The internet never forgets.
I can confirm that this graphic appears on Perma.cc
as part of a report fomr Johnson and Johnson
(Page 28 here: Perma | 2023 Health for Humanity Report )
I can also confirm that if you look for it at the companyâs website what you will find is this
I can only speculate about why that is the case.
The white hate is as bold as ever.
In a win for justice
a federal court recently ruled that merely posting a numercial goal for âdiversityâ can be used as evidence of discrimination in a bias lawsuit.
. . . In the release, Clorox CEO Linda Rendle was quoted as saying that she was âproud that women leaders make up 50% of Cloroxâs executive team since itâs important we represent the diverse consumers we serve around the world, the majority of whom are women." . . . .
. . . Ultimately, the 9th Circuit said Cloroxâs goal of increasing the number of women managers was âsufficiently âspecific and substantialââ to defeat summary judgment and âraises material questions of fact concerning Cloroxâs reasons for firing him.â . . .
Cloroxâs women-in-management hiring goal helps revive manâs bias lawsuit | HR Dive
Live by the sword, DEI by the sword.
Lol. Thatâs clever.
DEI is illegal now?
Having aspirational goals for diversity is not illegal.
Illegal? No
Which is why i did hot say it is illegal.
(funny how that works, huh?)
Having a numerical goal is EVIDENCE OF breaking the law.
Which is what I said
and what the court
said and what the news article said.
(Neat how that works, huh? Eveybody in the whole wide world says one thing. You read it and understand it and . . . if you donât pretend we are saying something we are not, then everything just kind of works out, huh?)
Iâm sorryâŚ
But the word âillegalâ in your OP?
Yes. It reads that J&J denies doing anything illegal.
It has a goal
the goal is that X number of white people is too many.
That published goal many now be used as evidence of illegal acitivity.
(Kind of like owning a gun and a mask and a lot of dollar bills is not a crime . . . it is evidence of a crime.)
Thatâs not the aspirational goal.
Yall think that white people must lose if any other minority gains.
If you have 51% white people and you want only 50% white people
how doyou achieve that?
a. Be absolutely color blind
b. favor nonwhite people wherever you can legally get awy with if.
Incorrect framingâŚ
If you have 2% black managers and you aspire to have 3% black managersâŚâŚ
âFavorâ
Another incorrect characterization.
What really happens is you expand your search of qualified candidates to find more qualified minorities. That doesnât mean you donât find white peopleâŚ
That also doesnât mean you find someone less qualified
That also doesnât mean white people loseâŚ
I worked in IT for a large corporation with billions in government contracts.
For my 20+ years in management we had aspirational goals for women and minorities.
Not once was I told, or coerced in any manner, to hire women or minorities.
Looking back Iâd estimate my hires were about 50/50 male/female and 99% white.
Itâs just the way things worked out.
100 qualified black families apply for a bank loan.
The loan officer doesnât give them loans.
The bank is âkeeping the process openâ and âexpanding the searchâ until a more qualified white family applies . . . then they will give the loan to the most qualified person.
â> smells like racism to me.
A qualified black family puts an offer on a house in a white neighborhood. The reator advises keeping the process open" and âexpanding the searchâ until a more qualified white family applies
â> smells like racism to me.
A qualified white applicant applies for a job . . . .
Specific aspects of DEI, such as race discrimination in hiring or promoting.
âWe aspire to have all of our positions filled by white menâ.
It is strong evidence. If their goal is reached, maybe it was because only white men applied. But it is evidence that something else was going on.
The actual racists are rearing their ugly true selves again now that being racist against white people counts as racism again.
Imagine that.
