The word "diversity" has Latin roots with an origin in Middle English. Originalist enough for you?

I've heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don't have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone," Thomas asked North Carolina's solicitor general Ryan Park, who represented the university.

"I'd like you to give us a specific definition of diversity in the context of the University of North Carolina," Thomas continued. "And I'd also like you to give us a clear idea of exactly what the educational benefits of diversity at the University of North Carolina would be." In context, it is a valid question. Diversity to promote one group over another may be unconstitutional. Good questioning Justice Thomas.

Diversity is decisive by design. Our country is massively divided. It started with Indentured servants being told they were better than slaves. Then Democrats declaring that one drop of Negro blood is all that is needed to be Negro. This is systematic racism that still exists today, it also continues the divisiveness that Democrats need and desire to keep power. Democrats have never seen people as equals. Slavery, Trail of Tears, Japanese internment, outlawing guns for Negroes, Wilson’s segregation, FDR minimum wage, promoting eugenics. All divisive. All Democratic core actions.

Hol’ up. Now you’re spouting a bunch of Critical Race Theory at me. Are you sure you wish to continue? (Y/N)

Diversity and equity (CRT) as goals are both Democratic Strategies to divide. Capitalism and meritocracy rewards all people. The Fabian Socialist that have taken over your Democrat Party have been very successful. Their wolf in sheep’s clothing philosophy has worked on the gullible. Yes, I will continue being a free independent thinker. You can continue being a useful idiot and gullible Democrat.

Your argument is intellectual gobbledygook for the most part.

Grabbing at the small trace of substance that you've offered, your opinion that "diversity and equity" (and often, you'll see "inclusion" added to that phrase) are suspect goals:

Let's first take note of the fact that the U.S. and state governments drew and enforced lines of racial distinction in the past. Not just Jim Crow denial of voting rights, and turning a blind eye to lynchings, and green-lighting discrimination in education and employment, but also "redlining," a predatory lending practice that literally bled black families dry and prevented them from acquiring generational wealth in the homes they lived in.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (passed under a Democratic President, FYI) prohibited all these overtly discriminatory practices. Discrimination continued under the radar, no doubt, especially in the South, but this landmark legislation was a powerful statement from the federal government that discrimination would not be tolerated going forward, and it would be counteracted with legal tools and enforcement wherever it was found.

It was an important step, building upon constitutional prohibitions of slavery and 14th Amendment guarantees that were passed (but spottily enforced, especially in the South) in the wake of the Civil War.

However, what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 *didn't* do was make any attempt to actually rectify the injustices done in the past. It only looked toward the future.

What we've witnessed over the intervening 80 years is that merely taking the government's knee off of the neck of black Americans, so to speak, is not sufficient to bring about widespread and enduring racial equality or racial justice.

What you have to do with someone who's been brutalized by the government is to actually call them an ambulance, take the victim to the hospital, put the patient on an IV drip, and provide a warm hospital bed and nourishing food. That's how you restore someone to life.

Those things cost money, yes.

But due to the U.S. government's previous complicity in racial discrimination, the U.S. government has an ongoing responsibility to provide those things, for the benefit of the citizens it mistreated in the past.

That, in a nutshell, is the motive that drives diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. And it is a manifestly just one.

Change my mind

I can’t change your mind, you have embraced racists Democrats diversity. Jim Crow south, Democrats. Red lining, FDR Democrats. LBJ blocked Eisenhower’s stronger Civil Rights bill. 1964 Civil Rights bill, passed because of Republican Senators. “Rectify injustices “ is not in the Constitution. Affirmative Action programs have NOT helped minority’s. Reparations if ever paid, should only be paid by Democrats, only Democrats owned slaves, Republicans didn’t own slaves. Fugitive slave Act, passed by northern Democrats. Another point, Democrats pass socialist laws in a capitalist system. Socialist solutions always make things worse. This is what Democrats want, then then can keep power. Open your brainwashed mind. Change your own mind, although it may be to late.

Correct — you will never succeed in beta-cucking me into believing diversity is a bad thing, particularly with arguments as tortured as yours. Truest thing you’ve said all day (the rest of your paragraph is false)

Really? My comments beginning with Jim Crow to Fugitive Slave Law, are false. You really are brainwashed, and have rewritten history in your mind. Go back and find some more “cut and paste” Democratic BS talking points. They need more race dividers like you to survive.

