#dei workforce program

[bsof-maarav]

"[L]ate last month Rutgers required its RAs, whose job is to supervise students living in on-campus housing, to participate in a “bystander intervention” course aimed at training them to identify antisemitism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. Several of the RAs, however, abruptly left the session after a Jewish speaker explained that Hamas’s antisemitism and desire to destroy the world’s only Jewish state precipitated the Oct. 7 massacre, which resulted in the largest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust.

The paper added that the RAs took issue with the program’s citing a definition of antisemitism offered by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). After walking out, they reportedly contacted Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which proceeded to author, on the RAs’ behalf, a series of Instagram posts denouncing the antisemitism trainings as racist and upholding white supremacy.

"The mandated training program organized by the Office of Residence Life requires RAs to learn about DEI, restorative justice, community engagement, and more — all of these are inspired by Indigenous practices meant to unpack systems of white supremacy,” SJP said. “On the contrary, this specific session worked to perpetuate Zionism, racism, and white supremacy.”

SJP’s post included comments from the RAs who involved them in the controversy. One of them, who claimed to be Jewish, said, “I am tired of the word antisemitism being used to talk over genocide, I am tired of antisemitism being inflated.” The RA added, “I fear that when the Nazis and radicals come once again for the Jews that no one will believe us … it will be your fault.”

Another who took issue with the Israeli nationality of one of the course’s presenters said, “One of the facilitators even identified as ‘Israeli’ and made mention of this multiple times. He justified his authority on the topic by citing his 12 plus years spent in ’48 Palestine, going so far as to call ‘Israel’ [sic] a ‘beautiful land.'”

A milieu of extreme anti-Zionism at the school has resulted in at least one death threat against the life of a Jewish student since Oct. 7. In November, a local news outlet reported, freshman Matthew Skorny, 19, called for the murder of a fraternity member he identified as an Israeli, saying on the popular social media forum YikYak, “To all the pro-Palestinian ralliers [sic] … Go kill him.”

Similar incidents at Rutgers have occured frequently. In the past few years, the school’s AEPi fraternity house has been vandalized three times. In one incident, in April 2022, on the last day of the Jewish holiday of Passover, a caravan of participants from a SJP rally drove there, shouting antisemitic slurs and spitting in the direction of fraternity members. Four days later, before Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel, the house was egged during a 24-hour reading of the names of Holocaust victims.

In March, the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce launched an investigation of Rutgers’ handling of antisemitism, responding to complaints that it has, for years, allowed an open season of hate against Jewish students."

[darkmaga-returns]

11/19/2024•Mises Wire•Wanjiru Njoya

In considering the outcome of the recent elections in the United States, the question arises as to whether we can now expect to see the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion schemes which were beloved of the Biden administration. As we await the new administration, it is timely to evaluate the challenges facing those seeking to uproot the DEI industry. A key point to highlight is that the roots of this industry run too deep to be supplanted simply by closing down federal DEI programs. We can certainly celebrate the end of Mr. Biden’s Executive Orders on DEI, such as the “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” but the wider culture of what is often called “wokery” which now abounds will be much more difficult to displace.

A good example of the culture of “wokery” comes from universities. On the eve of President Donald Trump winning his historic second term of office, the website Campus Reform reported that, “Students at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy will be offered ‘self-care suites’ Tuesday, where they can play with Legos, use coloring books, and drink milk and cookies.” Campus Reform also highlighted its previous report that, “the University of Oregon’s University Health Services is providing therapy goats, dogs, and even ‘Quacktavious the Therapy Duck.’”

The response of many people to such excesses of “wokery” is simply to laugh. It is easy to be amused by the outrageous antics of the fragile adherents of the woke culture. However, laughter must not distract us from the more sinister elements of the DEI industry. As DEI is now banned in several states, many presume that the threat to liberty posed by DEI is over. In fact, DEI has simply evolved.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

EMMA MAE WEBER, CHARIS HOARD & BUSHRA SULTANA at MMFA:

After former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally on Saturday, right-wing media attacked diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle’s emphasis on hiring more women in the force to suggest that such initiatives “compromised” the caliber of the agency. Conservative media are arguing that “there should not be any women” in the Secret Service, and claiming that “DEI got someone killed.”

