NOAA tied to dodge the Trump DEI Executive Order, so now it is being audited by Elon Musk’s team…and their quest is upsetting social justice warriors and climate cultists.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has been actively involved in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, embracing them tightly during the last 4 years. This is the federal agency responsible for e federal agency for forecasting the weather, researching and analyzing climate data. and tracking storms.
So it is a little perplexing that the staff was distracted by social justice initiatives, rather than the meteorological science American expected them to focus on.
Now the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, has gained access to NOAA’s IT systems and is currently reviewing the agency’s DEI program after having been initially denied entry.
At least one member of DOGE has entered the Department of Commerce — the agency that houses NOAA — and was granted access to NOAA’s IT systems, according to U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who is the ranking member of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over NOAA. The DOGE move was also confirmed by Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee; Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee; and other current NOAA employees.
DOGE was first denied access to the NOAA IT servers but now has access, according to two sources familiar with the situation. DOGE is looking for anything tied to DEI and whether they have removed anything DEI-related from bulletin boards, including posters and signs, the sources said. They also checked bathroom signs to ensure they complied with President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
One of the NOAA administrators has been placed on administrative leave.
Also this week, the head of NOAA’s Office of Human Capital Services—the agency’s human resources team—was placed on administrative leave. NOAA referred questions to Commerce, which did not respond to a request for comment. The move follows the Trump administration and DOGE placing leaders at many agencies across government on administrative leave and its widespread efforts to shrink the federal workforce.
The staff within the agency is….upset.
Inside the NWS, there are grave fears of what a potential 5-10% cut of staff could mean for their ability to operate weather radar and provide timely and free forecasts for this year’s hurricane season, a person familiar with the situation told CNN.
“The people of the Weather Service are as fine as you’ll get in terms of getting the mission done, but it would be a pretty substantial cut,” the person said. “People are scared. They’ve never had this type of uncertainty really hang over them.”
However, they brought the issue on themselves by trying to dodge Trump’s executive order.
It appears the @NOAA has a DEI Dept called “office of inclusion” and installed the same woman who was running DEI at @NWS to run that office.
Rebranding DEI is still DEI and it will be shut down.
.@DOGE should look into this. Cc @elonmusk https://t.co/Z51NOOYIeR pic.twitter.com/RjNkPBzJfe
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 2, 2025
But many of us who have serious concerns about how climate science has been manipulated to pursue eco-activist agendas are hoping for a bit more than a focus than just on DEI:
Thanks for everyone’s help in getting @DOGE to look into NOAA’s data tampering factory. pic.twitter.com/QcWlsKNRLU
— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) February 5, 2025
And eliminating “indigenous knowledge” from reasoned discourse related to weather phenomenon would also be immensely helpful.
DOGE should start by cutting all funding that promotes indigenous ecological knowledge from NOAA: https://t.co/3idoES2KF4 pic.twitter.com/J0PCcnUx3B
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) February 5, 2025
It will be fascinating to see exactly what the young men of DOGE uncover, in terms of discourse and data analysis as they pertain to global climate and atmospheric levels of life-essential trace gases.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Snowflakes are Dancing – Debussy.
DEI has become a cancer in the western world, adding the cost and inefficiencies of a pointless ideology, while wrecking ability by outlawing meritocracy.
If I was going to design a strategy to bring about the guaranteed decline of the West, I would invent Net Zero and DEI.
Good luck to DOGE in its endeavours, set an example to the rest of us.
Where is the evidence that the previous system was a meritocracy? Every time researchers send out identical CVs but with the names changed the “white male” always gets more interviews. And do you really think that people like Boris Johnston or David Cameron got to be PM because of merit? Or was it because their parents were rich enough to send them to Eton?
Izaak,
There is no merit judgement of U.K. politicians, or we wouldn’t have one. The party decides, not on merit, but who is likely to be able to lead party and be acceptable to the country.
This also seems to have ended with a government with a real death of scientific or technically educated politicians, to the very obvious deterioration of policy.
Hmmmm….
One of the first deveoped countries to have a female leader.
One of the first developed countries to have an Indian leader.
Likely to be one of the first developed countries to have a female black leader.
One swallow does not a summer make.
Agree with all the above but you could also have pointed out that it was the conservative party that did all if that. The labour party has managed to have 100+ years of all white males. Perhaps Izaak Walton should stick to angling.
Well, 2 out of 3 as we won’t be the first developed country to have a Nigerian leader.
Mr. Walton: Thanks, I do enjoy watching a troll melt down, it confirms that a sacred cow is, in fact, being slayed.
You will not get an answer on this. The answer of course is that hiring practices were flagrantly discriminatory, and anti-discriminatory practices helped reduce disparities. The people against DEI desire to make the government white again, it’s that simple.
In a society which is ethnically about 90% White, one would expect the Government to have the same proportion of ethnicities, which is the case.
A little question: if you were Black, would you want to acquire a job through Affirmative Action, or purely on merit?
The makeup of the US government workforce reflects years of effort to reduce discriminatory hiring. The efforts the current admin is currently dismantling.
You would want to know that your merit was going to be fairly judged against other candidates. Hiring based on race is illegal.
