Well, actually "feelgood news story from last Saturday", in the WSJ: The Rise and Fall of the Chief Diversity Officer
Two years ago chief diversity officers were some of the hottest hires into executive ranks. Now, they increasingly feel left out in the cold.
Companies including Netflix, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery have recently said that high-profile diversity, equity and inclusion executives will be leaving their jobs. Thousands of diversity-focused workers have been laid off since last year, and some companies are scaling back racial justice commitments.
Diversity, equity and inclusion—or DEI—jobs were put in the crosshairs after many companies started re-examining their executive ranks during the tech sector’s shake out last fall. Some chief diversity officers say their work is facing additional scrutiny since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions and companies brace for potential legal challenges. DEI work has also become a political target.
Somehow that classic scene from Office Space comes to mind:
"What would you say… you do here?"
The WSJ editorialists go into a bit more detail on those "potential legal challenges": Business Is Caught in a Diversity Trap,
Big corporations are caught in a pincer. Earlier this month, 13 Republican state Attorneys General sent a letter to Fortune 100 companies, warning that their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices might be illegal. Now 21 Democratic AGs are telling the same CEOs that such policies are above board and should be expanded.
Well, that's hilarious. Maybe not as hilarious as Office Space, but close. What do you do if you're a CEO? I mean, in addition to firing the CDO?
The editorial points out that racial "diversity" in higher ed admissions was OKd (for a few decades) by the 5-4 Grutter decision. Colleges took full advantage. But SCOTUS has "never upheld a similar rationale for corporate DEI." Fun fact:
Microsoft in 2020 pledged to increase its black-owned U.S. partners by 20% over three years, while doubling the number of black managers and senior leaders in the U.S. by 2025. This certainly looks like the sort of racial balancing that courts have ruled illegal. As with college admissions, hiring and promotion is a zero-sum game. Giving an advantage to an applicant of one race put others at a disadvantage.
Instead of Microsoft being hauled into court for their acquisition of Activision, they should be hauled into court for that instead.
Also of note:
Useful headline template: "Kamala Harris is Brazenly Lying about ." . Charles C. W. Cooke fills in the latest: Kamala Harris Is Brazenly Lying about Florida’s Slavery Curriculum.
NBC reports that Kamala Harris intends to visit Florida today to criticize its new school curriculum:
In remarks Thursday, Harris blasted efforts in some states to ban books and “push forward revisionist history.”
“Just yesterday in the state of Florida, they decided middle school students will be taught that enslaved people benefited from slavery,” she said at a convention for the traditionally Black sorority Delta Sigma Theta Inc. “They insult us in an attempt to gaslight us, and we will not stand for it.”
This is a brazen lie. It’s an astonishing lie. It’s an evil lie. It is so untrue — so deliberately and cynically misleading — that, in a sensible political culture, Harris would be obligated to issue an apology. Instead, NBC confirms that she will repeat the lie today during a speech in Jacksonville.
At issue is one item in a 191-item list of stuff Florida schools are supposed to teach about Black History:
Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.
This happens to be true.
I confess to being more than a little amused. The standard defense of those advocating Critical Race Theory indoctrination in the schools was "we just want to teach accurate history".
Now what can they say? "We just want to teach accurate history except for that."
Orwell! Thou shouldst be living at this hour. Josh Blackman writes at the Volokh Conspiracy on Language and Abortion. He noticed an NYT article (since revised) that labeled "chemical abortion" as an "anti-abortion term". Going on to make the general point:
The choice of language is powerful–especially with regard to contentious social issues. And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable. "Marriage equality" sounds so much better than "same-sex marriage." "Gender affirming care" sounds so much better than "sex change surgery." "Diversity, equity, and inclusion" sounds so much better than "racial preferences." "Non-citizen" sounds so much better than "illegal alien." "Black" is capitalized but "white" is lowercase. And so on. These linguistic judgments are not value-neutral. They represent a subtle, but deliberate effort to make the progressive position more palatable.
It's an ongoing process.
Recently on the book blog:
Recently on the movie blog: