Marine Band Cancels Concert

[Finetales]

I'm sorry, but anyone who complains about DEI has absolutely no understanding of what DEI is, why it exists or how it works. It's as simple as that. DEI is not, and has never, ever been about discriminating against white people or men. It's about giving opportunities to people who have historically been systematically de facto denied these opportunities. In hiring, it doesn't mean hiring less qualified but more diverse people, it means making sure you go out of your way to also get applicants outside of your traditional applicant pool, because your traditional applicant pool had been systematically excluding people who DO deserve to be there, in favour of less qualified, less competent white dudes.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

But, as we know, to a group that has always been at the apex of privilege, being treated equally to others (rather than much better than others, at the others' direct expense) is a downgrade. Can't have that!

[glenp]

I'm sorry, but anyone who complains about DEI has absolutely no understanding of what DEI is, why it exists or how it works. It's as simple as that.

First, I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your understanding of the merits of DEI. While the concepts are not new to me personally, I recognize that they might be for others.

The only part I take issue with is the statement I quoted. It seems to be an example of the Begging the Question fallacy. It assumes its own conclusion - that anyone who opposes DEI must not understand it.

That said, you have no burden to defend DEI to me, because I’ve not made a well reasoned charge against DEI, nor do I have any intention of doing so.

[glenp]

I think that's a tough sell, because the positions and policies in question are entirely predicated on a lack of respect (when not an outright hatred) for certain groups, and a denial of their value as people. We don't get to demand compassion and respect from the very people who are everyday denied these very things.

I hear what you’re saying.

To be clear though, the compassion I am calling for is for us all to have compassion toward those who are negatively affected by these changes. You already have that in this case. As do I.

And the respect I think we should all aim for, is to approach each other with the goal of understanding before we jump to conclusions and argue. Don’t assume that we have the only good solution and that anyone who disagrees with our solution must deny that there is a problem and that they must be evil. There’s not nearly enough effort being put into truly understanding each other. Instead I see people being very spring loaded and jumping at the opportunity to argue.

[LeTromboniste]

I'm sorry, but anyone who complains about DEI has absolutely no understanding of what DEI is, why it exists or how it works. It's as simple as that.

First, I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your understanding of the merits of DEI. While the concepts are not new to me personally, I recognize that they might be for others.

The only part I take issue with is the statement I quoted. It seems to be an example of the Begging the Question fallacy. It assumes its own conclusion - that anyone who opposes DEI must not understand it.

That said, you have no burden to defend DEI to me, because I’ve not made a well reasoned charge against DEI, nor do I have any intention of doing so.

Well I have yet to meet anyone strongly opposed to DEI who actually understands what it means and how it works in reality (that is, when they even recognize there is a problem in with the status quo in the first place). I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but I have a really hard time processing how one could truly understand the reasons for, and the actual mechanisms of DEI policies, and also think it's wrong (unless they DO want white men to have a leg up, in which case they're overtly racist and I don't see why their opinion on the matter should count). We have an existing system that is overwhelmingly discriminatory. Any measure that mitigates that, helps remove discrimination, and helps giving opportunities to deserving people who so far were denied these opportunities is a positive change compared to the status quo. I simply don't see a possible logically sound rationale for being against discrimination while also being against progress in mitigating discrimination.

Could we find better solutions, or refine the solutions we're already applying? I'm sure we can. Are there incompetent HR people and managers out there who are misapplying DEI policies and hiring lesser-qualified people in favour of diversity? I'm sure there are some, but so are there countless HR people and managers who are bad at their jobs or have deep biases and hire (or fail to fire) incompetent and undeserving white men. Just looking at the number of white male sexual predators with music university teaching jobs is a pretty clear sign that ill-qualified white dudes are not exactly struggling to land jobs as it is (let alone well-qualified ones). But returning to the so-called "meritocracy" (a complete misnomer as it does not actually involve merit – and it's also very debatable how far from it we had come) is not an improvement, and not a valid solution to the very small proportion or times where DEI might have been misapplied. Going back to the previous status quo means actively returning to wholesale discrimination and bias. There's no world where that is progress.

[tbdana]

I keep thinking that there are fewer opportunities for women trombone players, and I imagine a group that created more opportunities for girls in music, which I think is laudable. And one thing they might do is hold an audition for the winners to play alongside the Marine Band, and what a wonderful opportunity that might be for girls who want to be trombonists or music educators. And I think that would be pretty cool and an important thing in their lives.

But then I think about it being cancelled because the Marines determined that such a concert would be construed as forbidden DEI. And I think about men coming in here to complain that it needed to be cancelled because the auditions weren't open to men. And I think about how such a thing would make those girls feel; these girls who worked for two years for the opportunity to play with The President's Own for one night, and who were filled with patriotic excitement about winning the chance to do that, only to have their spirits dashed because men weren't allowed to compete and take those spots, so they selfishly took away the opportunity those girls earned. Because, by god, if a man can't do it then nobody can do it.

Man, I still can't understand those white men who are against it. It just doesn't compute with me.

[glenp]

And I think about men coming in here to complain that it needed to be cancelled because the auditions weren't open to men.

Editing because I might have been wrong. I originally said that the only person who spoke in favor of canceling the concert was TromboneVan. They did not actually state that.

Apparently nobody has said in the forum that they support the cancellation of the concert.

[tbdana]

Editing because I might have been wrong. I originally said that the only person who spoke in favor of canceling the concert was TromboneVan. They did not actually state that.

Apparently nobody has said in the forum that they support the cancellation of the concert.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Doubler]

I have no problem with diversity; it shows us that there can be a commonality of thought and aspiration among people of differing backgrounds. I have no problem with inclusion; going out of our way to reach out to and encourage those who may have wanted to participate but have previously been discouraged from doing so is a positive thing.

Equity, especially in the context and execution of DEI, is problematic. When groups previously excluded for whatever reason are given priority over others without regard to ability, fairness is not only ignored, but prohibited. This harms those with ability, as they would rightly conclude that their efforts are disregarded in favor of those with less qualification. This also harms the recipients of this misplaced desire to make things right by punishing people who had no part in their perceived inequality, in that it fosters a belief that social situation matters more than the results of effort. In a truly equitable scenario, accomplishment is rewarded, and we all are better for it, as it encourages everyone to improve themselves and the world around them.

How does this relate to the cancellation of the concert? Well, the concert could have proceeded as planned, giving the impression, however slight, that this is an acknowledgement that DEI is OK in some instances. On the other hand, cancelling the performance shows, to a similarly small degree, that there is no tolerance for unfairness. Neither choice is without flaws. A compromise, such as allowing this concert to proceed, and making a point of not continuing further performances involving bias toward perceived minorities, may have been a better, but still not entirely satisfactory, choice. A harsh reality, however, is that life's not always fair, and what one hopes for and expects doesn't always come to pass. This is a lesson we all learn at some stage of our lives, often at a young age. As painful as it may be, it gives us the opportunity to learn and to devise ways to overcome the disappointments life inflicts upon us.

[WilliamLang]

DEI initiatives are great. I've been happy and proud to be a part of a few and will continue to participate in them in the future. This concert should have never been cancelled, and the cancellation is an admission of fear and cowardice.