You are describing equal opportunity, which is supported by the majority. DEI and affirmative action support unequal opportunity. If you want to sue someone for discriminating against equal opportunities, go for it. Few have an issue with that. DEI and affirmative action, though, are just a different form of discrimination. They must go.
DEI is an effort to ensure equal opportunity – it is anti-discriminatory. Your position is incongruous.
DEI is a quota system. Semi-blinding stages in the hiring process would be “equal opportunity”, removing all race, sex, or ethnic markers from some stages of the hiring process.
DEI is an effort to ensure “equity”, not equal opportunity. Before you start spouting off your stupid comments you really should learn a little about the topic.
Funny how anti-discriminatory policies require discriminatory methods?
How is setting up scholoraships only for blacks, not discriminatory?
How is declaring that certain positions are only open for blacks, not discriminatory?
How is refusing to even interview whites, not discriminatory?
How is telling school kids that every problem in the world was caused by whites, not discriminatory?
Temporarily prioritizing an underrepresented group for moderate financial aid to enable attendance at historically exclusionary institutions is not the same thing as systematic racial oppression.
Both of these made up scenarios are discriminatory and illegal under the civil rights act.
This isn’t something school kids are being told.
“This isn’t something school kids are being told.”
Not any more, now Trump is in. !
Critical Racist Theory is now banned.
Elections can have really good consequences.
No more having multi-millionaire coloured sports and movie and Tv stars complaining about “white privilege”.
Um-oh yes, dear boy, that is exactly what school kids are being told.
Temporarily? There have been many scholarships for African-Americans for 30-40 years. At what point is it enough?
For your information, the most disadvantaged group from U.S. university DEI programs was Asians. They were good enough in large numbers to get in on merit, but they lost slots to other minorities.
According to the socialists, any process that doesn’t result in their idea of a perfect solution, is flawed and must be discarded. Unless it’s their idea, in which the only option when it fails, is to double down.
Another evidence free post thus you are just making things up there are several laws in place that you are apparently ignorant of their existence that is supposed to prevent discrimination.
As a baseline, DEI initiatives can be seen as frameworks put in place to ensure compliance with those laws, although they certainly extend beyond mere basic compliance and attempt to create workplaces that are welcoming to people in minorities or disadvantaged groups.
LOL, you still ignore the existing laws already exist that stops hiring discriminations, where are the lawsuits, why doesn’t several wealthy minority advocacy groups not suing…… the NAACP, the Southern Law Poverty group and more not doing anything, a SINGLE class action lawsuit can cover the entire organization in question, how come they are not doing it…. could it because it is a rare problem…..
DEI is not a law, it’s a framework companies or federal agencies independently and voluntarily develop and follow. What would the lawsuits be alleging?
It feels like you really want to be combative and angry with me but don’t actually have a point of contention (at least, that you’re willing to openly share).
It’s discriminatory. That’s what the lawsuits would be about. How stupid are you?
Why are there still DEI policies then? If they’re all violating the civil rights act, it should be pretty easy money to sue every organization with a DEI policy.
“DEI is not a law, it’s a framework companies or federal agencies independently (through a coordinated effort that is covertly financed through grants that come from taxes) and voluntarily (voluntarily … similar to paying protection monies to guido on a monthly basis … ‘if you don’t do it, bad things happen to you’) we develop and follow. What would the lawsuits be alleging?”
Your premise statement is a lie. You lie. You are a shill & a liar.
DEI discriminates against white males. It is not welcoming to anyone but those who are not qualified for the job.
Hey at least you are being openly racist instead of hiding behind coded language and innuendo. Points for honesty?
It also is racist towards Asians
Blacks are 13% of the US population. A good number of those are not educated and live in a ghetto subculture. I’m sure if you look at educated blacks you will see they are over-represented as a proportion of the population.
Those who are uneducated, are uneducated either by choice, or as the result of the same liberals that AlanJ is so proud of.
Not only are many blacks uneducated, the ambitious ones go in for sports rather than university degrees.
It’s interesting that the people trying to argue with me are outwardly confirming the point I made at the outset.
Actually, we’ve had discriminatory hiring ever since the 60’s. Funny how 60 years hasn’t been enough to solve the problem, so instead of trying something else, the only thing you socialists can think of, is doubling down on the racism.
“Hiring based on race is illegal.”
Yet that is exactly what DEI does. !
LiarJ paints with a very broad brush.
This is a pretty targeted and precise brush. I contend that if you drill down enough, almost every person singing the praises of the admin’s anti-DEI efforts are fundamentally racist, except a small subset who are genuinely just deeply ignorant and ill-informed.
Ask me if I care what you “contend”.
Ahahaha. Everyone who disagrees is racist and literally Hitler. You are a queer bunch aren’t ya?
Well not all racists are Nazis, but yes all Nazis are racists. The MAGA people seem a bit uneasy that they’ve become the party the Nazis support, but they seem unable or unwilling to connect the dots about why.
As a Fake Data hockey-sticking Klimate Kook, your rants can be safely ignored.
Closest thing to Nazi’s I’ve seen over the past year are far from MAGA and generally support democrats.
Well, there are the actual US Nazis, who overwhelmingly support Trump and policy initiatives.
There are far more people attacking Jews just for being Jewish and calling for their extermination who support Democrats.
And at least some of those “trump-supporting nazis” have been shown to be fake (Lincoln Project).
