ex-President Trump

That... seems like a positive result? AA was never intended to comprehensively solve black poverty, and certainly no one expected it would help families who simply can't afford college.

I haven't even discussed DEI in this forum that I can recall, so I don't know what the **** you are on about.

At 12:25 the bishop start pleading with Trump to display some Christian values. In a different video you can catch JD desperately trying to catch anyones eye to have a little moment and Trump defiantly glancing around.

Trump said he "wasn't a fan of the service" and that "they could do better"

Almost nothing is ever pitched as a comprehensive solution. I think that it is fair to say that proponents hoped that AA plus need blind admissions plus readily accessible school loans would eventually contribute to reducing poverty.

Even so, black poverty has a variety of causes. Poverty going up after AA (assuming this is true) does not imply that AA didn't contribute to reducing poverty. That's kind of a basic logic failure there.

A basic logic failure by who? I didn't purport to draw any conclusions. I simply was responding to your statement that:

I would argue that isn't always true because of my example below.

Which is to say if you choose to hire who you think is the 4th best candidate for a job because your race/sex preference hits on your #4 candidate then that person was hired because of racism/sexism and is still a DEI hire.

mickey, i've done a lot of hiring

you almost never get your 4th best candidate, the top people all have competing offers

there's an entire industry of professional recruiters and head hunters - large companies both hire outside help in these fields as well as having dedicated full time staff members who's sole job is to convince the top choices to take the job offer

this is because it can be so difficult to convince your top candidates to join

this is why you often don't hear back from employers for a week or so after the final interview, it's not because they aren't debating whether or not to hire you, you've already made the cut, they are just seeing if the people they like a little more than you are willing to do the job before they offer it to you

while technically DEI, i have no qualms about the 4th best candidate being given the first offer because they are from an unrepresented background in the sector

and then if that person turns it down you perhaps make an offer to the 7th best candidate for similar reasons before going back to the top and working your way down as you normally would do

the real horror of it is when it's done like a casting call in hollywood, where it's predetermined that the candidate must be from specific backgrounds - so it's not that the 4th best candidate gets the first crack at it, but the 1st, 2nd and 3rd best are never getting an offer in the first place - when the 4th best candidate accepts the job this works fine, but when that person is not the 4th but rather the 27th and the next best option is 39th and so forth, the quality of the person in the position can drop dramatically pretty quickly

this is especially true in fields where the majority of candidates are non-DEI acceptable

take an engineering position that is 85% men for example and you want to hire a woman

well if you're a small firm in a small region where there's only 10 people applying for the position, there's a 20% chance no women apply, and 35% chance only one applies - this means the majority of the time you go to hire someone, there's none or just 1 female option - leaving your hands tied if you're committed to hiring a female

or say you're in a larger market and there's 20 applicants, 4% of the time there'll still be no female candidates, another 13% of the time only 1 will apply and you'll rarely get more than 3 females applying

and as one could guess, the odds that that female candidate applies is actually the best candidate is again 15% as that's the natural rate of females in that field

so whenever companies engage in these practices, they are going to be severely handcuffed in terms of acquiring good talent

it's even worse for large companies

let's say it's a large firm doing entry level hiring where they're not too picky and just pulling 25 new entry level employees at a college career fair and there's 100 candidates

well, if they want to have a 50/50 balance as most firms strive to have, then they often won't be able to do so as 16% of the time they won't even get 12 female candidates

in a 10k sim the largest turnout is 28 of 100 candidates being female, so even when the turnout is at its absolute highest, when given a quota system, nearly half of the women are going to get offers compared to one out of 6 men

quite often nearly every female, if not all will get an offer

y is the pool of candidates, x is the amount of female candidates assuming it's a male dominated field where 85% of men

as a former tech worker, i've witnessed this first hand, where every female who is mildly competent gets offers and promotions up the wazoo whereas a lot of men are stuck in the rat race

this can have a very disenfranchising effect of the 85% of the working population who see the inequality in action and must self censor because anyone speaking out about get labeled as a misogynist or racist

and this can have real life consequences, fellow progressive liberal who's often called an evil right wing fascist because like me he speaks out against this stuff absolutely nails it

his entire monologue is right on point, but this right here highlights the disease within, the only priority we should have in running essential services like a fire department should be ability to put out fires, not whatever this is

First Space Force now we are getting Stargate

Of course by the Trump administration. Which was noted for its incompetence in hiring, blatant nepotism outright lack of even basic vetting.