On July 13, former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania during his speech at a campaign rally. One rally attendee was killed and two others injured. The 20-year-old suspected shooter was a registered Republican, and he reportedly donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, in 2021. The FBI is still investigating the shooter's motive. [The Associated Press, 7/15/24; The New York Times, 7/14/24; NBC, 7/15/24]

The Secret Service and local law enforcement have come under fire for their security preparations for the rally. Some have questioned whether the size of the security perimeter was too small and if the sweep of the facility was thorough enough. There is also a video circulating of civilians spotting the gunman before the shooting took place. [CNN, 7/15/24; NBC, 7/15/24]

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle told CBS News in 2023 that her goal was to have 30% female recruits in the agency by 2030. “I'm very conscious as I sit in this chair now, of making sure that we need to attract diverse candidates and ensure that we are developing and giving opportunities to everybody in our workforce, and particularly women,” Cheatle said. [CBS News, 5/18/23]

Right-wing media have a history of using  diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts to attack their targets, claiming that they “didn’t earn it.” In March, for example, right-wing media targeted Black individuals in high-level positions such as Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. In January, right-wing media blamed diversity, equity, and inclusion for multiple failures in Boeing planes. Around the same time, several conservative personalities celebrated the resignation of former Harvard President Claudine Gay, who was the university’s first Black president, as a victory over “DEI ideology” and “the DEI cancer.” [Media Matters, 4/5/24, 1/25/24, 1/5/24, 1/12/24]

Right-wing media pundits are baselessly blaming “DEI” and Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle (due to her support for hiring more women to work for the agency) for the assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: Stochastic terrorist Chaya Raichik blames women for Trump assassination attempt, other right-wing media personalities chime in

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Sarah Rumpf-Whitten

Published: Dec 28, 2023

Tech giants, like Google and Meta, have slashed diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in 2023 despite their commitments following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and riots.

According to data provided by job site Indeed, cited by CNBC, DEI-related job postings in 2023 have declined 44%.

In November 2023, the last full month for which data was available, DEI job postings dropped 23% year over year.

Layoffs at Google and Meta also included employees who held leadership roles in Black employee resource groups (ERGs), CNBC said.

Devika Brij, CEO of Brij the Gap Consulting, which works with tech companies’ DEI efforts, told CNBC that some companies have cut nearly 90% of their DEI budget by midyear 2023.

“When George Floyd began to become the topic of conversations, companies and executives doubled down on their commitments and here we are only a couple years later, and folks are looking for opportunities to cut those teams,” Brij said.

Melinda Briana Epler, the founder and CEO of Empovia, said that the cuts in DEI in 2023 were “stark” compared to previous years.

“Whenever there is an economic downturn in tech, some of the first budgets that are cut are in DEI, but I don’t think we’ve seen such stark contrast as this year,” Epler told CNBC.

The layoffs come just three years following the boom in DEI initiatives that came during the Black Lives Matter protests and riots.

At this time, tech companies made a commitment to the promotion of diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

In a June 2020 letter to Google employees, CEO Sundar Pichai vocally committed to improving support for Black workers.

“The events of the past few weeks reflect deep structural challenges,” Pichai wrote. “We’ll work closely with our Black community to develop initiatives and product ideas that support long-term solutions- and we’ll keep you updated.”

In a similar June 2020 letter to Meta employees, COO Sheryl Sandberg committed to having 30% more people of color, including 30% more Black people in leadership by 2025.

“Achieving racial justice and equity is a goal all of us share – and a goal that will take real work to achieve,” Sandberg wrote.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a Meta spokesperson said that the tech giant remains committed to their DEI initiatives.

“Our commitment to DEI remains at the center of who we are as a company,” a Meta spokesperson said. “We continue  to intentionally design equitable and fair practices to drive progress across our people, product, policy and partnerships pillars.”

In a statement to Fox News Digital, an Amazon spokesperson echoed Meta’s sentiments and said that their “DEI priorities have not changed.”

“Our DEI priorities have not changed, and we remain committed to building a more inclusive and diverse Amazon,” Margaret Callahan, a spokesperson for Amazon, said.

In a statement, Google said that their “workforce reductions” were to “sharpen” their focus.

