https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/diversity-was-supposed-to-make-us-rich-not-so-much-39da6a23?st=jz9i2vq70xczwi6&reflink=article_copyURL_share

When management consulting firm McKinsey declared in 2015 that it had found a link between profits and executive racial and gender diversity, it was a breakthrough. The research was used by investors, lobbyists and regulators to push for more women and minority groups on boards, and to justify investing in companies that appointed them.

Unfortunately, the research doesn't show what everyone thought it showed.

There are obvious benefits of diverse corporate leadership for society, both in providing role models and in showing a commitment to promoting the best people, irrespective of skin color or gender. But doing it because it is the right thing is not the same as doing it because it makes more money.

Since 2015, the approach has been tested in the fire of the marketplace and failed. Academics have tried to repeat McKinsey's findings and failed, concluding that there is in fact no link between profitability and executive diversity. And the methodology of McKinsey's early studies, which helped create the widespread belief that diversity is good for profits, is being questioned.

---

Wonder how many levers the government uses to push DEI to the corporations. For corporations to willingly choose something other than meritocracy, there has to be financial incentives.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Wonder how many levers the government uses to push DEI to the corporations. For corporations to willingly choose something other than meritocracy, there has to be financial incentives.

---

It is shocking how these zealots have penetrated corporations and HR departments. The "employee resource groups" are the brownshirts on the ground enforcing the insanity.

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Wonder how many levers the government uses to push DEI to the corporations. For corporations to willingly choose something other than meritocracy, there has to be financial incentives.

---

.

Interestingly enough but one thing people are arguing now is that the Civil Rights act essentially demands these kinds of things…

worth remembering how the Civil Rights Act was passed by elected legislators with the fairly narrowly defined goal of ending segregation

and immediately got used by judges and bureaucrats to mandate basically DEI everywhere

this stuff was never endorsed by the political process https://t.co/NBiChKzvMx

— Dedicating Ruckus (@ded_ruckus) July 19, 2024

Plus some of it has just be pushed by executive fiat

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Wonder how many levers the government uses to push DEI to the corporations. For corporations to willingly choose something other than meritocracy, there has to be financial incentives.

---

It is shocking how these zealots have penetrated corporations and HR departments. The "employee resource groups" are the brownshirts on the ground enforcing the insanity.

---

While I would say that is true for some, I think most companies' executive teams embrace it because there is a financial incentive / requirement to do so, or a punitive measure to not do so. I don't know what incentives exist, but based on the adoption rate, even with Texas based companies, I believe it must exist, and not based on market demand, but encouraged at a federal level.

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

Got a source from 1968 or thereabouts to support your claim, Porteroso?

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

What would you say was the civil rights movement then?

If it was not done to create a race neutral meritocracy then the American people got played….

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

What would you say was the civil rights movement then?

If it was not done to create a race neutral meritocracy then the American people got played….

---

Read Dr. King's speeches. Race neutral is not the same as color blind. We will never be color blind, we are people not robots.

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

This is essentially correct.

King was demanding some form of reverse discrimination even in 1966.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

What would you say was the civil rights movement then?

If it was not done to create a race neutral meritocracy then the American people got played….

---

Read Dr. King's speeches. Race neutral is not the same as color blind. We will never be color blind, we are people not robots.

---

That is word salad in the context of this thread.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

What would you say was the civil rights movement then?

If it was not done to create a race neutral meritocracy then the American people got played….

---

Read Dr. King's speeches. Race neutral is not the same as color blind. We will never be color blind, we are people not robots.

---

That is word salad in the context of this thread.

---

I think he was talking about life being race neutral, but not expecting America to become color blind. Does that make sense? He did use the term color blind, but if you dig into his speeches, it was more complex than wanting a color blind meritocracy.

Of course he was not advocating for racism as Kai suggests, that is ridiculous.

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

What would you say was the civil rights movement then?

If it was not done to create a race neutral meritocracy then the American people got played….

