Zone1 DEI Created Meritoracy in the Federal Workforce, The Very Thing That Trump & His Minions Claim Has Been Lost as a Result of DEI

18-year-old me was a Republican because I didn't know any better.

29-year-old, I saw the Jews and Oil Companies manipulate America into an unnecessary war against a country that wasn't our enemy.

I really didn't stop voting REpublican until 2008, when Bush wrecked the economy.

Not that is a Republican Party anymore. It's just the Cult of Trump now.



They all had terrible management, to start with.



Here's the reality, guy. Most people change jobs every five years. I write resumes as a side business. (Something I started because I had to dig my way out of the hole Bush's recession put us into). It's rare that I see anyone who works at the same place for 10 years.

The other thing I rarely see are Federal Workers. They don't hop jobs. They usually have lifetime jobs they are reasonably good at.



I think it's more of an honest observation. I don't know how many times I see people engaged in long conversations about what they did that weekend, or the game, or their favorite TV show, when they should have been working. It used to annoy me early on, now I just don't care that much.
That's interesting because 18 year old me was a Democrat. But Jimmy Carter cured me of my naive beliefs in the Democrats and Reagan opened my eyes. And Good God, today's Democrats are an order of magnitude worse than the Democrats of the 80s and 90s.
 
That's interesting because 18 year old me was a Democrat. But Jimmy Carter cured me of my naive beliefs in the Democrats and Reagan opened my eyes. And Good God, today's Democrats are an order of magnitude worse than the Democrats of the 80s and 90s.
True. Back then you could actually find Dems who loved this country as it IS.
 
Quote data that demonstrates that Negroes on the average have the same native intelligence than whites. You can't do it, because they obviously don't. Ashkenazi Jews, on the other hand, have average IQs estimated at 110 to 115. That is the difference genes make.

Again, smart people don't live next to people who want to kill them and needlessly antagonize them.

Liberals used to value free political discussion. They were confident that Negroes, on the average, were intrinsically equal to whites in intelligence and behavior, and that this would become obvious as soon as Negroes were no longer discriminated against, and the scientific evidence could be demonstrated. Two generations after the civil rights legislation was passed and the War on Poverty was declared, it is no longer possible to maintain this. Consequently, liberals try to suppress a candid discussion of black social pathology.

When did this discrimination stop? Seems like it's still going on to me.

The problem with the war on poverty is that it was declared but never really fought.
 
When did this discrimination stop? Seems like it's still going on to me.
Blacks are discriminated against with affirmative action programs. I am pleased that President Trump is eliminating affirmative action in government employment. I look forward to its elimination in private employment also.
 
The problem with the war on poverty is that it was declared but never really fought.
How many times do I need to post this? The problem poor Negroes face is not that their welfare checks are not generous enough. It is that the U.S. economy is running out of jobs for people of low IQs. There is no future in factory work. To learn a skilled trade, one needs an IQ of at least 80. To be a professional or a manager one needs at least 115, and probably should have 130 or more.

--------------

The War on Poverty After 50 Years​

September 15, 2014 14 min read Download Report

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

Key Takeaways​

The lack of progress in building self-sufficiency since the beginning of the War on Poverty 50 years ago is due in major part to the welfare system itself.
By breaking down the habits and norms that lead to self-reliance, welfare generates a pattern of increasing intergenerational dependence.
The anti-marriage penalties should be removed from welfare programs, and long-term steps should be taken to rebuild the family in lower-income communities.

 
This is what a lack of critical thinkings skills does for you, but it's also a heightened form of gaslighting. Or to dumb it down a bit - you tell a lie, over and over and over again, never back down and people will eventually begin to remember that it's a lie.

DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives have contributed to creating a more meritocratic system in the federal workforce, particularly by ensuring that hiring and promotions are based on qualifications and abilities rather than bias or exclusionary practices.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------​

How DEI Created Meritocracy in the Federal Workforce

  1. Eliminating Exclusionary Practices
    • Before DEI efforts, certain racial, gender, and socioeconomic groups were systematically excluded from federal job opportunities, whether through explicit policies or implicit biases in hiring and promotion.
    • By removing barriers, DEI allowed a broader pool of qualified candidates to compete on merit rather than connections, race, or gender.
  2. Expanding Access to Opportunities
    • Affirmative action and DEI initiatives opened federal positions to historically underrepresented groups.
    • Veteran hiring preferences, disability inclusion programs, and outreach efforts brought highly qualified candidates into government roles based on skills and expertise rather than traditional networks.
  3. Objective Hiring Standards
    • The Merit System Principles (5 U.S.C. § 2301) ensure that federal hiring is based on ability, knowledge, and skills rather than personal favoritism.
    • DEI efforts reinforced structured hiring processes, like blind resume reviews and standardized evaluation criteria, reducing the impact of bias.
  4. Promoting Fair Advancement
    • Historically, informal networks often dictated who got promotions and leadership roles.
    • DEI programs helped create clearer promotion pathways where employees were evaluated based on performance, not just who they knew.

How Did This Become Controversial?

In recent years, critics have argued that some DEI efforts have gone beyond leveling the playing field and created new forms of exclusion, such as:​
  • Diversity-focused hiring goals that, in some cases, led to accusations of reverse discrimination.
  • Training programs that critics claim promote a specific ideological perspective rather than neutral professional development.
  • Legal challenges questioning whether certain DEI programs comply with existing anti-discrimination laws.

So, Did DEI Create a Meritocracy?

Yes, in the federal workforce, DEI helped build a more merit-based system by ensuring that hiring and advancement were based on ability rather than bias. However, the debate arises when policies perceived as ensuring diversity appear to conflict with strictly race-neutral or “colorblind” interpretations of merit.​
In the bizarro doublespeak world of a progressive liberal up is down and men are women.
 
18-year-old me was a Republican because I didn't know any better.
18-year-old me was a Democrat. That changed in my 20s when I started paying attention. The more attention I paid, the more conservative I became.
29-year-old, I saw the Jews and Oil Companies manipulate America into an unnecessary war against a country that wasn't our enemy.
"The Jews".

What a retard.
I really didn't stop voting REpublican until 2008, when Bush wrecked the economy.

Not that is a Republican Party anymore. It's just the Cult of Trump now.
Stop projecting leftist moral and intellectual failings on normal people.
 
You are avoiding the topic, buddy. If the theories of the race realists were anywhere near "not crackpot", there would be a raft of other scientists and academics saying, "Yup, this is correct!"

Instead, in your crazy world, Rushton and Murray and a handful of other cranks who only still had jobs because Tenure was a thing, are right, and the thousands of sociologists, anthropologists, and statisticians are all in a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth!

Now, before you subject us to another round of Cut and Paste, I would introduce you to the concept of Occam's Razor.

The simplest answer is usually the right one.

The simplest answer- Murray, et al, are racist cranks.
...says the moron who blames Jews for everything. :auiqs.jpg:
 
How many times do I need to post this? The problem poor Negroes face is not that their welfare checks are not generous enough. It is that the U.S. economy is running out of jobs for people of low IQs. There is no future in factory work. To learn a skilled trade, one needs an IQ of at least 80. To be a professional or a manager one needs at least 115, and probably should have 130 or more.

--------------

The War on Poverty After 50 Years​

September 15, 2014 14 min read Download Report

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

Key Takeaways​

The lack of progress in building self-sufficiency since the beginning of the War on Poverty 50 years ago is due in major part to the welfare system itself.
By breaking down the habits and norms that lead to self-reliance, welfare generates a pattern of increasing intergenerational dependence.
The anti-marriage penalties should be removed from welfare programs, and long-term steps should be taken to rebuild the family in lower-income communities.

There never was an exit strategy to the war on poverty. It's working exactly as intended.

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

-- Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat
 
Again, smart people don't live next to people who want to kill them and needlessly antagonize them.



