You Won’t BELIEVE What Just LEAKED OUT with DEI!!!

1. DEI………

   Democrats

   Enjoying

   Insanity.

   Prove me wrong.

   Reply

   • 👍😎🪖

     Reply

2. Trump got rid of Affirmative Action because it was racist and was used as an excuse not to hire the best resume/practical experience. Biden doubled down with DEI.

   When my company introduced DEI it was intended to be implemented to determine how the company, a bank, could represent the community and provide services that would be inviting to the community.

   When implemented, the DEI Department was all black because the head of department was black, all were female, and served no purpose to expanding the business to better represent the perceived under-represented. It organized as a bureaucratic, expensive study of what not to do and was not in keeping of the original vision of our CEO.

   I visited the DEI Department’s website later and observed the person then in charge was Asian, and the representation was diverse in race and gender. I know nothing about the sexual preferences of these persons, which is the way it should be.

   It was interesting how it came about where the University of Memphis was teaching a business DEI course as a requirement for business degrees, but what the company failed to do, before hiring the “now Experts”, was to look at what was taught in that DEI business course of study.

   It’s main premise was the assumption that women do not get promoted unless they follow up the ladder on the coat tails of another woman and they considered the same more true for a black woman needing another black woman to get ahead. I had seen this direction happening since the 90’s where companies began organizing womens only groups within the company for networking and those women’s groups excluded male participation, but used the organization to self-promote. I never participated because it was not useful in my profession. I had worked in an all male environment early in my career being in the Marines and was more mission oriented, than a self-promoter.

   I always thought having someone on my coat tail was undertow and I, after helping avert a problem for the sake of the company, would put them on the path taken and encourage them to share with me if they found a better path. I encouraged independence by showing them where to find the answer. My actions were blind to race and gender, and definitely had nothing to do with a person’s sexual preference.

   I have an unproven theory that is a work in progress. When the schools started pushing team projects with the expectation the team was graded by the completed project, it took away from independent accomplishments and requirements for lesser students. Generally a strong student was paired with a lesser student and the strong student led the project because they wanted a good grade. This saved the teacher from having to expell the energy answering questions that putting 2 lesser students together would require, but putting the teacher’s job in the hands of the stronger student. This method was implemented in grade school resulting in the stronger student learning the lessons twice, once on their own, and once when explaining it to their “teammate”. But, the benefit to the lesser student was never measured except to see if they passed or failed their test, or got their answers right after receiving assistance from the stronger student. The teacher was not a part of the development. It was left to the stronger student. The lesser student did not feel the pressure of learning because their paper was done. This behavior continues through high school.

   With DEI are companies hiring the lesser student? If true, without a stronger student to guide them, who is expected to bring this DEI hire along and what is the delay in learning curve?

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.