, does not admit students with SAT scores lower than 1400 except on very rare circumstances. SAT scores are NOT mandatory for Harvard applicants, as only 54% of applicants include them in their packets. SAT scores are voluntary
SAT scores for admitted Black students are generally significantly lower than for white or Asian students at top universities, despite the fact that a non-trivial percentage of whites are legacy/athletic admits. You're right that Asian Americans tend to have the highest average test scores and academic credentials, but that doesn't mean that there's not a significant gap between Blacks and non-Blacks at the top schools.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/
Yan, the article shows that the average composite SAT score for Black Harvard admits, not applicants, to Harvard is ABOVE 703/800 or 1406/1600. Since SAT scores, according to Harvard, are only submitted by 54% of applicants within their application packets, 46% of Harvard admits did not submit SAT scores. It has been estimated that 4900 Asian-Am students apply to Harvard vs 1900 Black student-applicants, (Apparently, there are only 1700 slots available for ALL students.) I submit that the admission rate for Black Students may be higher at Harvard precisely because those who have lower test scores, etc lower than 1400 do not get admitted or do not even apply. Harvard is an expensive project - more than 2.5 times as many Asian-Ams applicants as Black applicants
My main point is that the GRADUATION rates for Black students at Harvard or any of our more select schools is very high- 97-98% for Harvard Black undergrads vice 98% for Asians. If you obtain your degree from an institution such as Harvard, Stanford, Bryn Mawr, or University of Virginia, chances are you deserved to be there.
I’m not sure if a certain amount of overreach is unavoidable. We are witnessing a class shift of control of the government, from an alliance of the corporate elite and the upper middle class, and to the working class and middle America. When such class shifts in power occur, the victorious underclass now in power must take decisive action in defense of its platform, in order to solidify and expand its base; and the previous ruling class will push back with all available methods. If the revolution from below manages to consolidate its power, rectifications can be made. But at the intense moment of power struggle, full consideration of all the implications of a given new policy are nearly impossible.
DEI is wrong for the same reason Indian Hate is wrong. We are all made in the image and likeness of our creator. Our differences are details compared to the things we have in common. In addition, racial and sexual preferences perpetuate prejudice, because they treat people differently because of race or sex.
The primary blame for the backlash against minorities and women that has resulted from the death (I hope) of DEI belongs to the racists and sexists who denigrate individuals because of their race and sex. The idea behind ending DEI is to end invidious discrimination, not to reverse it. The secondary blame is on the champions of DEI, who perpetuate the idea that we are defined by our race, sex and sexuality rather than our character and abilities, and thus enable the racists and sexists.
The two of you are truth tellers, and continued to be truth tellers when it was professionally damaging to tell the truth. And it will eventually pay off. To paraphrase something Churchill apparently never said, “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all of the other possibilities have been exhausted.”
Damn I hope everybody including Dr Loury and Dr McWhorter enjoyed lucky Saint Patrick's Day only in America. As the son of immigrants I want to be hired because of my ideas, natural talents and whatever I learned from my traditional parents and life.
Dr Loury said "...baked into the cake.." I admire my African American heros who made it in America with natural talent, whether in the arts, sports, entertainment or business.
They achieved the pinnacle of
American success against incredible odds.
Dr McWhorter said
".... under lower standards," then I hear Loury say "up to snuff" I flopped at a prestigious university but transferred to zero prestige state university where I graduated then pursue educator career where no one cares about your degrees! Gracias Dr Glenn y Dr John
You know, all of this hubbub about DEI and merit seems to only gain media traction when we are talking about black and brown people. I am certain there are people of all stripes who are currently in highly selective positions, whose resumes may pale in comparison to someone else interested in the same position. I’ve always thought that affirmative action just allowed others to benefit from that same lack of complete adherence to merit that some other individual/groups may enjoy. Perhaps we should shout just as loudly the names on non minority individuals who are currently in positions whose resumes may be sufficient for the job but not better than someone who has demonstrated more merit. But nepotism and in-group out-group dynamics don’t create the same emotional response as DEI these days.
I believe you are 100% correct Glenn. Both in your original criticism of DEI and reasoned defense of your position. However, your response and reasoned defense require an understanding of nuance that seems to be lacking these days. There is a good chance that the people responsible for removing the history of the Code Talkers were relying heavily on AI software and not enough on knowledge and nuance. If that is the case, hopefully the historical reference and significance of The Code Talkers will be reinstated fully. I won’t hold my breath though, as nuance and reason are in short supply on the extreme right just as they are on the extreme left.
This piece is full of false statements about DEI that Glenn has been promoting for years (as he admits minus the false part). Of course he’s not going to see himself as having any culpability because he either has an inability to acknowledge he is wrong or more likely he knows he’s substantially manipulating the truth for profit and wants to take the spotlight he embarrassingly earned off of himself. It’s unjustifiable either way.
Black people have never and will never need some kind of government policy for people to look at us as undeserving of jobs or education. People looked at us as undeserving of LIFE for GENERATIONS, sir. Many still do. To imagine that somehow racism suddenly lost its teeth in less than a quarter of the generations it was being government sanctioned is contrary to your belief that your argument is sound and you have no culpability.
Your argument is not sound, and you do have culpability because there’s no good reason for your ignorance and/or evil, whichever the case(s) might be. You cannot write about race for decades and then surgically remove it from a discussion where it’s incredibly relevant and claim to be writing in good faith.
Each further piece you compose disgusts me further, and your cowardice in preventing yourself from being confronted about your mistakes, willful or not, is pathetic. The fact that you felt you had to write a piece to defend yourself says it all. You’re too old, stubborn, and greedy to rethink your path, but I’ll remain someone fighting steadfastly against your poisonous rhetoric for as long as possible.
For anyone interested in one of my recent criticisms of his work, check out my piece: https://willfullwood.substack.com/p/examining-the-poison-of-glenn-lourys
Thank you for this. Backlash to DEI is no different than Trump 1.0 instituted by Woodrow Wilson. One simply has to look at the incompetent s in Donald Trump’s cabinet. Blacks ar the scapegoats. Pockets are being picked by the likes of Peter Thiel who boasts “Howard is not Harvard”. The people who praise whites at Harvard tell the unwashed that elite education is trash. People understand the gaslighting. I share your disgust.
We live in a world where hiring managers jump through the fucking roof to hire minorities like yourself and others. Whatever racism you experienced in the past is surely counterbalanced by this modern phenomenon? Even just a little bit?
DEI was not 'fighting racism'. It was putting a foot on a scale because even in an environment where non-racists were utterly enthusiastic about hiring minority candidates for kudos and brownie points, it wasn't enough to really tip them like you hoped. So they fudged it even further. And now we've had enough.
If your Substack is just more 'we're still living in the shadow of Jim Crow' pablum, no thanks.
We absolutely do not live in a world where hiring managers jump through the fucking roof to hire minorities. That is a story you told yourself or were told by someone else that is not supported by reality. I suggest you examine why you decided this represents truth and review your process. Feel free to read my Substack or not. Your call. But since you’re already deciding what it is without reading it, I doubt you’d get much out of it. So long.
The short answer is, hell no.
While it’s possible for people to twist John’s or Glenn’s words to promote a political agenda like the anti DEI crusade, I don’t feel they (or any of us) have any significant control over which direction our society moves.
I had two effectively two options at the ballot box last November and I didn’t live in a swing state.
I think everyone here has well thought out and nuanced views on many political issues, but few people can hear us.