@Tyre_94 To be fair to Rodgers, it was something that was personal to him and people came after him personally for that stuff and were wrong, didn't go out of his way to voluntarily get roasted by the media. But more generally, I'd like him to stfu and worry about throwing the ball.
I would agree with this, but if he's making the argument that he and the team would defer back to the language in the EO specifically to make the determinations of what is considered DEI, then I think that adequately answers the question. And it makes his "personal" definition irrelevant to the conversation.
@CherylKerkin@JayNCtoDC@cwebbonline He's said diversity, equity, and inclusion in one of the interviews. He's literally said the words π do some research
@CherylKerkin@JayNCtoDC@cwebbonline Yeah im sure the guy who worked for like 3+ months, 12 hours a day looking at DEI programs cant define it. And it had nothing to do with being in a deposition and protecting himself legally. Your guess makes WAY more sense π€£
yes it is DEI to give out grants because of someone's sexual identity. I'm happy to concede that maybe gutting a few of the programs might have been a mistake, but we are talking about MASSIVE amounts of money here.
Also, to claim they have no egal authority is just a dumb argument. Its public knowledge at this point that the head of the NEH was the final say on whether these programs got their funding cut. We also have to consider that all of this was in the context of a government wide directive to end DEI programs under the executive order.
That may be controversial, but that was the directive.
@tonyj_x@MikeEmbrich I think its fine to say that veterans specifically provided a service for the country so they get preferential hiring in a merit based system. Im fine with that.