It’s funny, because Nazis are socialists and the left always emulate Nazis, especially in the US.
All Nazis are also socialists.
It’s really funny how socialists have decided that the definition of Nazi, is anyone who opposes them.
It wasn’t the MAGA who tried to set up a Dept of Misinformation to regulate what social media platforms would be permitted to post. That was your team.
It wasn’t the MAGA who tried to use the court system to jail those who opposed them. That was your team.
It wasn’t MAGA who decided that the only thing that mattered was a persons color when it came to hiring, that also was your team.
National Socialist German Workers’ Party. NATIONAL SOCIALIST ….
Socialist = Progressive = Majority of Democrat Party.
Socialist = Control = Nazi
The reasoning/propaganda is different. The desired outcome is the same. You are a follower. That excuse was not accepted after WW2, and it should not be accepted today.
The term “Nazi” is a general descriptor I’m directing toward authoritarian ultranationalist white supremacist groups, but you are correct that in a historical context, modern Nazis do not espouse all of the same beliefs as Hitler’s German Nazi party. We can agree to simply call them “racist bigots” if that works better for you, since the common ideology is the belief in the superiority of one race over another.
AlanJ,
So, let us take what you say above (that you simply mean that Nazi equates to racist bigot) and incorporate that into what you wrote a few posts earlier:
“Well not all racists are
Nazisracist bigots, but yes allNazisracist bigots are racists. The MAGA people seem a bit uneasy that they’ve become the party theNazisracist bigots support, but they seem unable or unwilling to connect the dots about why.”Above, I pointed out how you were lying about the DEI (defn & premise) program. Now it appears that you may simply be stupid.
Stupid, lying, both, or willing to admit to your ‘mistakes’?
(National Socialist German Workers’ Party. NATIONAL SOCIALIST ….
Socialist = Progressive = Majority of Democrat Party.
Socialist = Control = Nazi = UTILIZES ANY MEANS POSSIBLE TO
GAIN/KEEP CONTROL (including adoption of racist policies))
Don, it appears that you might be illiterate. We’re now lumping the people who call themselves Nazis into the more general bucket of racist bigots, per your pleading. So, yes, all racist bigots are racist bigots, and all the people who call themselves Nazis are racist bigots.
“Nazis,”
That didn’t take you long, did it ! 😉
Well it isn’t a far walk, is it?
While I will contend devotees of DEI believe “those people” are incurably incompetent, and will never be hired in a colorblind process. Racists, to be concise.
The process was not “colorblind” prior to instituting anti-discriminatory measures, as you claim. In fact quite the opposite. That is why anti-discriminatory measures were instituted to begin with.
That was the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was promptly perverted by LBJ and then Nixon into a quota system.
How did they do this, specifically?
It wasn’t perverted, that was the design.
How else do you keep yourself from being sued, if not jailed? The only way to “prove” that your hiring isn’t racist, is to have the correct number of each racial category. That’s a quota by any other name.
The Civil Rights Act was intended to outlaw racial discrimination. LBJ and Nixon required racial discrimination, and the Burger Court complied with that perversion.
That’s very true. Even 30 years ago I had to look at all the resumes of minority and female applicants and submit an offer before I was allowed to see a resume of a white male candidate. It’s been discriminatory for a long time. Just not the way you think.
Sounds like you should have notified your company’s legal department given that this would have opened the company up to civil rights lawsuits that could have cost them a lot of money. Not a very responsible employee, were you?
“opened the company up to civil rights lawsuit”
Which is exactly what DEI hiring does.
Hiring someone on the basis of a specific “colour” or “identified gender” over someone who might be more competent .. is just stupid.
But that is what DEI forces employers to do.
Race-based hiring is illegal and not part of DEI.
“Race-based hiring is illegal and not part of DEI.”
It is EXACTLY what DEI does. !
People aren’t color blind, never will be. That said, the previous process was a lot closer to color blind than was the current process.
Socialists believe that any system that isn’t perfect and must be replaced with something that is run by government.
So why was the previous process not securing representative outcomes in hiring?
AlanJ,
Please define “representative outcomes in hiring”. Please. (please try)
The words are not hard to understand. It means that the makeup of the workforce should look like it would without discriminatory hiring practices. The lauded “merit based process” that we supposedly had prior to anti-discriminatory measures did not do this, and I am asking MarkW why he thinks this was.
Why do you think it was?
That’s not much of an answer. What ‘should it look like without discriminatory hiring practices’ ?
(I’ll answer that, pretending to be an honest you: Regardless of work ethic, workplace participation, education, respect for cultural norms, and acceptance that the boss is the boss, it should represent the approximate ratio of the general population in terms of race & sex (but to define sex is not something I can do); but I don’t really care about age or religion. In other words, quotas for minorities & women.)
I can’t answer your question until you tell me what you think ‘it should look like’. If Mark can answer you without an unqualified honest question, I’ll leave it to him.
Here’s where the dancing really begins. I don’t think that there are racial or ethnic differences in work ethic or workplace participation arising from genetic differences (I.e. I am not a racist). So it is quite obvious that, absent barriers to participation, I think the makeup of the workplace would reflect the population. What do you think? Would you expect specific ethnic or racial groups to be underrepresented on the basis of merit, and why? Be specific and direct in your answers.
