Except for the last 10 years that is exactly what we’ve been told it proves.
Either way, whites make up more than 6% and 27% of the population, so where’s the demand for special programs to remedy this systemic discrimination? Instead, you try to rationalize it away,
You skipped the part where I said this is specific to S&P100, which may not necessarily be representative of the entire workforce.
Uhm… it’s right here: border wall, ICE rounding up and shipping off non-whites, and the anti-DEI subject we’ve been discussing.
In a surprise to no one, ramming “anti-bias” indoctrination down everyone’s throats, especially the kind that demonize by racial or sexual groups rather than personal actions, result in people hating each other more.
Of course this was the goal of DEI, not to produce a kinder loving world, but to justify anti-white or anti-male policies in the workplace, which we saw play out in the statistics shown in prior posts.
Speaking of obvious studies,
Groundbreaking New Study Finds Islamophobia May Be Partially Caused By Muslims Killing People All The Time
Harvard, once the world’s preeminent university for the study of western civilization, gets exposed by a retiring prof for their blatant anti-white, anti-male discrimination. Also, they don’t care about Western Civ anymore, obviously.
Hankins explained that the young man, who was white, was ‘the best student at Harvard,’ and had won the prize for graduating senior with the best overall academic record. Despite the student’s qualifications, he claimed he was rejected from every graduate program he applied to in 2021.
‘In reviewing graduate student applicants in the fall of 2020 I came across an outstanding prospect who was a perfect fit for our program,’ Hankins wrote. ‘In past years this candidate would have risen immediately to the top of the applicant pool. In 2021, however, I was told informally by a member of the admissions committee that “that” (meaning admitting a white male) was “not happening this year".’’
Harvard has lost eight tenured professors in Western fields to death, retirement or other universities since 2012 and has not hired a new one… ‘I will be the ninth,’ Hankins wrote, ‘and I am not expecting to be replaced’.
The professor published a lengthy essay in Compact in which he revealed he is departing the institution for the Hamilton School of Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida.
The other factors are how expansionist Islam is and how harsh its stance is on other religions or on those looking to renounce it. While pentecostal Christianity is also quite expansionist, it’s not quite as intolerant of other religions.
Combination of these makes many people uncomfortable with how aggressive Islam appears towards others and among its main factions unlike current Christianity.
Recent history also seems to be driving this sentiment more so than the historic body count which is still dominated by earlier Christianity.
Either way, did it really take a study to find out something so obvious? Yeah killing others in droves doesn’t reflect well on an organization or doctrine. Kinda like if a study looked at nazi Germany in 1945 and found a lot of people not particularly friendly towards Germans… truly genius research 
It could be worse it, could be Canada
Canadians still imagine themselves secular, rational, empirical. Look closely at our institutions, however, and you find four features indistinguishable from religious absolutism. First, we have the “oppressor-oppressed” cosmology, reinforced by splitting – a psychological habit associated with certain personality disorders – that divides the world into a good-and-evil binary. Second, we have rituals: mandatory pronouns, land acknowledgements, and public confessions of privilege (e.g., declaring oneself a settler on stolen land). Third, we have blasphemy laws. Critique gender ideology? Lose your medical license. Disagree with DEI? Lose your academic post. Conservatives function as designated regime heretics. Under the woke banner, we no longer live with questions we can’t answer, but with answers we’re forbidden to question. Finally, we have clergy and canon. DEI commissars enforce doctrine with a severity any medieval bishop would envy, guided by sacred texts and an unspoken concept of original sin (e.g., being a white male).
Blame the 19th amendment
Men are, on average, significantly more tolerant and less censorious than women. By contrast, while political affiliation makes people more biased towards speakers on their side, it affects their overall willingness to let speakers speak, regardless of ideology, very little. However, regardless of party or ideology, men are significantly more tolerant than women, so much so that the gender difference dominates the ideology difference
I couldn’t find the source that this article was based on (the link provided goes to a page with a bunch of stuff, not a specific survey or paper). So I couldn’t find the survey questions. But one thing the article does not mention is whether they considered whether men might be less honest than women in their answers, or perhaps their self-assessment.
Here’s some more on the data, and the FIRE college free speech rankings in general, which use similar survey data. Questions were stuff like
They certainly didn’t shy away from hot button issues!
