The CIA Is De-Woke-ifying Itself

Blacks to the back of the bus.

Right, because DEI only pertains to blacks and women.

People on the right want the most qualified individual for the job period.

Those on the left believe LGBTQ++++ (how many pluses are they up to now?), race, sex, and religion matter more.

WASPs need never apply- they won't be hired no matter how well they score on testing or how qualified.

nypost

It takes more than being "woke" to be able to do the job.

While the complete ending of DEI initiatives across the government is a myopic adventure in Trumplandian stupidity, it does not automatically equal a "white hegemony" over the hiring and firing of personnel. That said, the CIA apparently has some issues that need addressing, if one can believe the article. 

I asked Chat GPT to write a paragraph in defense of DEI and a paragraph in defense of the removal of DIE:

PRO DEI:

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) are essential principles for fostering fair and thriving communities, workplaces, and institutions. Diversity ensures that people from different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences are represented, enriching decision-making and innovation. Equity addresses systemic barriers, ensuring that opportunities and resources are accessible to everyone, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or ability. Inclusion creates environments where all individuals feel valued, respected, and empowered to contribute fully. Far from being about exclusion or favoritism, DEI efforts help build stronger, more just societies where talent and potential are not limited by historical injustices or discrimination. By embracing DEI, organizations and communities unlock greater creativity, economic growth, and social harmony, benefiting everyone.

CON DEI:

Critics argue that terminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies can lead to a more merit-based, fair, and efficient system that prioritizes individual achievement over identity categories. Some believe that DEI initiatives, while well-intentioned, can inadvertently create division, foster resentment, and promote preferential treatment that undermines true equality. By removing DEI policies, institutions can focus on hiring, admissions, and promotions based on qualifications and performance rather than demographic considerations. Opponents of DEI also argue that these programs can be costly, bureaucratic, and sometimes lead to ideological conformity rather than genuine diversity of thought. Ending DEI policies, they contend, does not mean abandoning fairness but rather ensuring that opportunities are granted based on merit, fostering a culture of individual responsibility and equal treatment under the law.

All of us here should have heard or made both of these arguments many, many times before. Both of the arguments have good points. Both have downfalls, also. So I asked chat GPT to "write a paragraph on the pitfalls of DEI and write a paragraph on the pitfalls of doing away with DEI." Here is what it had to say:

Pitfalls of DEI

While Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives aim to create fairer opportunities, they can sometimes lead to unintended negative consequences. If poorly implemented, DEI policies can foster resentment by creating perceptions of favoritism or reverse discrimination, where individuals feel excluded based on identity rather than included for their qualifications. Some argue that DEI programs can become overly bureaucratic, prioritizing quotas and symbolic gestures over meaningful structural change. In workplaces, mandatory DEI training can sometimes be perceived as performative or coercive rather than fostering genuine inclusion. Additionally, a focus on identity categories can sometimes overshadow diversity of thought, leading to ideological conformity rather than true pluralism. When DEI is implemented without balance, it risks reinforcing division rather than fostering unity.

Pitfalls of Doing Away with DEI

Eliminating DEI policies altogether also carries significant risks, particularly in perpetuating systemic inequalities and reducing opportunities for historically marginalized groups. Without DEI efforts, unconscious biases in hiring, education, and leadership selection may go unchecked, limiting access to qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds. Companies and institutions that abandon DEI initiatives risk losing out on the benefits of diverse perspectives, which have been shown to drive innovation and better decision-making. Additionally, the removal of DEI can send a message that inclusivity and equal opportunity are no longer priorities, potentially alienating employees, students, and stakeholders who value fairness and representation. While DEI programs may have flaws, eliminating them entirely without alternative strategies risks backtracking on progress toward a more equitable and dynamic society.

So it would seem, if one accepts the output of our latest gadget as factual and basically complete, that neither totally eliminating DEI from everything or running blindly ahead with DEI initiatives would be wise, but the true answer must always be somewhere between the two idealized endpoints.

Or, as I am want to say: Everything I need to know I learned from a "Rush" song....

Rush - Hemispheres

it does not automatically equal a "white hegemony"

Of course it does. "No DEI" is intended to be interpreted as "straight male WASPs only".

To Whom? The operative word in my sentence was automatically. Will it? Maybe. 

I think that Trump is in the closet as a Transvestite and is secretly jealous of the people like RuPaul who get to strut their stuff with no worries, so he has to act like he hates them, 'cause he does, 'cause he's a Bitch, Girl. That's the rumor I am starting anyway...

That's great!

I liked it.

This is a good effort at objectivity and impartiality.

Well done.