Absolutely; that's one of the reasons why I applaud this. Those internments were based on race, including to the exclusion of considering American citizenship as you've mentioned. That's not how things should operate, and Trump's EOs legally mandate that people be judged equally and fairly without regard to things like race.
The architectural solution to gender neutral bathrooms is floor to ceiling panels and doors that actually close. It's quite simple and extremely common in newer buildings in Europe.
> We should want the best astronauts, not the most diverse
Considering color or religion doesn't have any impact on the ability of someone to be a "best astronaut", if your groups isn't diverse, it's most likely there is a bias in action.
No, that isn't true at all. Employers can only hire from the pool that exists. If the applicant pool is 90% white dudes, then an unbiased hiring process will result in a very skewed employee demographic. Assuming bias based on differences in statistics is motivated reasoning and should not be entertained.
Nobody really knows. A mixture of their environment, parenting, and genetics probably. I don't know what extent of which and I don't think anyone does.
Congress not only _could_ control rents nationally, congress _has_ controlled rents nationally [1] and those controls survived the review of the court.
Pretty sure it’s the work of Stephen Miller - who is now his senior policy advisor.
8 years ago the Trump admin had no idea what to do. Now they’re prepared and much more dangerous.
Some things will be reversed in 4 years time and we can ride out the storm. but others - like renewed emphasis on fossil fuels to reward the big donors and have energy for AI - will have lasting effects on my children and their children — those make me truly furious.
Or never. We should be prepared for Term 3 (which is already being floated) or a landslide GOP win in 2026, 2028, and beyond. Expect future Presidential elections to look like '86.
You all are openly admitting that these people are evil geniuses. Keep that in mind when thinking to the future. They are going to continue their evil genius behavior and it's going to keep working.
Thankfully most are not evil geniuses (though there may be a few), and Trump is so drunk on his own ego that he can't govern well. So I don't share the same degree of pessimism.
The word evil is a bit overused, but in the case of Stephen Miller it fits like a glove.
I’ve said since the beginning that that saving grace (if there is one) of Trump’s first term was that he was disorganized, and he surrounded himself with people who kept him in check to some degree. People who were willing to tell him that he couldn’t do certain things (prime example: White House legal counsel kept Trump from doing the crazy things that people like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell suggested after he lost the 2020 election).
He’s not going to make that mistake this time, and he’s putting people in power who will do what he wants without question. That’s the scary part of the next four years.
I mean you just hunker down, stop reading the news, go about your life, and hope that the “storm” doesn’t do too much damage, and then work like hell in 4 years time to avoid a repeat (won’t be Trump but to prevent another fascist president, also you can bet that Trump will try for a 3 rd term on the basis that he didn’t serve 2 consecutive terms).
I think there are some active things you can do to help. Give money to legal groups challenging unconstitutional actions. Write to your various federal reps to let them know how you feel. Be kind and supportive to those being targeted by hate and bigotry.
We won't be riding out this storm if we all hunker down.
The campaign for the next presidential election started the day after the last. The far-right got this and are actively working to discredit any possible competing candidate.
Right now is a great time for Dems to start working hard on taking back both houses. Start mapping districts that can be flipped, districts with low voter registration, and which messages they will bombard these people with.
It's difficult to isolate the effects of DEI - there are far too many confounding factors interfering. You might use effective masking when analyzing a submission that removes your own personal biases, but, after the hire, there is no way to hide the difference that could have impacted your assessment.
Keeping biases in check is a daily exercise. I am aware of many of my own biases and I have to continuously fight back. There are people whose company I enjoy more than others, but I can't let that interfere with my professional judgment.
I agree that there's not much information to be gathered from a small sample, but there ought to be some tangible effects at the macro level. Is academia actually becoming more equal due to these initiatives? Are researchers who are hired as a result of inclusivity programmes as effective as researchers who are hired outside those programmes? These are things we ought to be able to measure.
Brazil has some long running DEI programs for public colleges and universities and the general conclusion is that minority students who performed worse in admission tests but were enrolled based on quotas show very similar academic performance to the students who came from wealthier backgrounds. Some data hints that they perform better than their non DEI colleagues.
I work for a university. I know that for several undergraduate degree programmes (not by any means all of them, but several) we've measured and there's no evidence of any correlation between the academic achievements in related subjects prior to study and the eventual degree classification.
Since apparently there's no point in testing them for "aptitude" or we don't know how to do so, it makes sense to have other criteria such as broadening participation.
Or, you know, enrol the ones who'd be better on your sports teams, or who look prettier for prospectus photos, or something - just don't fool yourself that you care about some sort of pre-existing "talent".
SAT/ACT scores are the best predictors of undergrad GPA as well as probability to have high income in the future, largely independent on the socio-economic background [1].
reply