They want an email, but then you can get all the data by college from their 2025 survey.
This parabel (is that the correct term?) has been floating around: (Sorry about the length)
I terminated a single mother’s employment because she was twelve minutes behind schedule.
At the time, I convinced myself it was the “correct” move. It was the standard. It was fair to the employees who managed to arrive on time. But in reality, it was the most profound mistake of my career.
I’ve been a floor supervisor at a logistics hub in Indiana for over a decade. We operate on razor-thin margins. In this industry, lost minutes equal lost revenue. To maintain discipline, we use a “Three-Tier” system. It’s printed in every handbook, signed by every new hire. No surprises.
Tier One: Oral warning. Tier Two: Written reprimand. Tier Three: Dismissal.
Elena, one of my most efficient sorters, hit that third tier last Wednesday.
She was a reserved woman, about thirty-two, with an air of exhaustion that made her seem much older. She wasn’t one for complaining or lingering at the water cooler. She simply showed up and outworked everyone on the line.
But a month ago, the pattern broke.
First, she was twelve minutes late. “Car issues,” she whispered. I gave her the oral warning. Two weeks later, she was twenty-five minutes late, looking frazzled and unkempt. I issued the written reprimand. I told her, “Elena, you’re a great worker, but I have to be consistent. I can’t make exceptions.”
Then came Wednesday. Shift starts at 6:00 AM. At 6:12 AM, Elena hurried through the entrance. She wasn’t in her usual work gear; she was wearing worn-out sneakers and her eyes were red-rimmed.
I didn’t ask for her story. I was focused on the protocol. I called her into my office, the exit paperwork already sitting on my desk.
“You understand why we’re here,” I said, keeping my voice neutral and professional.
Elena didn’t plead. She didn’t invent an excuse about a bridge being up or a faulty alarm. She just looked at her hands, which wouldn’t stop shaking. “I understand,” she said quietly. “I’m sorry, Mr. Garrett. I won’t let it happen again.”
“I know,” I replied, sliding the form toward her. “Because I have to let you go.”
She stared at the paper for a long moment. I saw a flash of sheer, raw panic in her eyes—not just the stress of a lost job, but a deep, survival-level terror. Then, she simply went numb. She signed it, stood up, and thanked me for the work before walking out into the gray morning.
I sat back and finished my coffee, feeling like I had successfully defended the integrity of my department. I was an idiot.
The Truth Behind the Clock
Two days later, I was in the lunchroom. Two veterans from the shipping docks were talking quietly by the microwave.
“Anyone heard from Elena?” one asked. “Garrett cut her loose Tuesday,” the other said. “That’s brutal. Especially considering she’s living out of her car with that little girl.”
My lunch suddenly felt like lead in my stomach.
“Living in her car?” I asked, stepping closer. “Yeah. Her building was condemned for some new luxury condos. She couldn’t pull together the three months’ rent most landlords want upfront these days. She’s been sleeping in her old Chevy with her seven-year-old daughter.”
I stood there, paralyzed. The hum of the vending machines felt like it was vibrating in my skull.
Those “irresponsible” late arrivals? That wasn’t a lack of discipline. That was a mother trying to find a gas station sink to wash her child’s face so no one at school would guess they were homeless. That wasn’t a disregard for my rules; it was a woman fighting a battle I hadn’t even bothered to notice. And I had just stripped her of her only lifeline.
I went to my office and pulled her file. Address: 412 Ridge Road, Apt 2. I looked it up. Status: Evicted / Demolition in Progress. Her emergency contact field was blank.
I looked at the photos of my own kids on my desk—safe, warm, and fed. I realized that when Elena walked out of my office, she wasn’t just losing a job; she was losing the hope of getting back under a roof.
The Search for a Ghost
I couldn’t finish the day. I told my lead I had an emergency and I left. But how do you find someone who has nowhere to go?
I drove to her old apartment. It was boarded up. I checked the local parks. Nothing. I checked the shelters, but they were all over-capacity with long waiting lists.
By 9:00 PM, it was 25 degrees outside. I was shivering even in my heavy parka. I was ready to give up when I pulled into a back corner of a Target parking lot to turn around. There, tucked under a dead streetlamp, was a rusted silver Chevy. The windows were completely frosted over.