These are the questions at the root of the discussion. Mark claims that the system prior to anti-discrimination measures was a meritocracy. But it did not have representative participation. So what do you think are the reasons for that?
Yes, those who think that minorities cannot stand on their own two feet are the racists, but since they try to “help” they think they are not racist.
As usual AlanJ only sees what the party has authorized him to see.
AlanJ,
You must have not really been paying attention at the DEI training seminars.
What you are saying is a given for the DEI advocates. And you don’t have to drill down.
All whites are racist. Racist is bad. Therefore …. (At the seminar(s), did you ever raise your hand and ask, ‘can we spend some time discussing the logical conclusion … or do we just let it go and feel bad about?’)
And, there are no ‘genuinely deeply ignorant and ill-informed’, all non-minority are racist. Period. DEI and CRT are both inexetrpetally intertwined. All non-minority are racist. Period. There is no further discussion … further questioning shows that you are not trying mitigate your evil ways. For to suggest that some non-minorities are not racist shows that you need to go back to DEI/CRT training … even though are on the bandwagon, you didn’t learn enough about yourself.
You are supposed to say Hitler 😉
“This is a pretty targeted and precise brush.”
Thanks for showing that DEI is targeted by racism 🙂
Racism and genderism are the very heart of the DEI agenda.
That it what DEI is built on… from the quicksand foundations, upwards.
In a farm which is horticulturally about 90% lima beans, I would not expect the farmhouse to have the same proportion of legumes, whether or not that’s the case.
Your lies are based on ignorance as there are existing labor laws in place that is supposed to protect people by color and sex.
The issue with DEI is a lack of appropriate standards. As long as a candidate fits that box, they get the position. The problem with Kamala Harris was not that she was Jamaican/Tamil, but that she had dropped out of the primaries before any vote because she was unable to draw any support. Largely because she is an atrocious public speaker, and apparently worse in staff situations.
Had the Democrats nominated Barbara Jordan instead of Jimmy Carter, competence would not have been an issue.
This is flagrantly untrue, as hiring on the basis of race or sex is illegal.
Harris was the sitting vice president.
Harris was a DEI choice as VP, remember? All I can say is that Karen Bass would have been worse.
She helped Biden win the presidency, so the contention that she was unqualified is quite flagrantly wrong.
Democrats favor DEI. So they had a corrupt, senile white guy, and a token VP, and they approved of that.
It’s illegal, but it’s how DEI works.
What you believe to be flagrantly untrue, is in itself, flagrantly untrue.
Harris was picked because Biden had promised to pick a black woman as his VP, no other reason.
She was an atrocious candidate. Even other Democrats referred to her as being a “7th string quarterback”.
You don’t have to have personally liked her, but she and Biden won the presidency, so her qualifications to serve as his VP pick are beyond contention. I don’t even think the people insisting that she was unqualified could articulate a coherent set of qualifications that a VP pick should have that Harris didn’t meet. The objections are just more racist dog whistling.
Alan, you seem to think there are no competent Black female Democrat politicians. So Kamala was as good as any.
Oh I don’t think that at all. I think Harris was an accomplished and qualified person. I’m not sure if you’re intentionally pulling moves out of the white supremacist’s playbook or if it’s happening organically by coincidence, but the “no you’re racist” tactic doesn’t play very well, especially when wielded this incompetently.
So what were Kamala’s accomplishments? Other than getting elected?
“Other than getting elected?”
What position was she ever “elected” for ?
District Attorney, Attorney General, and US Senator from California. How honest elections are in the Democratic Peoples Republic are is a matter of dispute. As was the 2020 national election.
Ask Willy Brown ….
😉
“Apart from all of her many accomplishments, what were her accomplishments?”
She won several elections in an effectively one party state, and was bad at all positions. In a real competitive election, she revealed the percentage of Yellow Dog Democrats.
“I think Harris was an accomplished and qualified person.“
ROFLMAO !!!
She certainly was not very bri
As every good socialist knows, everyone who isn’t a socialist, is pure evil.
If you disagree with affirmative action, it’s never because you think the solution is worse than the problem, it’s because you are a racist.
If you disagree with welfare, it’s never because of the problems inherent in welfare and how welfare always ends up making the problem of poverty worse. No, it’s because you hate the poor and want them to die. And because you are a racist.
BTW, like all of your predictions, this one is also flawed, because people have responded. Just because you don’t like the answers, doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
PS: I have never asked the moderators to ban someone, but that post gets damn close.
In fairness, I thought people wouldn’t answer because they’d be reluctant to out themselves as blatant racists, but that doesn’t seem to be a hangup some posters have.
Supporting DEi is the ultimate in racism and sexism..
It makes everything about race and pretend-gender etc.
Where is your evidence Mr. Walton……, snicker….
Izaak has morphed into a hit-and-run poster, saves him further embarrassment when trying to answer tough Qs.
It wasn’t a perfect meritocracy, but for the vast majority of the population, it was a meritocracy.
It was Martin Luther King who once asked; “If the problem is racism, how can racism be the solution?”
Instead of eliminating racism, what you want is more racism, but the kind that benefits your people.
As long as you were a cis white male.
“a cis white male.”