---

Read Dr. King's speeches. Race neutral is not the same as color blind. We will never be color blind, we are people not robots.

---

That is word salad in the context of this thread.

---

I think he was talking about life being race neutral, but not expecting America to become color blind. Does that make sense? He did use the term color blind, but if you dig into his speeches, it was more complex than wanting a color blind meritocracy.

Of course he was not advocating for racism as Kai suggests, that is ridiculous.

---

** sigh **

Look, on the one hand it's true that people can have complex opinions, especially in a time of crisis and change as when Dr. King lived and worked.

That said, his legacy was carefully crafted and built on the narrative of, as he said so famously, that his children and white children should all be judged by the character of their hearts, not the color of their skin.

Call that meritocracy, call it 'race neutral', call it 'colorblind', in practical terms it clearly means that Race should not influence, much less decide, employment, rights, or worth as a person.

An ideal which the Democrats abandoned long ago.

Regardless ... Didn't Earn It as a value driver is another piece of disinformation we get sold.

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

What would you say was the civil rights movement then?

If it was not done to create a race neutral meritocracy then the American people got played….

---

Read Dr. King's speeches. Race neutral is not the same as color blind. We will never be color blind, we are people not robots.

---

That is word salad in the context of this thread.

---

I think he was talking about life being race neutral, but not expecting America to become color blind. Does that make sense? He did use the term color blind, but if you dig into his speeches, it was more complex than wanting a color blind meritocracy.

Of course he was not advocating for racism as Kai suggests, that is ridiculous.

---

Was an avid observer of MLK during the 1960's.

He subtly, but firmly advocated reverse discrimination as a means to remedy past wrongs.

MLK was an effective influencer for needed changes; but he was no saint. Only political necessity has led to the revisionist cleansing of his life.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

What would you say was the civil rights movement then?

If it was not done to create a race neutral meritocracy then the American people got played….

---

Read Dr. King's speeches. Race neutral is not the same as color blind. We will never be color blind, we are people not robots.

---

That is word salad in the context of this thread.

---

I think he was talking about life being race neutral, but not expecting America to become color blind. Does that make sense? He did use the term color blind, but if you dig into his speeches, it was more complex than wanting a color blind meritocracy.

Of course he was not advocating for racism as Kai suggests, that is ridiculous.

---

Was an avid observer of MLK during the 1960's.

He subtly, but firmly advocated reverse discrimination as a means to remedy past wrongs.

MLK was an effective influencer for needed changes; but he was no saint. Only political necessity has led to the revisionist cleansing of his life.

---

He's a man that is very lucky to have been alive pre social media.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

parch said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A meritocracy is colorblind and genderblind.

---

A true meritocracy is, which very clearly didn't exist here for the first 200 years of our country's existence. There have been baked-in, legal impediments to entire swaths of our nation's populace, both in color and gender, from progressing into the highest rungs of the corporate ladder by design. While this is largely no longer the case, the effects of that hugely tilted meritocracy from the roots of the 19th century industrial boom in America are still plainly evident today.

---

Yes, as a nation no doubt we have some ugly and unfair past history related to the systemic meritocracy, but over the course of the last 6 decades or so as a country we've done about as much to systemically rectify those wrongs and level the playing field for those previously impacted as could be reasonably expected. If the wrongs of the past are still "plainly evident" today it's only because certain elements of our society (i.e. the left) refuse to let go of them and continue to needlessly behave as if they still exist, primarily for political benefit.

DEI itself is based on the false premise that things haven't changed much since the 1950's and superficial things like race and gender have to be prioritized over merit to even the playing field. Ironically it's diametrically opposed to what MLK and his movement fought for which was a country where things like race and gender would have no bearing whatsoever - and pure merit would be the deciding factor. That's the way MLK wanted it and that's the way it should be.

---

That is an over simplification of what MLK said, and besides, he is not the final word on race relations in the U.S.

