Is that what it was?
It’s a warning as stated in the title. If it is suggested to beware of something, it doesn’t make sense to wait until it’s actually happening.
1 Like
i’m tirade tired of all the jumping up and down and shouting of “there’s nothing to see here!”
Apparently nobody warned NPR
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/561654-conservatives-rip-npr-over-declaration-of-independence-disclaimer
I’m sure NASA is very grateful to have been warned, since they presumably had no idea about all this before. Painting a diversity initiative that doesn’t appear to have anything to do with CRT with a sheen of “look out, CRT!” still sits wrong with me.
I feel like my record in this thread has been a bit more mixed than that. Assuming that there are actually some things that are not CRT, and given the political context, doesn’t it make sense to look at each thing and ask “is this actually CRT”?
it was downright reasonable
I don’t think it was intended to warn NASA. The USA is a democracy and the press should keep people informed (whether you agree with the article content or not).
Well, it mentions “equity” which is a pretty good red flag off the bat. Does a “diversity initiative” need to incorporate equity? As the article points out, NASA and federal agencies in general have been at the forefront of promoting diversity for a long time. So why the need for any new push at this moment? It’s worth keeping an eye on.
1 Like
Somebody invested in consulting firms and the training modules that go with them.
4 Likes
Because they were specifically instructed to do so by the Equity EO, as the RFI states. All their previous stuff uses “equal opportunity”, presumably because of this directive from 2003 which their annual reports are specifically linked to. So I agree a word has changed, although NASA didn’t change it.
I found the wording of the EO’s definition of “equity” kinda interesting:
For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment
It says nothing about equal outcomes, only about equal treatment, and so arguably isn’t actually “equity”. If anything the language in general is weaker than it was in 2003. I guess I read it as an attempt by the administration to walk a fine line that uses words the far-left contingent want but doesn’t commit to interpreting them the same way.
2 Likes
All individuals didn’t include those specified? Ya it looks like pandering language, no?
Oh, it did, I just didn’t quote it all. Here you go:
[…], such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.
So pretty much everyone, really.
(Edit: Ah, I misread your reply. I am hungry)
So it is part of the Biden administration’s push through EOs.
It is.
It actually could if you think about it a bit. It what sense have “underserved communities” been denied such treatment in the post civil rights era? I’m not saying you’re wrong (and I hope you’re not), but I’m trying to think through this. I’ll post that bit in full
Sec. 2 . Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.
(b) The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as exemplified by the list in the preceding definition of “equity.”
I feel like this administration is more intent on appeasing the far left with identity politics driven measures while ignoring truly progressive measures that would help ordinary people.
2 Likes
or, from the NASA article
Yes. What of it?
logic, and objectivity
This is the only one I seem to belong to, if atheist counts as a religious minority, that is.
What’s the logic you perceive in that quote? I’m baffled by this whole conversation.
1 Like
I used to be disadvantaged because I lived in a rural area. Now I’m disadvantaged because I have gout, which in the UK can be defined as a medical disability.
yes
Why post at me if you don’t want to engage?
1 Like
logic and objectivity