WOW.. talk about a racist and sexist comment !
Ahh, so that explains why there are so many Hong Kong Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan and Pakistani professionals in STEM and finance fields.
You’re pointing to a recent trend in two specific sectors, while I’m talking about hiring practices before anti-discrimination laws were even a thing. Before the Civil Rights Act, companies could (and did) explicitly reject candidates based on race. That’s not a ‘vast majority’ meritocracy, it’s a system that legally favored white men. The fact that selective recruitment of certain immigrant groups now happens in STEM and finance doesn’t erase the history of racial exclusion in hiring across most industries.
I don’t know about the USA; my observation applies to Australia. Perhaps other countries are racist and sexist.
What other professions are there?
It’s not selective recruitment. There are a high proportion of qualified and very capable professionals from those ethnic backgrounds, many of them second generation. It’s largely attitude to education and work ethic.
One thing which has changed markedly over quite a long period is the increased number of women in the medical and financial professions. That has more to do with child support services and the availability of contraception than active discrimination.
Hi from the US. Our entire history has been a long stream of racism and sexism, which we are still combating today. Unfortunately, for now, the racists have won, and occupy the highest seats of power in government.
Right, and those ‘qualified and very capable professionals’ didn’t just appear randomly, they’re the product of immigration policies that prioritized high-skilled workers from specific countries. That’s exactly what selective recruitment is. It’s great that some groups have had pathways to success, but that doesn’t change the fact that Black and Hispanic Americans – whose families have been in the U.S. for generations – faced legal and structural barriers that kept them out of many industries for decades. The existence of successful immigrant professionals today doesn’t rewrite that history or make hiring practices before anti-discrimination laws ‘mostly meritocratic.’
[you’ve replied to Alan enough~ctm]
Oddly enough, a high proportion of them are the product of Australian universities. For some reason, people with a high regard for education and a strong work ethic tend to do well at school and uni. My university lectures in the Economics fields had more than half the students from those particular ethnic backgrounds.
Skilled immigration is selective for the skills, but not the country of origin. That’s immigration, not recruitment.
Okay, I’ll bite. What are those legal and structural barriers which only apply to those particular ethnic groups and not to Asians? You seem to have left out Native Americans, btw. Do they not face discrimination, or did you just forget them?
That’s what we hear here as well every time the centre right parties form government. It’s scare-mongering here; it may or may not be there.
Are you suggesting that Black, Hispanic, or Native American students don’t value education or work hard?
Asians in the U.S. have faced significant discrimination too; the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment camps, laws barring Asian immigrants from owning land, etc. Citing recent hiring trends (which, as you noted, are shaped by immigration policies) does not erase that history.
But to answer your loaded question: Jim Crow laws, redlining, segregated schools, employment discrimination (which still exists today), oh… and slavery. These systems explicitly denied Black and Hispanic Americans access to the educational and economic opportunities that some immigrant groups were able to enter after those barriers started being dismantled.
And no, I didn’t ‘forget’ Native Americans. You’re the one trying to sidestep the fact that Black and Hispanic Americans faced legally sanctioned hiring discrimination for most of U.S. history. If you want to discuss Native Americans too, we can, but pretending that listing another oppressed group somehow disproves my point is just another deflection.
I don’t know if they do or not. I do know that the people I’ve worked with do, and it’s a strong part of their cultures. What are the rates of high school completion, bachelor’s degrees and post-graduate qualifications in the groups you noted? Which fields?
You do recall that Japan declared war on the USA in December 1941?
How recent is “recent”? 40 years is quite quite a while in terms of the human life span.
Hiring trends are shaped by the availability of qualified applicants. From what I’ve read, many of your visas are temporary, so it’s a bit of a stretch to call that immigration.
It wasn’t loaded. I’m a bloody Australian, in case you forgot in the last 15 minutes.
We didn’t have that nonsense, which is why I asked. Did those factors apply to “Hispanic” people and Native Americans? Those factors aren’t something we had here.
You didn’t even consider Native Americans, or you would have included them with the other groups. They had a rough trot with repeated breaking of treaties and “the Indian Wars”, then being shunted onto reservations that a crow would have a hard time making do on.
They have, in the past. So why aren’t they included with “Black and Hispanic Americans”? I don’t live there, so I don’t know.
I understand that you are claiming an ignorance defense, but you have inserted yourself into a discussion around the US government instituting policies to ban DEI efforts in hiring for the US federal government. A basic knowledge of our history is a requisite.
You might believe that 40 years is “quite a while,” but I do not. My grandmother told me stories of meeting civil war veterans as a child (and I grew up in the American south so two guesses as to which side she got to meet). My high school’s last segregated class was two years before I was born. These aren’t things in our distant past, they’re inherently part of our current social fabric. Some of my high school teachers taught in a segregated school, and the segregation didn’t end by their choice.
They are very much included.
You seem to have forgotten:
Ahh, so that explains why there are so many Hong Kong Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan and Pakistani professionals in STEM and finance fields.”
Where are the cis white males in those groups?
And why is a knowledge of your history a requisite for commenting on the success of some ethnic groups?
If you’re going to claim that 40 – 60 years is “recent”, do you still hate the Germans and Japanese? WWII only ended 80 years ago.