My heart thudded. I parked and walked over, the frozen slush crunching under my boots. I tapped on the passenger window.
Inside, there was a frantic rustle of blankets. Elena sat up, looking terrified. She held up a heavy flashlight like a club. When she recognized me, she lowered it, her breath coming in white clouds as she cracked the window.
“Mr. Garrett? I… I’ll have the locker key back to you by Monday. I just need to get enough gas to get to the—”
“Elena, open the door,” I said.
She hesitated, then clicked the lock. I opened the door, and the reality of it hit me. In the back seat, buried under a pile of old winter coats and a sleeping bag, was a little girl. she was wearing a knit cap and holding a small plastic doll. She was asleep, but her breath was visible in the air.
“Is she okay?” I asked. “She’s freezing,” Elena said, finally breaking down. “The gas ran out an hour ago. I don’t know where to take her.”
I looked at this woman. I had measured her entire worth by a twelve-minute window on a digital clock.
“You’re not returning the key,” I told her. She flinched. “I know, I—” “You’re coming back to the floor,” I interrupted. “Tomorrow. I voided the paperwork. It was an administrative error. You still have your job.”
She just stared at me, her mind trying to catch up. “But… the three strikes.” “The strikes were wrong,” I said, my voice thick. “And so was I.”
I pulled out the cash I’d stopped to get from the ATM. I handed her four hundred dollars. “Go to the Holiday Inn Express down the highway. Get a room for the rest of the week. Get her a hot meal and a warm bed. We’ll figure out the rest on Monday.”
“I can’t pay this back yet,” she sobbed. “I’m not asking for the money,” I told her. “I’m asking you to forgive me for forgetting that people matter more than schedules.”
A New Policy
I stayed until she got the Chevy jumped and followed her to the hotel. Only when I saw them walk into that warm lobby did I head home.
The next morning, I met with the site manager and HR. I told them I would no longer be enforcing “no-fault” attendance policies. We started a crisis fund for employees that very week.
Elena came back. She wasn’t late. But the truth is, if she had been? If she had been twenty minutes late because life was throwing everything it had at her? I would have handed her a cup of tea and asked, “What do you need?”
We live in a culture obsessed with data, punctuality, and “optics.” We are so busy staring at the clock that we lose sight of the people standing right in front of us. You never know what war someone is fighting.
Be consistent, yes. But above all, be compassionate. Because a handbook can’t feel the cold, and a spreadsheet doesn’t have a soul. People do.
Please share this. Let’s remind each other that being human is the only “policy” that counts.
Honestly, this is what’s wrong with society today. Empathy and compassion take priority - you dont need to follow the rules as long as you have an excuse. So we’re becoming a society of excuses, not laws. If three tardies means being fired, then you get fired and no one should feel bad about doing so. Unless the policy allows for discretion, termination should be considered the correct move regardless of circumstances.
The other problem today is that everyone reacts with emotion. And complains about reality, instead of looking at how to work within reality. When that person gets fired per policy, you suddenly have a open position and a hole in your staffing schedule. I’m sure if someone with experience and good references were to apply, you’d hire them on the spot and get them started right away. So give that person their termination paperwork….and an application. The situation doesnt require empathy or compassion that ignores the rules, it just calls for some constructive thinking.
This just kinda struck me this morning, and it seems to fit here. FragileDeal (and even moreso the old FatWallet) was rooted in the concept of finding ways to leverage financial benefits while staying within the rules. This way of thinking and looking at things needs to be more prevailant in all aspects of society. Demands dont make you entitled to anything, excuses dont justify exceptions. If you dont like your circumstances, figure out how to change your circumstances rather than expect everyone to accomodate you.
The latest fourth circuit court of appeals case affirming the President’s right to ban DEI programs was correctly decided but took way too much time to decide. Perhaps this is because the Obama appointed judge spent time opining on Sec State Marco Rubio banning the use of Calibri font in state department documents. It seems the secretary prefers times new Roman.
Here is what de judge wrote
https://matthewvadum.com/2026/02/appeals-court-rejects-challenge-to-trumps-orders-curbing-dei/
> Diaz said those disappointed by this ruling should “continue your critical work. Keep the faith.”
The administration’s “obsession over so called ‘woke’ DEI programs appears to know no bounds,” the judge added.
As an example, he said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “somehow found time to rail against the Calibri typeface previously approved for State Department use by his predecessor. I kid you not.”
Diaz was referring to Rubio’s decision to reverse a Biden administration decision and return to the Times New Roman typeface in diplomatic correspondence.
Rubio said in a cable sent to U.S. embassies and consulates at the time that “typography shapes how official documents are perceived in terms of cohesion, professionalism, and formality.”
The Biden administration’s decision to embrace Calibri came from what Rubio characterized as the misguided DEI policies of previous Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
The typeface change “was promised to mitigate accessibility issues for individuals,” Rubio said, adding it failed to achieve that goal and had cost the Department of State $145,000.
Diaz said Blinken’s change was made “to help improve accessibility for those with dyslexia or other visual impairments,” yet Rubio said the change was an example of an “illegal, immoral, radical, [and] wasteful [diversity initiative].”
And the judge somehow found time to rail against the Times New Roman typeface previously approved for State Department use before the previous administration decided to change it. I kid you not.
The change was stupid and wasteful, the change back is just out of spite and is equally wastefull. Why cant anyone just go with the default typeface? The only font that has any symbolism of any kind is the Symbol font….
I always preferred Courier New font. It took less words to fill up a page when doing essay assignments.
I believe the consensus is serif for print, especially for small letters, and sans-serif for computer screens. This doesn’t work for docs and PDFs where fonts are fixed regardless of media, as opposed to a web page where CSS rules can switch fonts based on media or screen size.
I personally favor Arial and Open Sans, don’t care for Calibri, and can’t stand Times New Roman.
Aren’t IRAs already the existing solution to the 401k access problem? Why the need for yet another separate account? If people aren’t using IRAs, why would they participate in this account? My prediction is the primary result will be a shift of contributions from IRAs to this new account to capture the match, dwarfing the amount of new savings it prompts. If they aren’t saving now, a $1k match isn’t going to move the needle much.
I haven’t seen it mentioned, will this new account require earned income like other retirement accounts?
Isn’t this just the implementation of Biden’s SECURE 2.0 50% Saver’s match for low-income savers?
I thought that match could be deposited into a Traditional IRA (or 401ks) so why would we need a separate account? Trump killed the myRA accounts in 2017 because program was too expensive to run and funds in it were then moved to IRAs at private sector custodians. Just have the Savers’ Match from SECURE 2.0 be directed into a Traditional IRA held at private sector brokers.
Not a bad idea to mimic TSP plans although it’s yet another budget expense where I don’t know where the money is gonna come from…
It will be interesting to see the details. If the Trump accounts allow contributions before taxes, like a 401k, that would be a major improvement over IRAs..
edit. From the article, this is a major improvement to the individual over an IRA.
The plan will be based on the Thrift Savings Plan offered to federal workers, with the U.S. government providing a match of up to $1,000 per year, Mr. Trump added.
I’m not sure how that would work. Employers would be making these pre-tax contributions out of worker paychecks but how would they know the AGI of their workers? Worker would have to promise they’re low-income enough and then pay penalty/tax if not? And then there’d be the compliance burden on small businesses to handle 401k-like requirements. I just don’t see it considering these hurdles. We’ll see the exact implementation. I’m sure the IRS looks forward to it.
In theory, one main improvement over IRAs would be the much higher contribution limits of TSP plans. Unfortunately those who are targeted by this, are unlikely to max out their IRA contributions anyway so higher limits won’t mean much to them.
As I noted, if you are already contributing to an IRA, this match is a big incentive to shift those contributions to the new account. But if they are not contributing to an IRA already, a $1,000 match that cant be used to pay next month’s rent isnt going to prompt most people to suddenly start making retirement contributions.
I’d assume it was be withheld from paychecks, then recaptured as a credit on each individual’s tax return. That’s pretty much the only way for it to be feasible.
And while the TSP has long be lauded for it’s very low cost investment choices, most brokers today now offer similar low cost funds.
From what I see, all this new account is offering is the match, and potentially higher contribution limits. Beyond that, all the govt can really do is screw it up.