[Finetales]

When groups previously excluded for whatever reason are given priority over others without regard to ability, fairness is not only ignored, but prohibited.

That's not DEI. That's what everyone who objects to DEI claims it is, and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what DEI is.

As Maximilien has already explained beautifully, the whole point of DEI is to ensure that more qualified people of marginalized groups are not passed over for less qualified white men, which has been the norm in this country (and elsewhere) for centuries.

People arguing against DEI always claim that DEI is unnecessary because "if you're qualified (regardless of race/gender/sexuality/etc.), you'll get hired", but that's just not the reality. It is in fact exactly the reality that DEI is attempting to create.

[Digidog]

I won’t give in to that. And I think we need to expect more of each other. I think we can find a way to disagree about solutions, and still respect and care for each other as people who have value.

.....but some values are either intact and upheld with no ambiguity, or else they are completely denied and refuted. Like the value of life; you cannot half value another person's life. You either admit that a person has a right to their life, or not.

This is why a binary division gets created when individuals or groups get denied their rights to a complete and worthy opportunity for a complete and worthy life, since even partial restrictions to those rights in the end actually means a total dismissal of their right to live.

Since life is either live or dead, the denial of conditions for a life in all its aspects and whatever it may be, is actually a binary statement of denial of life as a whole. Hence the expression "living dead".

....and yes: The opportunity to take part in an audition for a public performance, is very much a part of a worthy and complete life. This has nothing to do with the event per se, rather than the theoretical guidlines of whom gets access to all aspects of life in a society, and not.

The example of this concert, is almost an exact copy of how it started in Germany in the -30's.

[LeTromboniste]

Equity, especially in the context and execution of DEI, is problematic. When groups previously excluded for whatever reason are given priority over others without regard to ability, fairness is not only ignored, but prohibited. This harms those with ability, as they would rightly conclude that their efforts are disregarded in favor of those with less qualification.

Again, that's not what Equity is, and that's not how DEI works. And even if it might be true that is has in some instances been misapplied that way, that happens a fraction of the the times where the exact opposite priority is still given. People being excluded didn't happen in a vacuum. They were excluded because white men were systematically prioritized, and to a large extent they still are, despite DEI efforts.

Also, do you realize how ironic it is that you follow your plee for fairness highlighted above with this?

A harsh reality, however, is that life's not always fair, and what one hopes for and expects doesn't always come to pass. This is a lesson we all learn at some stage of our lives, often at a young age. As painful as it may be, it gives us the opportunity to learn and to devise ways to overcome the disappointments life inflicts upon us.

So marginalized communities need to accept that "life's not always fair", and this unfairness is good because it gives them opportunities to "learn and devise ways to overcome disappointments". Yet fairness towards white men is sacred and must be absolute. DEI gives the impression of "prohibiting fairness" at the expense of white men, so it must go. Heaven forbid that white men also realize that life's not always fair to them either, and have to deal with disappointments...or that they might have to face the hard truth that as hard as they legitimately have it in life, they're still overall more privileged than any other group and overwhelmingly prioritized.

I'm sure this bias you put on paper so plainly and clearly is not conscious, and that your intentions are good and you want fairness, and consider yourself a fair person. The fact that you have that unconscious bias, and that similarly, a lot of people in positions of power – bosses, HR, legislators, judges, cops, admissions officers, teachers, etc etc also have such biases, conscious or not – is precisely the reason why DEI is needed. Seriously, I couldn't have given a better illustration of it if I had tried.

[tromboneVan]

DEI is dead on a federal level based on the stance the 47 administration has taken, that was the point of why the concert was cancelled, and what I think many are failing to understand just yet... That isn't my opinion, that is the fact of the matter under our current government.

[Burgerbob]

Yup, we know. And it’s stupid and short sighted and a bit evil.

[tromboneVan]

Yup, we know. And it’s stupid and short sighted and a bit evil.

There is a short sightedness that ignores the fact that the USA has been through a period of racial injustice. To do the same, but in reverse still sets the same precedent, which ultimately leads to more racial discrimination. I suggest that many re-examine these words of Martin Luther King jr. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,”. Are you sure that you speak for all minorities, in espousing how great you think DEI is? It is a form of mental slavery to tell people that they need special treatment that excludes particular people in order that they are not over looked... actually the audition process is fair, and Americans of all races actually voted against these policies, in voting for Trump. That simply put does not mean Americans are bigots. That keeps the many minority members of society, who voted for Trump shackled to the woke-mental plantation, that the left is on, and assume that minorities in large believe in. I do not think that minorities really think they need that to succeed, and many are not for it... the majority of our country voted to end DEI, in voting for President Trump. He has a huge amount of support from both the black and hispanic community... What about their perspective, or do you speak for them? That is the point of a representative democracy, the point of voting. Yes you can bemoan the tyranny of the majority, but this is part of the challenge of the American system.

There is less of a minority presence in orchestras, and in classical music in general, because there is a smaller pool of applicants within that demographic. I do not disagree with the need for there to be more diversity, but that means creating a larger applicant pool to begin with, and many organizations are doing that. We can all agree that is a great thing. But it's dead as far as something the federal government is involved with funding, or even being attached to, and that is what the people voted for.

[Kdanielsen]

I stopped reading when you called diversity, equity, and inclusion “mental slavery.” I just can’t believe someone could write that and not understand how offensive that is. The lack of perspective is shocking.

[NotSkilledHere]

Im not going to participate in arguing one way or another because frankly this can continue forever as finger pointing and everyone hating each other, but i will state what I have seen. Im Asian so take what I say however you decide to if you feel that has an impact on things for whatever reason.

On the ORIGINAL principles and intent and purpose of DEI, I do agree wholeheartedly on things. Everyone should be hired based on ability and qualifications and not race, gender, orientation, or whatever else might be used to discriminate against people.

However, like every movement, I think there are many instances where it has been taken advantage of by bad actors and abused in ways not originally intended. Does that mean I think the people acting properly with DEI should suffer from it? no. Do I think bad actors are abusing it everywhere? Absolutely

I think when DEI is implemented correctly, it's fine and works well. However, I have personally seen a couple bad actors cause my friend's company to go up in flames because those bad actors made hires of their personal friends with the excuse of DEI, when it was obvious to everyone that the person hired is more than unfit for the job and has no intention of actually putting in their work to complete their deliverables. and he couldn't just fire them and when he DID finally have cause to fire them because of more than 1 repeated offense of failed deliverables and workplace harassments and general disrespect based on complaints, it was too late and their failures had caused the company to lose customers and go under. and I think there are more instances of that than people are giving credit for.

Was that the fault of DEI? You can say no because the original principles and purpose of DEI were not meant to be used in that way. It was the fault of the people using it in the wrong way. You can also say yes because the way those bad actors acted was because DEI was used improperly to hire and KEEP PEOPLE HIRED that shouldn't have. So was it the fault of DEI? yes and no.

Do I think there are people claiming a business went up in flames because of DEI when it's definitely not? absolutely! no questions. Just like how I mentioned bad actors can abuse DEI to hire people, I think people can abuse those cases as precedent to claim DEI is the reason for something it didn't directly or indirectly cause.