My uncle fought the Japanese in New Britain, but that didn’t stop him from buying a Toyota in 1968.
Hell, I grew up with WWII and WWI veterans. Should I hate the Japanese, Germans and Ottoman Turks?
Both of my grandfathers were born before Australia became a nation. Perhaps 40 years is “quite a while” in that context.
They are very much included.”
Yeah, right. Just like you included Native Americans.
And that gets back to:
“Ahh, so that explains why there are so many Hong Kong Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan and Pakistani professionals in STEM and finance fields.”
Not forgotten, already addressed. Did you forget that? Or are you being intentionally obtuse? These recent hiring trends are occurring well after the civil rights act and reflect targeted immigration efforts specifically in these countries.
The question, still hanging unanswered by all of you, is why in the US prior to anti-discriminatory measures did the makeup of the workforce look so unrepresentative, if the system was a pure meritocracy?
Not satisfactorily, it wasn’t. If you want to think that 5 generations is a short time, that’s your problem.
The question, still hanging unanswered by all of you, is why in the US prior to anti-discriminatory measures did the makeup of the workforce look so unrepresentative, if the system was a pure meritocracy?
Was that a rhetorical question?
It was not, it is the central point of discussion.
Do you really think that “why was there discrimination before we repealed the discriminatory laws?” is not a rhetorical question?
I don’t fault you for losing the thread of discussion. Petermiller posits that DEI initiatives outlawed meritocracy in federal hiring. Isaak asked why the workforce underrepresented minorities if we had a meritocracy prior to anti-discrimination initiatives. I have sought, fruitlessly, for an answer to this question from anti-DEI crowd.
My answer is simply that we didn’t have a meritocracy prior to anti-discrimination initiatives – we had hiring influenced by prejudice and bigotry. If you agree with this position then we don’t really have an argument together. If you disagree with this position, I want to hear your answer to the question.
DEI dates back 10 years at most.
Anti-discrimination laws and initiatives date back 50+.
So, just to clarify, you do believe that we had significant discrimination in hiring practices in the US before anti-discrimination measures were enacted?
That’s what discriminatory laws, do, n’est ce pas?
It wasn’t just hiring practices, from what I’ve read.
Cool, so we are in alignment. There was not a meritocracy prior to anti-discriminatory initiatives in the US and minorities and disadvantaged groups faced significant systemic barriers to participation. I’m eager to see you tell your peers this.
We’re all peers, aren’t we?
On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.
The question, really, is when one regards these as having begun. It certainly appears to date back well before the current “DEI”, as exemplified by my observations about “Asian” (in the broader sense) and female professionals.
Does the 50+ years between the introduction of anti-discrimination laws and President Biden’s 2020 Executive Order not exist?
Are you suggesting that Black, Hispanic, or Native American students don’t value education or work hard?
Are you suggesting that there is NOT a cultural attitude that devalues education and hard work that disproportionately affects black communities? It’s not inherent in race (those of any race who adopt this cultural attitude have the same problem), but you’ll certainly claim that observing that problem is racist – which is why it never gets addressed.
Black and Hispanic Americans faced legally sanctioned hiring discrimination
They’re not the only groups who have faced that. They seem to be the only groups still facing it – and really I’m not so sure about hispanics at this point. It goes back to my previous point. Progress can’t be made without addressing the cultural problem, but people like you who see racism everywhere prevent it from being done.
segregated schools
Something many on the left are trying to bring back with “black only spaces” and even suggestions such as black people should only see black doctors. (Despite the LAFD deputy chief saying people want “someone who looks like them” to save them, most people don’t care who saves them – another example of this). Those ideas aren’t coming from the people you call racists.
Ooh, we’re getting somewhere. I hear dogs baying in the distance. You’re saying that a ‘cultural attitude’ exists that devalues education and hard work in black communities. So tell me, what do you think causes this attitude? Be direct and specific.
Is it historical systemic barriers like underfunded schools, redlining, and hiring discrimination? Or are you suggesting there’s something inherently different about Black people that makes them devalue education?
Because those are the two logical possibilities. So which is it?
Because those are the two logical possibilities.
False dichotomy – you just haven’t considered other possibilities.
I don’t know what creates the cultural attitude, but when education is already seen as a bad thing, schools won’t help much. I will observe that it’s funny that the attitude has arisen since the advent of public welfare programs aimed at “helping” the “poor blacks”. Maybe its not a result of “underfunded schools, redlining, and hiring discrimination”, but a result of a group of people being told for decades that they are not as good, that they can’t achieve as much, by people who claim to be trying to help them in the name of “fighting racism”.
If ‘bad culture’ is the cause of the disparity, and this ‘bad culture’ was supposedly created by government welfare, then why did the disparity exist before those welfare programs even existed?
Black Americans were underpaid, undereducated, and systemically excluded from wealth-building long before welfare programs were introduced. So if welfare is to blame, what was causing the disparity before then? Be specific.
If I thought you were engaging in good faith, I would continue this discussion. But since you feel that opposing DEI makes me a racist, I’m going to bow out.
BTW thanks for the downvote 🙂
Happy to accept your concession, but let’s be real, you weren’t arguing in good faith from the start. Every direct question was met with dodgy prevarication to avoid outing your true beliefs. If opposing DEI isn’t about racial bias, it shouldn’t be difficult to maintain a consistent position without exposing racially prejudiced ideology.