When did this discrimination stop? Seems like it's still going on to me.

The problem with the war on poverty is that it was declared but never really fought.
It was fought to the tune of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. The problem is that you can never stamp out poverty, there will always be people who make stupid decisions and/or have no ambition. What people like you ignore is that "poverty" in the USA is a solid middle-class existence in most of the world. With all the governmental programs for the "poor" we have no real poverty, no one starves in the streets, the "poor" have the disposable income for internet and cell phones and most are overweight. I was raised poor and know what it really is, there were many months when the last week of the month we ate beans or mac and cheese out of a box, new clothes were Christmas or birthday presents, most of my normal clothes came from thrift stores. There were no free lunch and breakfast programs in the schools, I brown bagged PeanutButter and jelly every day and drank water for lunch.
 
Blacks are discriminated against with affirmative action programs. I am pleased that President Trump is eliminating affirmative action in government employment. I look forward to its elimination in private employment also.
I meant "Blacks are discriminated in favor of with affirmative action programs."

Those who make excuses for the persistence of black social pathology seem to think that it is still 1953, that the Brown vs Board of Education has not been made by the Supreme Court, the civil rights legislation has not been passed into law, and the War on Poverty has not been declared.

When I was a child, a teenager, and a young adult I made excuses for Negroes myself. When I got older, I got tired of making excuses for them. Now I am tired of hearing excuses.
 
It's hard to get a job at USPS if you're not black.
 
This is what a lack of critical thinkings skills does for you, but it's also a heightened form of gaslighting. Or to dumb it down a bit - you tell a lie, over and over and over again, never back down and people will eventually begin to remember that it's a lie.

DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives have contributed to creating a more meritocratic system in the federal workforce, particularly by ensuring that hiring and promotions are based on qualifications and abilities rather than bias or exclusionary practices.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------​

How DEI Created Meritocracy in the Federal Workforce

  1. Eliminating Exclusionary Practices
    • Before DEI efforts, certain racial, gender, and socioeconomic groups were systematically excluded from federal job opportunities, whether through explicit policies or implicit biases in hiring and promotion.
    • By removing barriers, DEI allowed a broader pool of qualified candidates to compete on merit rather than connections, race, or gender.
  2. Expanding Access to Opportunities
    • Affirmative action and DEI initiatives opened federal positions to historically underrepresented groups.
    • Veteran hiring preferences, disability inclusion programs, and outreach efforts brought highly qualified candidates into government roles based on skills and expertise rather than traditional networks.
  3. Objective Hiring Standards
    • The Merit System Principles (5 U.S.C. § 2301) ensure that federal hiring is based on ability, knowledge, and skills rather than personal favoritism.
    • DEI efforts reinforced structured hiring processes, like blind resume reviews and standardized evaluation criteria, reducing the impact of bias.
  4. Promoting Fair Advancement
    • Historically, informal networks often dictated who got promotions and leadership roles.
    • DEI programs helped create clearer promotion pathways where employees were evaluated based on performance, not just who they knew.

How Did This Become Controversial?

In recent years, critics have argued that some DEI efforts have gone beyond leveling the playing field and created new forms of exclusion, such as:​
  • Diversity-focused hiring goals that, in some cases, led to accusations of reverse discrimination.
  • Training programs that critics claim promote a specific ideological perspective rather than neutral professional development.
  • Legal challenges questioning whether certain DEI programs comply with existing anti-discrimination laws.

So, Did DEI Create a Meritocracy?

Yes, in the federal workforce, DEI helped build a more merit-based system by ensuring that hiring and advancement were based on ability rather than bias. However, the debate arises when policies perceived as ensuring diversity appear to conflict with strictly race-neutral or “colorblind” interpretations of merit.​
It's always amazing how Marxists can create new meanings for words. Meritocracy is actually the opposite of DEI. You see, Marxists always use lies like there was pervasive racism in hiring before DEI. There is no data to prove that.
 
Back
Top Bottom