Truth is DEI's fundamentals and idealogy is GOOD, but there are many cases of how it was implemented and used was BAD....and there are lots of people who have genuinely been on the bad end of that...and some genuinely had a bad taste directly about DEI because of that.

I'm not here to pour fuel on a fire or put out someone else's flame, but that's the truth.

I get it when people say DEI is necessary. I also get it when people feel that DEI is bad because of something they experienced. Both can be true at the same time simply based on the idea that the people implementing DEI may or may not be bad actors or misinterpreters of the intention and purpose of DEI.

I will now exit this thread return to browsing this forum for trombone content

[LeTromboniste]

To do the same, but in reverse still sets the same precedent, which ultimately leads to more racial discrimination.

...

It is a form of mental slavery to tell people that they need special treatment that excludes particular people in order that they are not over looked...

Again, this is not what DEI is or how it works. It simply isn't. Stop listening to or reading whatever information sources convinced you it is, because it's not. And it's not like a better solution is being offered, to further improve things. The only solution proposed land currently enacted in your country) is to go back to the discrimination that's clearly proven itself over centuries to be rampant and debilitating.



Elections are not a single-issue vote. A majority of votes for a candidate or party doesn't mean the majority supports every single proposal or position of that candidate or party.

Beyond that, there's also such a thing as people not being well informed, or actually being misinformed. There is a worldwide crisis of information literacy, and the US in particular is suffering from that tremendously. The quality of information being fed to your people is absolutely abysmal, with a race to the lowest common denominator and appeals to everyone's lowest instincts. It's difficult and boring to explain how DEI works and why it's needed, and it requires humility a willingness to examine their bias on the part of the listener that many if not most leople don't have. Meanwhile, it's incredibly easy to spin it the other way, and use demagoguery to demonize it, and capitalize on the average person's wish to feel good about themselves and their natural tendency to think in individual terms first and not in terms of community or society.

Im not going to participate in arguing one way or another because frankly this can continue forever as finger pointing and everyone hating each other, but i will state what I have seen. Im Asian so take what I say however you decide to if you feel that has an impact on things for whatever reason.

On the ORIGINAL principles and intent and purpose of DEI, I do agree wholeheartedly on things. Everyone should be hired based on ability and qualifications and not race, gender, orientation, or whatever else might be used to discriminate against people.

However, like every movement, I think there are many instances where it has been taken advantage of by bad actors and abused in ways not originally intended. Does that mean I think the people acting properly with DEI should suffer from it? no. Do I think bad actors are abusing it everywhere? Absolutely

I think when DEI is implemented correctly, it's fine and works well. However, I have personally seen a couple bad actors cause my friend's company to go up in flames because those bad actors made hires of their personal friends with the excuse of DEI, when it was obvious to everyone that the person hired is more than unfit for the job and has no intention of actually putting in their work to complete their deliverables. and he couldn't just fire them and when he DID finally have cause to fire them because of more than 1 repeated offense of failed deliverables and workplace harassments and general disrespect based on complaints, it was too late and their failures had caused the company to lose customers and go under. and I think there are more instances of that than people are giving credit for.

Was that the fault of DEI? You can say no because the original principles and purpose of DEI were not meant to be used in that way. It was the fault of the people using it in the wrong way. You can also say yes because the way those bad actors acted was because DEI was used improperly to hire and KEEP PEOPLE HIRED that shouldn't have. So was it the fault of DEI? yes and no.

Do I think there are people claiming a business went up in flames because of DEI when it's definitely not? absolutely! no questions. Just like how I mentioned bad actors can abuse DEI to hire people, I think people can abuse those cases as precedent to claim DEI is the reason for something it didn't directly or indirectly cause.

Truth is DEI's fundamentals and idealogy is GOOD, but there are many cases of how it was implemented and used was BAD....and there are lots of people who have genuinely been on the bad end of that...and some genuinely had a bad taste directly about DEI because of that.

I'm not here to pour fuel on a fire or put out someone else's flame, but that's the truth.

I get it when people say DEI is necessary. I also get it when people feel that DEI is bad because of something they experienced. Both can be true at the same time simply based on the idea that the people implementing DEI may or may not be bad actors or misinterpreters of the intention and purpose of DEI.

I will now exit this thread return to browsing this forum for trombone content

Yes, there is incompetence and/or malice everywhere. Is DEI being wrongly used in many places? I'm sure it is. Nepotism is a thing, whether it's being done with the cover of DEI or not. But when white people hire their white friends, we call it nepotism (rightly), and not a problem with DEI. When white men in general are being unduly prioritized over more qualified people, it's not a problem with DEI, it's business as usual, it's the overwhelmingly normal state of affairs.

[Cmillar]

It's certainly sad that the 'President's Own' had to succumb to such evil, backwards, inhumane policy.

So...it's come down to these facts: (this IS the Tangents Forum)

- the Trump/Musk/Vance/Project 2025/Stephen Miller/GOP regime is built on an inherently racist view of the world. That's obvious by now and unquestionable. Unquestionable.

- they don't want to see people of color around them. That's obvious by now too. So...no DEI anywhere.

- Trump is wholly indebted to the Russians for the last 40 or more years of his 'business' life. They have the goods on him.

- the cowards and sycophants in the GOP Senate and Congress and even Judges/Lawyers are having their lives threatened if they don't go along with what the regime wants. Who's threatening them? Logically it's Putin/Russian mob henchmen.
(the facts are there...diligent reporters have done their homework....the dots are there to be followed....the trail is there....too many 'accidental deaths' over the last few decades and many, many instances of politicians just totally doing a '180 degree spin' overnight.) It may seem like a thriller/movie plot, but it's real life shit happening)

- only half the voters in the country bothered to vote. And only 24% of them voted for Trump. So, they don't have a mandate. They're attempting a complete coup and hoping to get away with it.

- ANYONE that voted for any GOP/Trump has to look at themselves in the mirror. THEY are part of the problem. THEY helped create the problem. That's not even open for debate.

- the regime is trying to make as many disruptions as they can right now, because the American people are catching on to what's really happening. Democrats and everybody is getting organized and laying low for awhile, which is smart. The tide will turn. There will be more chaos, but the tide will turn.

- if I was a military musician, I would expect complete chaos for a couple of years. And base closures. They've had a good run up until now. Musk won't want to see any tax payer dollars going to something as 'superfluous' as musicians, right? Do people think he'll do anything otherwise? Really?

- youth programs of any kind (music, sports, etc. ) will be treated like semi-Musk/nazi/tech youth training centers in the very close foreseeable future. Oh...and totally privatized if the GOP can get away with it. No tax payer dollars going anywhere to help America's youth. They sure as hell don't want to see any kids of color succeeding at anything.

- people have to wake up to the fact that Musk is an evil mother fricker. Pure evil. (well... so is Trump). That's not even debatable. He's certifiably nuts. (probably has syphilus or something too)

- this is the first real chaos the USA has ever experienced in it's history. It'll survive Trump. Other country's have gone through much worse in their own histories. It's going to be a rough couple of years though. Some storm before the calm.

- people won't just 'roll over' in the US. The tide will turn on Trump/Putin and their henchmen.