Your history of American politics is fatally compromised by presentism — taking current political divisions and projecting them into the past.

The Republican and Democratic parties have undergone several evolutions going back to the 1960s, not to mention the 1860s. Beyond that, partisan divisions were not as pronounced back in the 1960s as they are today. For instance: LBJ’s Civil Rights bill carried bipartisan support and overcame bipartisan opposition. Democrats didn’t vote for it in lock-step simply because it was proposed by a Democratic President, and Republicans didn’t vote against it in lock-step for the same reason.

Similar civil rights bills these days (regarding police reform, expanding voting rights, immigration reform, etc.) are nearly universally backed by Democrats, and nearly universally opposed by Republicans.

Political parties back then were more like patronage machines than vehicles for ideological conflict. The term for the latter is “polarization.”

So when we’re talking about the 1960s (and prior, throughout the Jim Crow era), what we can see is that white supremacy was a motivating factor within both parties, but also, civil rights was a motivating factor within both parties. Racially progressive Democrats and Republicans aligned to pass bills like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while racially regressive Democrats and Republicans banded together to oppose them.

“The past is a different country,” as they say. And yet, also, history rhymes.

As you’ll see from this map, the coalition of Republicans/Democrats that supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was clustered in the North and the West (the former Union). The coalition that opposed it was clustered in the South (the former Confederacy).

Isn’t that fascinating? What other insights might this hold for today?

Insights that hold true today. Democrats promote groups. Republicans believe in individual rights and responsibilities. Democrats, big government then and now. Andrew Jackson censored anti-slavery pamphlets from being sent by USMail. DOJ , FBI, CDC, suppressing information . Censorship is necessary for Democratic propaganda to dominate the media. They hate free speech, then and now. Democrats mail fraud during Civil war, LBJ box 13, Biden gets 15 million more votes than Obama . Democrats afraid of sunshine. Democrats have changed, less patriotism, less God, less US citizens first.

It's not difficult to answer Thomas on the basic question of "what is diversity?" It's fair to say he's smart enough to not actually confused on that point, and it's a rhetorical question.

Thomas's line of questioning is on more solid and significant ground when he asks "what are the educational benefits of diversity?"

Well, let me tell you.

Let's start with a basic observation. Our society is massively segregated along racial, economic, geographic, and religious lines. Even in our most "diverse" cities like New York, communities often tend to self-cluster and self-segregate. Even in this so-called "capital of the world," one's own personal experience can be narrow.

College/university, however, offers a brief window in many students' lives (in most cases, a 2-4 year window) when they can interact with and really get to know people of diverse backgrounds.

Over the long-haul, I've found that my eye-opening conversations with people of a different background are the ones that stuck with me. I couldn't tell you what I learned in my multivariable calculus or physical chemistry classes, but I can tell you about what my college friends from Brazil and Colombia and Belarus and Nigeria and China and Japan taught me. Their cultures, their personal journeys, the lens through which they viewed America, and the world.

Those conversations helped me in a practical way, in my day-to-day career which brings me into contact with people from around the globe. It has also brought me great benefits in my personal life as well - when I travel abroad or even when I just go across town. It's made me a more astute reader of the news. I am more of a rounded human being because of the diverse contacts I made in college.

This kind of learning happens outside the classroom, and off the clock, but it's very real, and very important. I think students who seek out a college or university that specifically caters toward being less diverse and more racially/culturally/religiously "comfortable" are selling themselves short.

So: What are the benefits? They are many, and they are varied, enormous, irreplaceable.

Oops Divisive by design.

Wow. What a bleak outlook on life. Anyone who’s had a black friend, or an international friend, or a gay friend knows that’s bullshit.

Like this beautiful family!

Exactly, this photo proves my point. I see three people, three human beings, three humans. You see divisive diversity. A black, a white, and a presumed mixed-race child. If a child has any black blood (see Democrat one drop rule) he is considered black, which is by design divisive, and racist. All lives matter, better yet, Human lives matter. If people are ever looked at as humans first, with race as part of what makes their character, not who they are, or must be, the country will be less divisive. Which is why diversity as a goal is divisive.

