Trump's elimination of DEI and what it means.

[AggieSooner]

Many people know that DEI helps underrepresented students or workers obtain an education or a job.

But what you may not know, is that DEI also provides funding for installing ramps, elevators, bathrooms, and other physical accessability features for handicapped individuals, including the elderly and veterans.

DEI provides assistive technology, extra time on tests, alternative learning formats, and other accommodations for students k-12, and in college who have learning disabilities such as ADHD, dyslexia, autism, etc.

ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) provides the legal legislation for such things while DEI largely provides the funding and resources.

With Trump eliminating DEI/DEIA initiatives in the workforce and schools, these items listed above will have extremely limited funding, or none at all. Meaning. These items, and many more, will no longer be available for anyone.

My sources are AP, Reuters, NPR, and BBC. All of which are neutral sources that don't care about left or right wing politics.

 

[kenasbury9468]

Yeah DEI also hires alot of people that have no clue about the job they are supposed to do...your sources are the AP, Reuters, NPR and BBC, all left leaning sources of BS...are you an Aggie, that is the only way that you can make sense of what you wrote

 

[AT.Hill]

While DEI programs do play a role in promoting accessibility and inclusivity, it is not accurate to say that these programs are the primary or sole funding source for accommodations like ramps, elevators, or assistive technology. These initiatives are also supported by other programs and mandates, particularly the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires public and private sectors to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities. The ADA is a legally binding framework that ensures people with disabilities are accommodated, and it is backed by federal funding and legal obligations. Therefore, even if DEI initiatives were reduced or eliminated (which they should be) the legal requirement for accessibility would still exist, and funding for those accommodations would likely be maintained under the ADA.

Also, while DEI programs can provide accommodations such as extra time on tests or alternative learning formats, many of these accommodations are still required by law under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These laws mandate that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate education, which includes necessary accommodations. These protections would not be immediately removed by changes to DEI initiatives, as the legal obligation remains. Critics might argue that cutting DEI initiatives would reduce some flexibility or funding for specific programs, but the core legal requirements for accommodations in education are separate and would continue under these laws.

It's also important to consider that a policy shift away from DEI initiatives may not necessarily eliminate all supports for accessibility, inclusion, and accommodations. It could simply refocus how resources are distributed. In other words, government and educational institutions may find alternative ways to fund these accommodations that do not rely on the DEI framework. For example, resources for accessibility could be redirected through specialized disability support programs or other dedicated channels without the broad structure of DEI funding.

Lastly, DEI was never a good idea to begin with. Emphasizing identity markers like race, gender, and background over merit or qualifications have lead to situations where people are placed in roles based on characteristics unrelated to job performance. DEI should complement merit-based approaches by broadening the pool of candidates and ensuring that opportunities are accessible to everyone, regardless of their background. However, DEI programs have created an environment of discrimination against people who are perceived as "privileged" or "over represented" by the left. Also claiming that the AP, Reuters, NPR, and BBC are neutral is inherently false. If you truly believe that then you are either dangerously naïve or blatantly lying. Both are equally as bad.