I'm a White Male. None of us has ever had to experience what people of color (any color) have had to go through during the history of the USA. And nothing has changed for African Americans...nothing. (If you don't have any black friends, then you have a lot to learn). Racism is rampant in the US. Always has been, and it's much worse in the southern states too.

If I was European or from somewhere else in the world, I'd advise against moving to the US for a few years. Why? You won't have any health care, job, place to live, etc.
OH... maybe you have $5 million to buy a Trump Gold Card that gives you an entry path? And then what?

May the Universal Creator look kindly upon this planet. Evil humans are trying to do evil things right now more than ever. Things will change, but not overnight.

[WGWTR180]

I stopped reading when you called diversity, equity, and inclusion “mental slavery.” I just can’t believe someone could write that and not understand how offensive that is. The lack of perspective is shocking.

I agree with you completely.

[Kbiggs]

There is a short sightedness that ignores the fact that the USA has been through a period of racial injustice. To do the same, but in reverse still sets the same precedent, which ultimately leads to more racial discrimination.

There is so much in these two sentences, and in your posts above, that is (a) disingenuous, (b) logically flawed, and (c) inconsistent with the facts of history that I really don’t know where to begin. But I’ll try… Just wait a minute while I doff my political scientist’s hat… (Yes, in case you were wondering, I have a graduate degree in political science.)

To begin, the USA has not “been through” a period of racial injustice. It continues to experience racial injustice, and—some argue—was founded on the idea of exclusion and injustice. The so-called Pilgrims—Puritans, as they were known in England—came to America to found their own colony of like-minded believers. Another way to say it: they moved to a place they thought was deserted so they could be just as intolerant of others as people in England were intolerant of them.

As the country grew, large parts were founded on and relied upon systematic racial injustice. Fast-forward a few years, and the League of Confederate States lost the war. Despite that, the US South continued to deliberately and systematically exclude Black Americans from participating in government: sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, poll tax, literacy tests, red-lined housing districts, destruction of minority neighborhoods in the name of progress... At one time, Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land despite the end of the Civil War.

The efforts of MLK, Malcom X, the Civil Rights Movement, etc., have not succeeded—yet. We have not been through a period of racial injustice. We continue to experience racial, gender, and faith-based injustice. DEI initiatives are not “racial discrimination in reverse.” They are an effort to help people who have been systematically excluded from political, financial, and social opportunities in this country. Ending DEI initiatives based on the whims of the privileged few does not mean that race-based injustice has ended. If anything, it will increase.

I suggest that many re-examine these words of Martin Luther King jr. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,”. Are you sure that you speak for all minorities, in espousing how great you think DEI is? It is a form of mental slavery to tell people that they need special treatment that excludes particular people in order that they are not over looked…

It takes a willfully blind eye to state that people of different races, colors, religions, genders, etc., are on equal footing in America, never mind in Trump’s America. As examples, in pay and hiring, non-white people and non-male people on the whole continue to receive pay lower than white males, given the same jobs and performance evaluations. If they have a last name that is perceived to be not-White, people with white-looking names are considered over them in a pool of candidates with similar work histories and credentials.

Another example: Think of the continued efforts of many so-called red states to gerrymander political districts to under-represent non-white voters, thus diluting their political power.

King also stated, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." That is simply an acknowledgement of the length that such battles—which have been and will continue to be fought throughout history—will take. It is also, along with his “I have a dream” speech, a statement of hope.

Ah, the old “mental slavery” argument. That’s simply a red herring. In this particular case, it’s a red herring that is spoiled and stinks. No one who advocates for DEI initiatives specifically, or who has worked for justice in general, has suggested that non-white people are in any way inferior, and that they need to be promoted because they are in any way “less than” white Americans. That turns the argument on its head. People who are against racial, religious, and gender equality put forth that fallacy that to level the playing field is to give preferential treatment. If anything, the history of the US demonstrates that white Christian males have an unfair advantage in life—period. They receive preferential treatment based largely upon the fact that they are white. (And yes, in case you are wondering, they are many psychological and sociological studies that demonstrate this.)

Yes, in some cases, governments in America have put policies in place that have incorrectly promoted non-white, non-Christian, non-male candidates over white, Christian, male candidates. The proper—and just—way to address inequalities like this is in court. To eliminate an entire a program that has helped so many people who have fewer opportunities is, to use yet another metaphor, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I do not think that minorities really think they need that to succeed, and many are not for it... the majority of our country voted to end DEI, in voting for President Trump.

He has a huge amount of support from both the black and hispanic community... What about their perspective, or do you speak for them? That is the point of a representative democracy, the point of voting. Yes you can bemoan the tyranny of the majority, but this is part of the challenge of the American system.

“Many are not for it.” I would be very interested to see how many you believe is “many.” “He has a huge amount of support from both the black and hispanic community...” I would also be very interested to see how many you believe is “a huge amount of support.”

The majority of the US did not vote to end DEI, even though Trump’s agenda was plain to see for anyone who cared open their eyes (See “Project 2025” in general.) Trump did not win the popular vote, although he did win the Electoral College vote, which is all that matters these days. (As an aside, the Electoral College, as initially put in place, was actually quite fair and in keeping with The Founder’s idea of diluting power and frustrating factions [read: political parties], but the machinations of Thomas Jefferson put an end to it.)

A minority of Americans—less than 50%—voted for Trump because they believed what he said despite facts. (Did Trump tell the truth? No. Did he lie? Yes. Did he do so in order to win the presidency? Yes.)

We currently do not have a tyranny of the majority. What we have in America is a tyranny of the minority: a small and vocal minority has managed to seize power through lies and deception and are now re-writing the rules in their own favor. It’s a familiar historical ploy: create an emergency, present yourself as The One to Save America (or Athens, or Rome, or Weimar Germany, or 1968 Hungary), exert influence to gain power, and then use the trappings of legitimate government to end it.

There is less of a minority presence in orchestras, and in classical music in general, because there is a smaller pool of applicants within that demographic. I do not disagree with the need for there to be more diversity, but that means creating a larger applicant pool to begin with, and many organizations are doing that. We can all agree that is a great thing. But it's dead as far as something the federal government is involved with funding, or even being attached to, and that is what the people voted for.

“…many organizations are doing that.” Just because some organizations have started to do such things does not mean that many are doing that.

“…it's dead as far as something the federal government is involved with funding.” It was killed through executive fiat, not through legislative action. And as we all know, Congress makes and passes laws. The President is charged with executing the law. I, for one, would argue that Trump is not executing the law of the land in good faith. He is picking and choosing in an arbitrary and capricious manner those laws he likes and wants (those that will help him and his followers gain more wealth and power), and illegally ending those he doesn’t want (those he dislikes or hates).

“..and that is what the people voted for.” Again: no.

[tromboneVan]

There's a lot of assumptions, ad hominem attacks, casual use of terms like "bigots" when speaking to the majority of your fellow country... some are analyzing America from overseas as if they know better than what you observe and see on your own soil with your own eyes, not to mention their shallow understanding of history. What is disingenuous is to say that it isn't a major majority that support & elected a president, and thus also were voting in favor of those policies. There are many black and hispanic and minority voters who support Trump, so it gets tiresome hearing the same unfounded tropes tossed around so casually, thus discounted and lumping individuals together by race, as if there isn't anything but White people that support Trump. . The majority of people are not so ignorant and stupid, and see the truth for what it is, rather than the divisive lies and tactics designed to divide people, rather than unite.