---

No, it's actually a good boiled down summary of what the 60's Civil Rights movement was trying to accomplish. And I never said or implied MLK was the "final word" on U.S. race relations. He was, however, an important change agent leader and champion of establishing equality (which is different from equity) that ultimately accomplished his goal despite not being able to live to see it.

---

You'd have to read these things for yourself, but this idea of a total meritocracy where we truly don't see color of skin was not what the civil rights movement boiled down to at all.

---

What would you say was the civil rights movement then?

If it was not done to create a race neutral meritocracy then the American people got played….

---

Read Dr. King's speeches. Race neutral is not the same as color blind. We will never be color blind, we are people not robots.

---

That is word salad in the context of this thread.

---

I think he was talking about life being race neutral, but not expecting America to become color blind. Does that make sense? He did use the term color blind, but if you dig into his speeches, it was more complex than wanting a color blind meritocracy.

Of course he was not advocating for racism as Kai suggests, that is ridiculous.

---

Call that meritocracy, call it 'race neutral', call it 'colorblind', in practical terms it clearly means that Race should not influence, much less decide, employment, rights, or worth as a person.

An ideal which the Democrats abandoned long ago.

---

This. You can play games with terminology if you like, but it all comes down to the same principle.

In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, Yale suggested that it could not maintain its present level of diversity without racial preferences.

So the numbers below are consistent with two possibilities: (1) Yale lied to the Supreme Court, or (2) Yale is violating the law. https://t.co/4q4BaObX9X pic.twitter.com/B3XvDiIYa6

— Aaron Sibarium (@aaronsibarium) September 4, 2024

NEW: The University of South Carolina required all students to affirm the value of "diversity and inclusion" as part of a mandatory training this summer.

Then, when I reached out for comment, USC claimed the training was "optional" despite telling students it was "required."🧵 pic.twitter.com/hYoWnMDhD0

— Aaron Sibarium (@aaronsibarium) September 5, 2024

Feel-good story of the day. pic.twitter.com/4Y0zNOBDGO

— icon. (@iconicities) November 20, 2024

BREAKING: @RepCloudTX introduces legislation to abolish DEI and restore colorblind equality in the federal government. We need this to happen on Day One of the new administration. pic.twitter.com/cich2xXV9f

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) November 20, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

BREAKING: @RepCloudTX introduces legislation to abolish DEI and restore colorblind equality in the federal government. We need this to happen on Day One of the new administration. pic.twitter.com/cich2xXV9f

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) November 20, 2024

---

Prayers up. This sick mindset has been a divisive, catastrophe

Study finds that reading Kendi caused participants to imagine racism where none existed. Now I want you to remember that Bryan Loritts, board member at Biola and teaching pastor at JD Greear’s church, recommended Kendi’s work to educators with the Council for Christian Colleges… https://t.co/T40CLeUp93

— Megan Basham (@megbasham) November 26, 2024

The high school Joe Rogan went to decided to get rid of sorting students by ability and chose to make classes ranging ability levels

Teachers had to cater to middling minds

Smart students became bored and learned less; duller students became frustrated and learned slower. pic.twitter.com/kyDEFEOWza

— Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) December 2, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

The high school Joe Rogan went to decided to get rid of sorting students by ability and chose to make classes ranging ability levels

Teachers had to cater to middling minds

Smart students became bored and learned less; duller students became frustrated and learned slower. pic.twitter.com/kyDEFEOWza

— Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) December 2, 2024

---

Our school puts SpEd kids in normal classes - one of the more stupid "innovations" that distracts teachers and
students.

Yup https://t.co/Gqvtj9TYhy

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 3, 2024

Insane https://t.co/0iwACGI8Ez

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 3, 2024

US judge rejects Boeing 737 MAX accord over diversity policies

Number of black students at Harvard Law School drops by half, now at 3%, after affirmative action is outlawed.

Hispanics go from 11% to 7%.

NYT warns you might get fewer Michelle Obamas and Ketanji Brown Jacksons. God forbid. pic.twitter.com/aCYddWyEXK

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) December 16, 2024