I see three people as well, three people who quite clearly reject your idea that diversity is divisive by design. Where did you pick up that snappy phrase? You obviously didn’t come up with it yourself. But it’s a hell of a shiny dog-whistle

Wrong again, I did originate the snappy phrase. Labeling people IS divisive by design. Clearly you still see three “labeled” people

The notion that diversity is divisive is at least 15 years old, probably much older than that, and was as wrong then as it is now, and as it will continue to be 15 years from now.

Not what’s happening. See, women Navy pilot cadets get 5 crashes on simulator, men get 2. Physics must be discriminatory.

I have a hard time believing our military is watering down its standards for operating $100+ million equipment without a citation.

Citation?

You may be thinking of this false rumor regarding a female pilot that spread recently. (She retired 4 years before this alleged incident even happened.)

Women can do any job a man can, from advanced surgery to competing in world-class athletic competitions to flying a plane, but thank you for reminding us that sexism is still a thing.

Sources: Navy had different standards for women pilots

Plane
From Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre

June 9, 1997
Web posted at: 9:07 p.m. EDT (0107 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Women were treated differently from men in one of the Navy's first units to include female fighter pilots, Pentagon sources, citing an unreleased internal report, told CNN.

The Navy's Inspector General found no intentional discrimination, but criticized how the integration of women was handled in Carrier Air Wing 11, a San Diego-based aircraft carrier unit, sources said.

movie icon (384k/11 sec. Navy plane crash
QuickTime movie)
"I think the biggest concern among the men was whether or not the women would meet the standards -- the same standards that they were meeting," said Lt. Loree Hirschman, an S-3 Viking pilot.

Crash
A fatal accident three years ago sparked charges from some quarters that female pilots were being pushed into the cockpit before they were ready.

As a result, critics said, Lt. Kara Hultgreen died in October 1994 after being unable to land her F-14 with a stalled engine safely on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln.

The five women flying fighter planes on that maiden voyage did seem to be struggling -- not only did Hultgreen die, but three others were grounded for poor flying, including the only other F-14 pilot, Lt. Carey Lohrenz.

Lohrenz
But Lohrenz defends her skills. "I never had an accident. I never had a mishap. I never had a hook-slap. There were no dangerous in-flight issues that anybody could point to," Lohrenz said.

But her commander at the time insisted she was grounded because she presented a danger, and that her gender had nothing to do with it.

"There is no question in my mind that this individual should not be flying, based on her performance and nothing else," said Capt. Dennis Gillespie, former commander of Air Wing 11.

Okay. Now do men.

--Have male pilots ever crashed a plane?
--Have male pilots ever been grounded because of concerns they couldn't fly?
--Can you put together statistics proving, conclusively, that women are substantially worse at this job?

You're going to have to do a whole lot more than pull out a couple cherry-picked examples to prove that women shouldn't be flying planes.

Your homework assignment is to compile all that research - then I recommend submitting it to the Navy, not me. I can't change anything for you.

Great to hear it’s been around at least 15 years. Free thinking takes time. When you include someone because of diversity, you therefore have to exclude someone else. Seeking to expand the search for minority’s but maintain standards, is no

Indeed. If you include Ja’von from Compton (SAT: 1590, Track & Field star, no family connection), then you're excluding Timmy from Fox Run (SAT: 1600, LaCrosse recruit, legacy admit).

And if you *include* Timmy from Fox Run, then you're *excluding* Ja’von from Compton.

Either would be a great student!

A conundrum indeed!

There are obviously good reasons for admitting or denying either candidate. Maybe the college needs a new LaCrosse player. Maybe the college needs to round out their track & field team. Maybe Timmy's parents gave $10 million to the college, and admitting him ends up providing a greater benefit to the college than putting another student on scholarship.

Colleges are making all these difficult and complicated decisions all the time, balancing various interests and goals in the service of selecting the best student body they can.

Here's a radical thought: why don't we just let them?

Huh? Bottom line, return to meritocracy, eliminate legacy admission also. If affirmative action worked it would not be needed at every level. If it worked in high school it wouldn’t be needed in college. If worked in college it wouldn’t be needed in grad school. If it worked in grad school it wouldn’t be needed at med, law, any other professional field. Then it wouldn’t be needed in the business world. It’s typical Democratic feel good policies that don’t solve the problem.