[tbdana]

Honestly, it's a very white movement.

[BGuttman]

I should point out that many Blacks and especially Hispanics voted for Trump not so much because of his program but because of the gender of his opponent. We saw this in both elections he won. Note that when he ran against a male opponent he lost.

Sorry, I know no politics but this has degenerated into a political discussion.

If in fact there was no discrimination against races or genders in this country we would not need DEI. But there is, so we still do.

[MStarke]

It's shocking and fascinating at the same time to watch this mess from Europe.

Zero morals, pure opportunistic behavior. Old rich men trying to be even more powerful and a huge amount of voters who wanted it that way and another probably bigger group who didn't understand it before.

Also, as a dad of a heavily disabled kid I am very happy that I have just today seen her being part of an inclusive musical production and getting the support and acceptance that she needs every day.

Glad NOT to live in the US. I hope this takes max a few years until it sorts itself out again.

[Cmillar]

There is a short sightedness that ignores the fact that the USA has been through a period of racial injustice. To do the same, but in reverse still sets the same precedent, which ultimately leads to more racial discrimination.

There is so much in these two sentences, and in your posts above, that is (a) disingenuous, (b) logically flawed, and (c) inconsistent with the facts of history that I really don’t know where to begin. But I’ll try… Just wait a minute while I doff my political scientist’s hat… (Yes, in case you were wondering, I have a graduate degree in political science.)

To begin, the USA has not “been through” a period of racial injustice. It continues to experience racial injustice, ..........

Yes, on everything you say. You know.

People that try to 'toss off' racial discrimination as some kind of 'temporary glitch' or something like that are beyond arguing with. They're too far gone at this point.

Or, they've lead extremely sheltered lives. Maybe never been out of their home town.

Pretty sad.

This moment in time...right now... is showing people's 'true colors'.

[tromboneVan]

Pretty sad how some treat others on here, not much diversity of ideas on this forum. Your mentality is because someone disagrees with you, they aren't entitled to an opinion. Just screeching ideologues with no facts to back up their rhetoric. You act like the President's Own was going to disobey EO 13985 obviously are very naive about how the military operates... that isn't my opinion, that is the obvious fact of the matter as to why the concert was cancelled.. see to what extremes that you stretch the conversation to morph it into some form of attack against wrong think?

[tbdana]

You act like the President's Own was going to disobey EO 13985

Let's just emphatically add that no one blames the band. They were just following the president's order the best they knew how. You have completely misunderstood what people are saying. So, that's yet another thing you've gotten wrong, here.

[tromboneVan]

I haven't misunderstood anything, I do regret answering your questions so you could twist my words around. You expect people to jump when you say jump, but nobody owes you that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

[CalgaryTbone]

It was not a "major majority" that elected the current occupant of the White House. I'll leave it up to someone else to google the popular vote stats (I have to leave for work soon - don't have the time), but Trump received somewhere just a couple of points shy of 50%, Harris was a couple of percentage points behind him, and the remaining small percentage left went to 3rd party candidates. The Electoral College results makes it seem like a larger win for him, than it was in terms of actual votes. I will not dispute that he won, and that the Electoral College is the system we use - so there is no one crying "rigged election" as was falsely claimed in 2020.

Of the people that voted for him, a significant portion were Independants hoping for lower egg prices, etc. They don't seem to be getting that, and the polling suggests that they too are not very fond of the way things are going. I would guess that many of them are also saddened to see some high-achieving kids from some marginalized communities miss out on an inspiring event like this for no justifiable reason.

I read your Wikipedia attachment - you might wish to take a look in the mirror and read back your own words from your numerous posts - it might strike you as being ironic if you actually use some reasoning.

Jim Scott

[bitbckt]

49.8% of voters who showed up (63.9% of eligible) is the number you’re looking for, Jim. No “major majority” to be found.

[LeTromboniste]

Pretty sad how some treat others on here, not much diversity of ideas on this forum. Your mentality is because someone disagrees with you, they aren't entitled to an opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Nobody, however, is entitled to not have their opinion challenged after they express it. Freedom of speech is not freedom to say anything you want without anyone responding; it's freedom to say what you want and for anybody to say what they want in return. Nobody called you names, nobody threatened you. Merely disagreeing with you and challenging the opinions you expressed is not treating you badly, it's called having a discussion, which is what an online forum is for.

Moreover, everyone is indeed entitled to any opinion, but that's not to say all opinions have equal validity. I'd be entitled to the opinion that the universe orbits around the earth, or that the oceans are filled with monsters that will swallow any ship that ventures beyond the horizon from land, but that doesn't mean those opinions have any validity to them, or that you'd be doing something wrong when you'd tell me my opinions have no basis in fact.

[elmsandr]

Pretty sad how some treat others on here, not much diversity of ideas on this forum. Your mentality is because someone disagrees with you, they aren't entitled to an opinion. Just screeching ideologues with no facts to back up their rhetoric. You act like the President's Own was going to disobey EO 13985 obviously are very naive about how the military operates... that isn't my opinion, that is the obvious fact of the matter as to why the concert was cancelled.. see to what extremes that you stretch the conversation to morph it into some form of attack against wrong think?

I love the invocation of ‘wrong think’ when the actual targeting group is the one that is purging things based on wording.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/20 ... roops.html

And yes, when you stand up to defend these actions, this is openly inviting bigots to the table. And you know what? When you sit with the bigots and empower them… that makes your actions those of a bigot… I don’t care what you believe in your heart or how you want to talk about it later; actions matter. You have a choice, and it is your choices that are earning you feedback.

May you have the day you deserve,
Andy

[Doubler]

Equity, especially in the context and execution of DEI, is problematic. When groups previously excluded for whatever reason are given priority over others without regard to ability, fairness is not only ignored, but prohibited. This harms those with ability, as they would rightly conclude that their efforts are disregarded in favor of those with less qualification.

Again, that's not what Equity is, and that's not how DEI works. And even if it might be true that is has in some instances been misapplied that way, that happens a fraction of the the times where the exact opposite priority is still given. People being excluded didn't happen in a vacuum. They were excluded because white men were systematically prioritized, and to a large extent they still are, despite DEI efforts.

I hope we can agree that equity has to do with the fairness of treating people equally, regardless of race, religion, or creed. In the context of DEI, this ideal has at times become revenge for past wrongs, for example, by disqualifying the best or equally capable candidates for a position in favor of ones whose demographic has been treated unfairly in the past and whose abilities may or may not be equal to that of the members of a perceived favored group, such as your example of those whom you call white men.

Also, we must be careful when categorizing people into groups, that we do not assume that all members of that group share all characteristics assigned to that group. For example, you could say that a particular ethnic group votes for a particular political party, when in fact 80% do, and 20% vote for the opposite party. It is lazy, misleading, prejudicial, and dishonest to treat all members of that group as if they vote in a bloc, instead of individually.

Also, do you realize how ironic it is that you follow your plee for fairness highlighted above with this?

A harsh reality, however, is that life's not always fair, and what one hopes for and expects doesn't always come to pass. This is a lesson we all learn at some stage of our lives, often at a young age. As painful as it may be, it gives us the opportunity to learn and to devise ways to overcome the disappointments life inflicts upon us.

So marginalized communities need to accept that "life's not always fair", and this unfairness is good because it gives them opportunities to "learn and devise ways to overcome disappointments". Yet fairness towards white men is sacred and must be absolute. DEI gives the impression of "prohibiting fairness" at the expense of white men, so it must go. Heaven forbid that white men also realize that life's not always fair to them either, and have to deal with disappointments...or that they might have to face the hard truth that as hard as they legitimately have it in life, they're still overall more privileged than any other group and overwhelmingly prioritized.

I'm sure this bias you put on paper so plainly and clearly is not conscious, and that your intentions are good and you want fairness, and consider yourself a fair person. The fact that you have that unconscious bias, and that similarly, a lot of people in positions of power – bosses, HR, legislators, judges, cops, admissions officers, teachers, etc etc also have such biases, conscious or not – is precisely the reason why DEI is needed. Seriously, I couldn't have given a better illustration of it if I had tried.

Please don't misinterpret my comments. When I say that life's not always fair, I mean that life's not always fair, universally, and unfairness is never good. We nevertheless fare better when we find ways to cope with injustice than when we adopt a victim mentality that closes off the possibility of overcoming adversity. Clearly many people of all backgrounds have faced and overcome unfairness, sometimes in spectacularly positive ways. And please don't accuse me of having harmful bias, unconscious or otherwise; I am aware of the effects of privilege and lack of privilege, and I am aware of who has been associated with both, and imposing unfairness under the guise of "Equity" will not produce the desired outcome.

[hornbuilder]

Thank you Cmiller and Kbiggs!!!

[Digidog]

There's a lot of assumptions, ad hominem attacks, casual use of terms like "bigots" when speaking to the majority of your fellow country... some are analyzing America from overseas as if they know better than what you observe and see on your own soil with your own eyes, not to mention their shallow understanding of history.

During my years as a student of music, I happened to have three teachers whom all one way or the other escaped the Holocaust. Two managed to flee with parts of their families before they could be arrested, and one was actually sent to Auschwitz with her whole family. Sadly, but naturally, they are all passed now. The last only a couple of years ago.

They all said that cancellations exactly like this, and the denial of rights to pursue their studies and practise on equal terms and in the same spaces of society, was how the slide towards the ultimate disaster began.

What is disingenuous is to say that it isn't a major majority that support & elected a president, and thus also were voting in favor of those policies. There are many black and hispanic and minority voters who support Trump, so it gets tiresome hearing the same unfounded tropes tossed around so casually, thus discounted and lumping individuals together by race, as if there isn't anything but White people that support Trump. . The majority of people are not so ignorant and stupid, and see the truth for what it is, rather than the divisive lies and tactics designed to divide people, rather than unite.

Lying to voters and false pretenses, are as old as politics itself. It cannot come as a surprise to anyone, that propaganda, silencing of criticism and outright buying of votes are some of the tools of a totalitarian fascist and corrupt admirer of violence and coercion.

For me, as a bystander looking at it from Europe, the whole process is so similar to the slide towards the nazi dictatorship and the subsequent Holocaust, that it's genuinely frightening. Even some terms and phrasings are almost the exact same, not to mention that rabid tech bro's onstage heiling.

[tromboneVan]

Honestly, it's a very white movement.

[claf]

I should point out that many Blacks and especially Hispanics voted for Trump not so much because of his program but because of the gender of his opponent. We saw this in both elections he won. Note that when he ran against a male opponent he lost.

From my European point of view, that's exactly what happened.
People didn't vote for Trump, they voted against a woman (not to mention she also was of mixed origins).

[LeTromboniste]

I hope we can agree that equity has to do with the fairness of treating people equally, regardless of race, religion, or creed. In the context of DEI, this ideal has at times become revenge for past wrongs, for example, by disqualifying the best or equally capable candidates for a position in favor of ones whose demographic has been treated unfairly in the past and whose abilities may or may not be equal to that of the members of a perceived favored group, such as your example of those whom you call white men.

For the umpteenth time, it's not what DEI is, does, how it works or what it aims for. Y'all need to stop drinking the Kool Aid.

Please don't misinterpret my comments. When I say that life's not always fair, I mean that life's not always fair, universally, and unfairness is never good.

Except its not been the case "universally", has it? Life is more unfair to some than it is to others, is the whole point of this. White men, on average, face way less "unfairness" than anybody else. And I'm saying that as one of them. When they have it better than everyone else, you can bet it's because they're having better at everybody else's expense. Trying to prevent that is not creating more injustice, it's removing injustice that's already there, imbedded in the system.

And please don't accuse me of having harmful bias, unconscious or otherwise;

Everyone has harmful biases, conscious or not. Everyone. You never fully get rid of them, there's always one more buried a little deeper. You just reiterated, in essence that "it's good for them to face unfairness, that's how they'll fare better and stop having a victim mentality", while victimizing white men for supposedly being discriminated against (which they're simply not). That's bias. It's plainly obvious to the reader and jumps off the screen.

[tromboneVan]

You are the most dismissive person on the forum, who has drank the most of the kool-aid, yet, look at the representation of minorities in your ensembles. Are they represented or not? Is it simply that you don't have a large demographic of minorities in your country, in early music even less, right? See you can't make people out of thin air, they have to exist in the fist place to be taking the auditions to be in the audition pool to be considered.. in the same audition as everyone else. People want to be treated equally. It's actually a form of abuse to coddle. Do you not see how your bias jumps off the screen? You come off as a screeching ideologue, and a hypocrite because you don't walk the walk with your own ensembles. I see less than 50% female representation in your groups, too. That is another topic you were very vocal about. But are you just a theorist or do you ever practice your racial / gender theory? It's very clear who the real racists and sexists are, because all you focus on in every forum conversation is race and gender. You don't just get to say "you're wrong, I'm right" all the time, and have that mean anything for people with multiple braincells, who think for themselves. No matter how many times you take mine and others thoughts out of context, mince people's statements, and say Im right you're wrong, you are still in a very small vocal minority that things in such an ignorant way. Hence, why people in America love Trump,... because you are not a representative or even part of the sample group, or a voting member of our society. It's again, Dunning-Kruger. You simply do not know what you do not know. This is a problem with the more arrogant you are, and the more you think you know.. when in fact you know less and less the more arrogant and lacking of humility you are as a person. You may not, but I see my black and brown MAGA family and I am glad that their voice was heard, and that we have a true representative government, working for the people. It really doesn't matter what you Swiss-Canadians and German people think because you don't vote in American elections.... keep screeching to the 10 people that will listen to you here, because it is going to be a long couple years without slamming that ignore button.

[hornbuilder]

...