You werewere clearly trying to score rhetorical points rather than engaging in a discussion about issues facing minority communities today. Frankly, whatever connection there may be, what happened over 60 years ago is not relevant to the current state in any but a theoretical way. Your thinking is too simplistic to consider a myriad of issues that contribute, as you again demonstrate by your insistence that one can only oppose DEI if one is racist. Always this or that, A or B, no room for nuance, no option for understanding alternative positions. You start with the conclusion predetermined, therefore you accept no alternative.
until next time…
Our entire history has been a long stream of racism and sexism
And we’re the only country in the world with such a history, right?
Come to think of it, was that active discrimination, or just the same lack of access to capital and higher education, and just plain Old Money/Ivy League elitism which limits the prospects of the bulk of the population?
Before the Civil Rights Act
It’s 2025, not 1964. Things change.
Yes, we got the civil rights act, and we got diversity and inclusion efforts. And now we have a fascist in office summarily trying to dismantle all of it.
I can only assume you’re answering “And we’re the only country in the world with such a history, right?”, since that’s the only question I asked.
With “yes”
If you truly believe that, you are ignorant far beyond any rational discussion and have zero knowledge of the world or history. Given your argument essentially amounts to “if you disagree with DEI you’re a racist”, I can easily believe that’s the case.
Cope and seethe, racist.
Curious to hear your position on the topic of discussion.
[you’ve replied to Alan enough~ctm]
AlanJ,
“The fact that selective recruitment of certain immigrant groups now happens in STEM and finance doesn’t erase the history of racial exclusion in hiring across most industries.”
Seems it propagates things….
By “erase history, do you mean ‘correct past wrongs’? Or do you really want to erase history.
If it is the former, what exactly will correct past wrongs, and why am I targeted in as needing to participate?
There is no correcting past wrongs – all you can do is try to ensure that the barriers created by those past wrongs are reduced as much as possible. You also have to contend with ongoing contemporary prejudice and bigotry, and let’s please not forget that these “past wrongs” were institutional during the lifetime of many posters here, hardly ancient history as you seem to want to pretend.
So, we are at the corner again. You think that the best way to make up for past wrongs & prejudice is to continue the prejudice, but point it in the other direction?
(If I would have forced my daughter to attend a few more summers for a DEI inspired program for disadvantaged kids, she would have got a 100% full ride to a major college. She didn’t like the program and I didn’t want to chase/accept prejudiced money. I don’t want it for me, and I don’t want to have to pay for for others.)
Bias isn’t just a thing of the past, it still exists today, and DEI initiatives help reduce it. These programs aren’t about ‘reversing’ discrimination; they’re about ensuring that qualified candidates from historically excluded groups aren’t overlooked due to lingering bias. The bias we see today is a direct result of past institutional exclusion and prejudice that created the unequal starting points that still affect hiring and career opportunities. DEI initiatives don’t introduce unfairness; they work to correct existing barriers that disadvantage certain groups.
Or Nigerians.
Not just the western world
USAID, with a $50 billion budget, has been infiltrating DEI and Gay Pride, etc., into Russia, China, India, etc., hoping to destabilize these societies to get them ready for regime change and color revolutions, as was done, and is being done, in Serbia, Georgia, Hungary, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, etc.
In Russia, the US Embassey flew a Gay Pride flag below the US flag, in violation of Russian law.
The US ambassador was called in and told to take down the flag or leave the country in 72 hours as a persona non grata. The flag came down that day
NOAA needs a DOGE-style oversight board to make sure is strictly sticks to its mission of accurately reporting on the weather, and not engage in IPCC scare mongering and fad-style social issues to cater to whomever is in the White House.
Stop adding new layers of oversite on top of earlier layers of oversite. The jobs become permanent.
The problem is that the regulator always gets captured by the industry.
If there is to be a solution, it has to be of the form of random ad-hoc committees, of the type Trump has formed in DOGE.
Do you believe the other party’s next winner (eventually) will NOT assign DOGE teams? Or an oversite board for DOGE? Or a DOGE Czar?
I’m surprised they didn’t fly the Gay Pride flag above the US flag.
I am shocked! Shocked I tell you that Musk and Big Balls and Co are running amok with all our precious data and personal information which can fall into the wrong hands-
HILARIOUS! Defence Ministry says “NO TALKING” in Chinese EVs! | MGUY Australia
The UK has 140 thousand active service people. But has bought/leased 12000 Chinese EVs for the top brass. Thats one for every 10 on active service why? Sacking 10000 of these people would save a great deal of money and reduce the spying risk.
I’ve no idea where you got that information from, because it’s total bollocks.
Suggest the same DOGE process should be mandated for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to also remind them of their prime job; and no it’s not “IPCC scaremongering”.
For example: I note a recent report by the BoM which (again) states the sea surface temperatures are unprecedented, and then lists the disastrous consequences of this unprecedented event.
“Australia’s ocean surface was hotter than ever in 2024, and its harming our marine life”. See:https://www.9news.com.au/national/australia-records-hottest-ocean-surface-temperature-on-record-2024-bom/0fec6863-e8e0-43c1-800b-bf2281bcca9b
The poor little bedwetters, they’re all going to need extra ‘climate trauma therapy’ – lol!