[musicofnote]

It's really rather amusing that almost everyone posting on this thread simply accepts either actively or passively the Trumpian & Co. definition of what DEI is and how it operates

EXCEPT

the dude from Germany, who tried to explain what it's really for and what it's not, how and why it really was applied and how it wasn't, what separates the facts from the political hyperbole. But that doesn't really matter in today's non-fact world.

As for me, as a refugee who had to pay ransom to obtain his freedom from Uncle Sam, I look at all this, in all it's layers, and similar to what Berthold Brecht wrote after he was forced out of Germany in 1935, and feel an intense feeling of Schadenfreude, as he did at the time.

From a friend:
„What is DEI? When we don’t have full knowledge of things we tend to make judgements on what others say it is
So in case you don’t know really what DEI means here’s some info to help you see -
Some of what DEI is:
-ramps and sidewalk curb cuts
-subtitles & captions (TV & phone)
-family restrooms
-changing tables in men’s restrooms
-breast feeding/pumping stations & accommodations
-floating paid holidays
-pay equity & transparency
-parental leave (time & pay)
-coming back to a job after birthing a child
-not having to just accept workplace harassment
-work accommodations for a variety of disabilities
-flexible work arrangements
-size inclusive chairs and beds in medical facilities
-belt extenders on planes
-various food options for vegetarians/vegans/kosher/gluten-free/etc at medical facilities
-non smoking areas/end of smoking indoors
-being able to have medical professionals and your coworkers use your preferred name (not just queer people have those)
-wellness programs and incentives
-more relaxed & inclusive dress code policies
-rooms to pray/meditate at work & other public places
-employee recognition programs
-employee/network resource groups
-large print materials
-materials in different languages
-multiple religious options at hospitals
-accessible bikes and public transit accommodations
-businesses not becoming fully cashless
-company-covered mental/behavioral health resources

Some of What DEI isn’t:
-hiring an under qualified person for a job just because they’re a person of color
-hiring based on race just to meet diversity goals (this is illegal)
-a new fad or buzz word. DEI work has been going on for many many years, under different names“

[officermayo]

I should point out that many Blacks and especially Hispanics voted for Trump not so much because of his program but because of the gender of his opponent. We saw this in both elections he won. Note that when he ran against a male opponent he lost.

From my European point of view, that's exactly what happened.
People didn't vote for Trump, they voted against a woman (not to mention she also was of mixed origins).

They voted against an idiot puppet put in place by the same machine that pushed out Biden.

[ghmerrill]

-hiring based on race just to meet diversity goals (this is illegal)

I really don't want to get involved in the broader discussion here for several different reasons, but I would at this point like to offer the observation that I in fact have been subjected to this as a manager, hiring for a fairly high-level technical position. Is it illegal? Yes. But so what? I was still pressured very heavily, and directly by the head of HR, in a very well-known company (long known for its workplace improvements and benefits to, and care of, employees), to make a specific hiring decision (between two very qualified candidates) purely on the basis of race and sex (that ticked two boxes at once) and despite my very detailed arguments that the other candidate was more qualified for the job. By happenstance, the other candidate was in fact a member of a different minority which has often been subjected to prejudice, but that one doesn't seem to count nowadays. When I pointed that out, it was quickly tossed aside as irrelevant; and any question of a "dueling minorities" situation was dodged. The goals were clear.

In a private phone conversation with the head of HR (an intelligent and otherwise reasonable and very nice man) I pointed out that what he was asking me to do (and he was asking me in no uncertain language to make the decision based on race and sex) violated federal law, in addition to being of at least questionable morality. He did not deny that it was a violation of federal law, but tried to circumvent that by offering the argument that the "minority candidate" was in fact "more qualified" for the position in this case precisely because she was a minority candidate. Reflect on that for a moment, but please don't try to take the tack that this attitude and argument is independent of the original motivations and justifications regarding hiring minority candidates in such situations. In such circumstances, there are various reasons why imposing prejudice in favor of minority candidates may be of significant benefit to a company. If you don't know that, you haven't spent much time over the past 30 years in business or industry, or you haven't paid attention.

There is in fact a straightforward argument here that in such circumstances the minority candidate (while not as qualified in any objective sense for the position as advertised) is in fact "better" for the company (in terms of its compliance statistics and criteria for awarding federal sales contracts -- or even contracts with private companies which impose various preferences). I reject the ultimate cogency of such arguments, but won't delve further into that. Anyone should be able to work it out.

This got to the point where I was becoming fairly confident that I was risking my job and might well be fired, for something pertaining to violation of company policy or some such -- although, as in many jobs, continuation of employment is "at will" (again, yes, commensurate with law, but ...). I said to my wife "I may actually get fired over this." Her response was "Yeah, whatever." I was actually taking home with me printed records, should I need them in order to press my case with other management. Independent of that, however, my immediate (director level) manager stood behind me and HR grudgingly backed off. But they gave it the best try they could, and from their highest levels.

So yeah, hiring based on race just to meet diversity goals is illegal. But so what? That doesn't mean it isn't tried, and it doesn't mean it isn't (and hasn't been) done. If you don't know that this sort of thing has gone on for decades, you just haven't been part of much going on in business and industry at a management level.

-a new fad or buzz word. DEI work has been going on for many many years, under different names“

Indeed it has. The new fad and buzz word have just made certain things more visible, and called more attention to them.

[Kbiggs]

tromboneVan’s most recent post:

IMG_0401.png

One picture does not tell the whole story. This picture, like other similar pics, is the exception that proves the rule.

Look to the demographics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Unit ... mographics

The Clif’s Notes version:

IMG_0400.jpeg

[Kbiggs]

And here, tromboneVan resorts to ad hominem attacks, switching the subject, and attempting to paint his opponent with the same brush he himself has been painted:

You are the most dismissive person on the forum, who has drank the most of the kool-aid, yet, look at the representation of minorities in your ensembles. Are they represented or not? Is it simply that you don't have a large demographic of minorities in your country, in early music even less, right? See you can't make people out of thin air, they have to exist in the fist place to be taking the auditions to be in the audition pool to be considered.. in the same audition as everyone else. People want to be treated equally. It's actually a form of abuse to coddle. Do you not see how your bias jumps off the screen? You come off as a screeching ideologue, and a hypocrite because you don't walk the walk with your own ensembles. I see less than 50% female representation in your groups, too. That is another topic you were very vocal about. But are you just a theorist or do you ever practice your racial / gender theory? It's very clear who the real racists and sexists are, because all you focus on in every forum conversation is race and gender. You don't just get to say "you're wrong, I'm right" all the time, and have that mean anything for people with multiple braincells, who think for themselves. No matter how many times you take mine and others thoughts out of context, mince people's statements, and say Im right you're wrong, you are still in a very small vocal minority that things in such an ignorant way. Hence, why people in America love Trump,... because you are not a representative or even part of the sample group, or a voting member of our society. It's again, Dunning-Kruger. You simply do not know what you do not know. This is a problem with the more arrogant you are, and the more you think you know.. when in fact you know less and less the more arrogant and lacking of humility you are as a person. You may not, but I see my black and brown MAGA family and I am glad that their voice was heard, and that we have a true representative government, working for the people. It really doesn't matter what you Swiss-Canadians and German people think because you don't vote in American elections.... keep screeching to the 10 people that will listen to you here, because it is going to be a long couple years without slamming that ignore button.

I will grant you that some people in America love Trump. Certainly, not all people in America love Trump.

And no, America is not a “true representative government, working for the people.” No form of representation is perfect or ideal. They all have flaws. At the moment, I would venture to say that the current administration is not “working for the people.” I might argue that the current administration’s slash-and-burn tactics have harmed far more people in one month than almost any governmental action (or inaction) since the Great Depression… but I do not have facts or figures to back that up.

If I were to summarize the current state of affairs in the US and predict its trajectory, I might say something like this:

“The current administration is making a sincere attempt to overthrow the US government from within. They are consolidating power amongst the few aligned with their politics and the even fewer who are among the most wealthy individuals in the world. From all appearances, they are motivated by greed, selfishness, acquisitiveness, cupidity, wealth, and accumulation of power.”

But again, I do not have facts or figures in front of me. Being a student of history and politics, though, I can say that if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.

[Kbiggs]

It's really rather amusing that almost everyone posting on this thread simply accepts either actively or passively the Trumpian & Co. definition of what DEI is and how it operates

EXCEPT

the dude from Germany, who tried to explain what it's really for and what it's not, how and why it really was applied and how it wasn't, what separates the facts from the political hyperbole. But that doesn't really matter in today's non-fact world.

As for me, as a refugee who had to pay ransom to obtain his freedom from Uncle Sam, I look at all this, in all it's layers, and similar to what Berthold Brecht wrote after he was forced out of Germany in 1935, and feel an intense feeling of Schadenfreude, as he did at the time.

From a friend:
„What is DEI? When we don’t have full knowledge of things we tend to make judgements on what others say it is
So in case you don’t know really what DEI means here’s some info to help you see -
Some of what DEI is:
-ramps and sidewalk curb cuts
-subtitles & captions (TV & phone)
-family restrooms
-changing tables in men’s restrooms
-breast feeding/pumping stations & accommodations
-floating paid holidays
-pay equity & transparency
-parental leave (time & pay)
-coming back to a job after birthing a child
-not having to just accept workplace harassment
-work accommodations for a variety of disabilities
-flexible work arrangements
-size inclusive chairs and beds in medical facilities
-belt extenders on planes
-various food options for vegetarians/vegans/kosher/gluten-free/etc at medical facilities
-non smoking areas/end of smoking indoors
-being able to have medical professionals and your coworkers use your preferred name (not just queer people have those)
-wellness programs and incentives
-more relaxed & inclusive dress code policies
-rooms to pray/meditate at work & other public places
-employee recognition programs
-employee/network resource groups
-large print materials
-materials in different languages
-multiple religious options at hospitals
-accessible bikes and public transit accommodations
-businesses not becoming fully cashless
-company-covered mental/behavioral health resources

Some of What DEI isn’t:
-hiring an under qualified person for a job just because they’re a person of color
-hiring based on race just to meet diversity goals (this is illegal)
-a new fad or buzz word. DEI work has been going on for many many years, under different names“

^^^ THIS ^^^

[BGuttman]

I've also been in Gary Merrill's shoes. Mind you, DEI does not require hiring an unqualified minority candidate over a qualified white candidate. Just giving an edge to a qualified minority candidate in the hiring process. Having two job candidates who can do the job; one white male and one minority; one may under the DEI criteria give preference to the minority candidate even if the white male may be slightly better.

[CalgaryTbone]

As an American living/working in Canada, I'd like to take a second to call out TromboneVan's post attacking another chat member's post because as he said - "he's Swiss/Canadian and can't vote here". Trump has inserted himself in Canadian politics regularly, and Elon Musk recently travelled to Germany to literally insert himself into their election. There is a significant "one-way street" regarding criticism of other's politics, especially from the MAGA right that is at best, hypocritical. At worst, it is bullying. Put on your "big boy pants" TromboneVan - perhaps you're so sensitive because you know that your arguments are not valid. Americans who actually travel around the world become sensitive to how bullies like you damage our reputation world-wide.

As far as adding the pic of three African-Americans - really? The old "I can't be racist - I have a black friend" routine! Sure, there is some diversity among Trump supporters, but it's still a very small percent.

As to calling out the lack of diversity in various classical genres - you're making our point! My point in an earlier post is that events like the Marine Band concert are actually something that should appeal to both sides of the political divide. Sure, it's targeted towards minority kids, but it's not giving someone a job or giving them a spot at Eastman or Curtis outside of the competitive process. It is giving them a training opportunity that might be a jump start for the future. The fact that there are less performers of color in many musical genres can be directly traced to less opportunities for musical training in their early years. The concert may not make up for that, but at least it's a start. To be fair, it's only one small event, and nothing can take the place of long-term educational reform that makes first-rate schools (including arts) available for all. Running up a flag that says "Mission Accomplished" is not going to do any good for anyone.

Jim Scott

[tbdana]

From my European point of view, that's exactly what happened.
People didn't vote for Trump, they voted against a woman (not to mention she also was of mixed origins).

They voted against an idiot...

I find this comment to be ignorant and racist. This trope is what MAGA trots out to paint every powerful black woman with, along with the word "nasty." Idiot, nasty, DEI, unqualified and ignorant are the most common terms slung at such women. But let's look at the facts, shall we?

Harris graduated from Howard University with dual degrees in economics and political science. She then attended the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where she served as president of the Black Law Students Association. She earned her Juris Doctor degree in 1989 and was admitted to the California Bar the following year.

Harris then entered the workplace and served as an Alameda County Deputy District Attorney, then San Francisco County Assistant District Attorney, where she became the chief of the Career Criminal Division and prosecuted homicide, burglary, robbery, and sexual assault cases – particularly three-strikes cases.

Harris then ran the Family and Children's Services Division in the San Francisco City Attorney's Office. She then served two terms as District Attorney of San Francisco from 2004 to 2011. She also took appointed positions at the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later the California Medical Assistance Commission.

Harris was then elected District Attorney for San Francisco County and served two terms.

In 2008 she became Attorney General for California and served two terms, heading the largest state AG department in the country.

After that she ran for United States Senator and won, carrying all but four counties in the nation's largest state.

In 2020 Harris became Vice President of the United States.

In every, single position she held she racked up "firsts." First woman, first woman of color, etc. She broke down barriers at ever stage of her career.

Unlike the current president, she has no arrests, no indictments, no felony convictions, never stole classified documents, didn't go bankrupt 6 times, never found liable for fraud or sexual assault, never incited an insurrection, never falsely claimed an election was rigged against her, never tried to overthrow the government, never coddled up to dictators, and never abandoned our allies....just for starters.

And what is your resumé, Sgt. Mayo, to give you the knowledge and experience pass the judgment of "idiot" on such a highly educated, experienced, and accomplished minority woman?

I just bristle at the false labels constantly being hurled at Harris and other women -- especially women of color -- who are political opponents of MAGAs. They have nothing but ad hominem attacks for strong minority women, which reveals a bias and a very common bigotry.

Please do better than this.

Edited to add: BTW, I've worked with Harris and I have a deep dislike for her. But to call her an idiot? And a puppet? You should be better than such adolescent and bigoted nonsense.