In the recent Democrat National Committee conference, they voted on a proposal to back new laws mandating that companies offer bereavement time of for the death of pets.
Let’s call the pursuit of eco-activist agendas what it really is: Eco-Terrorism.
NOAA. No observers, administrators abound.
Like the UK armed forces. The MoD employees as many civil servants to manage the armed forces as we have fighting personnel I cannot imagine what they all do, apart from nothing and producing spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations for each other
Excellent. Long overdue.
Surely you are just asking us to bury our heads in the sand to prevent the environmental problems being seen. But ANY changes will still occur even if no predictions are made
What about hurricanes,
What changes?
What about hurricanes?
Exactly, DEI has no place in science.
Is this a DEI question? Asking, because, it doesn’t make much sense. and you have a dangling comma there at the end.
Huh, (<— see)
Focusing on a bogus climate emergency scamming IS burying head in the sand of real environment problems that is left unaddressed as all that funding goes into maintaining the scamming of climate change propaganda and lies which runs into the Billions per year a sheer waste of money solving a non-existing problem while failing to address real environmental problems that the wasted money could have addressed.
“bury our heads in the sand“
Another instance of a wrong-headed cliché.
Hurricane and cyclone rates are flat. SFW?
What are these environmental problems that so bother your pretty little head?
There has been no increase in any kind of violent weather. Despite billions spent to look for it.
“What about hurricanes,”
What about them ? Downward trend.
Just shut NOAA down. All we need are technical people to operate US weather satellites and to sell that data to private weather forecasters who actually are brilliant and provide as good weather information as anyone needs. Or, sell the satellites to a private “utility” that then can sell its data to whoever wants to buy it.
The public want to know about the weather and so news outlets will buy the information and publicize it. We DO NOT need the government doing this. There is no “market failure” in weather information that requires government involvement.
Interesting idea
I’m afraid the author is too naive about DOGE addressing climate data, etc. The team seems solely focused on rooting out DEI and little else. I think the job of investigating data manipulation and climate bias will have to await the attention of a new NOAA Administrator. Trump has nominated Dr. Neil Jacobs again. Last time around, he did pare back climate budgets in favor of observational budgets, but did not really tackle the true problems with the climate infrastructure within the agency. This time around….
DOGE’s charge is to root out waste and fraud. CEI counts under both categories.
And I suspect they see it as the low-hanging fruit. Other categories of fraud will be addressed later.
Is Thomas Karl still with NOAA? Dude’s gotta be old by now …
Heh. NOAA org chart here – https://www.noaa.gov/about/organization/noaa-organization-chart
Thomas Karl, a gem –
A former scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington, D.C., made waves this past weekend when he alleged that climate scientist Thomas Karl, the former head of a major NOAA technical center, “failed to disclose critical information” to the agency, journal editors, and Congress about the data used in a controversial study published in Science in June 2015. Karl was the lead author of that paper, which concluded that global surface temperatures continued rising in recent years, contrary to earlier suggestions that there had been a “pause” in global warming.
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
NOAA org chart – present day, 2025-02-10 (Monday)
“Office of Civil Rights”
“Vacant”
Those listed with (A) or (PDO) are temporarily acting in that office until the Trump appointees are confirmed. Notice that many positions in upper management are vacated.
Saw that, and asked myself earlier – Why is that? Did that/those changes occur about the 20th of January, or has that been the case for awhile?
Now you know why I wanted to ‘lock in’ a copy of the org chart today.
It would be appropriate to extend the removal of DEI to universities in some manner, at least the public universities. Huge sums are wasted on useless activist efforts.
Don’t give one elected one term official that much power. Who knows which way the same issues will lean in 3 years.
There have been proposals to ban federal funds to universities with DEI or AA programs.
“There are a lot more storms now than 20 to 30 years ago.” [according to according to James Franklin, NHC]
Prove it!
Elon, How much are they wasting on useless climate models?
I have a friend who works for the federal government. She is afraid of losing her job. She works from home, apparently she does work for an office out of state. I don’t know the particulars but she fears that if she can’t work from home she would have to move out of state. The thing is that there is a pretty fair sized office located right here in our home town. If she can get her work done at home why can’t she drive a few blocks and do her work in the same departments office here in town? Like I said I don’t know the particulars but this doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
Excising DEI programs—which by their nature violate the Civil Rights Act—is essential, but only a tiny fraction of the spending that needs to be cut, and just a whisper of the power that needs to be constrained and restored to the people, in accordance with the Constitution’s enumerated federal powers. The NOAA needs to be gutted. Every program, grant, budget, and employee that does anything more than monitor the oceans and atmosphere needs to be cut. They should only be monitoring and providing public data for others to consume. They have no business doing analysis. That would probably reduce their budget by 90 percent or so.
Couldn’t agree more.
Amazing how many govt and non-govt organisations world-wide have taken on the role of climate activists, and like lemmings, adopted the Klaus Schwab WEF dream.
The above, primarily inspired/assisted by adopting DEI (and maybe also ESG?).
Lastly. surely a well-coordinated overdue government audit is warranted. Obama and Clinton seemed to think so, but apparently never enacted?
Waffle and word-salad is acceptable but action is not.