“Our workforce reductions and company-wide efforts to sharpen our focus span the breadth of our business,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“To be absolutely clear, our commitment to this work has not changed and we invested in many new programs and partnerships this year,” the Google spokesperson said.

Big Tech Layoffs in 2023

Several tech giants have tightened their workforce in 2023 after over-hiring during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Meta, Microsoft Corp., Amazon and Google-parent Alphabet Inc. have also cut thousands of jobs throughout the year.

Meta, the parent of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, cut over 10,000 jobs in May 2023.

“As I’ve talked about efficiency this year, I’ve said that part of our work will involve removing jobs — and that will be in service of both building a leaner, more technical company and improving our business performance to enable our long-term vision,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said.

Microsoft announced in Jan. 2023 that it would cut 10,000 positions.

The move, which took place at the end of the third quarter, was “in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities,” according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  

Amazon said in early January that it would lay off more than 18,000 employees in what would be its largest workforce reduction to date.

Google parent company Alphabet Inc. announced that it cut 12,000 jobs to weather the current economy.

Google CEO Pichai said the cuts affected teams globally, including recruiting and some corporate functions as well as some engineering and products teams.

==

Expect DEI to become "that which shall not be named" during 2024.

Good news for the downturn in DEI nonsense, not so good for the actual productive tech side of it, although many of these companies are bloated and often wasting time on peripheral crap anyway. e.g. Twitter 1.0 focused on policing pronouns rather than removing child porn.

One troubling issue is that DEI cultists have their eye on AI. Reports of DEI downturn have been floating around in the last couple of days, but a few of them mention that DEI apparatchiks are adamant about needing to be part of the development of AI, to make sure the AI models comply with their fundamentalist religion. The same kind we've seen from Harvard, which lies, gaslights and calls people names.

Imagine Xians saying that they need to be included in the development of AI, to make sure it's infused with Xian values and biblical scripture, and you'll understand why an AI infused with intersectionality, "other ways of knowing," and hiring for diversity optics rather than merit (see: Claudine Gay) is such a concern.

Keep in mind also that many of these organizations tout their DEI bona fides in order to cover for their own larger sins. Such as Disney working with and thanking the Uyghur concentration camps in the credits for the live-action Mulan.

For such companies, DEI was always a relationship of convenience, providing cover - "wokescreen" (or "woke washing") - for their darker secrets, and DEI parasites were happy to suck millions of dollars out of them for their snakeoil. But DEI is no longer financially or politically convenient, and the "reckoning" that activists manufactured is over and done.

[underanothername]

Excerpt:

Last year, Trump released a 10-point policy expanding on his Schedule F plan. It argues Schedule F is about introducing accountability into a workforce where it's lacking — "firing underperforming employees … is often completely impossible," it says. But it also proposes to overhaul federal departments, relocate up to 100,000 jobs from "the Washington Swamp" to "places filled with patriots", and fire "all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus". Dozens of conservative and Trump-aligned organisations, led by the influential Heritage think tank, are now working on "Project 2025" — building a database of up to 20,000 conservative-minded workers Trump could appoint across government. "This database will prepare an army of vetted, trained staff to begin dismantling the administrative state from day one," Heritage president Kevin Roberts told the New York Times, which describes the project as a "right-wing LinkedIn". Heritage details the vision further in an 887-page blueprint for reshaping government. It advocates eliminating programs and personnel focused on, among other things, climate protection and racial and gender equity. At the Treasury Department, for instance, it proposes interviewing every official who has ever taken part in a DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiative, so they can be fired unless they objected to participating. While not formally adopted by Trump, the document largely aligns with his platform, and its contributors include many of his allies, supporters and former officials. It's "probably the best detailed blueprint of what Trump 2.0 would look like", Professor Moynihan says.

[arcticdementor]

The Biden administration recently promised it will finally loosen the purse strings on $39 billion of CHIPS Act grants to encourage semiconductor fabrication in the U.S. But less than a week later, Intel announced that it’s putting the brakes on its Columbus factory. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has pushed back production at its second Arizona foundry. The remaining major chipmaker, Samsung, just delayed its first Texas fab.  This is not the way companies typically respond to multi-billion-dollar subsidies. So what explains chipmakers’ apparent ingratitude? In large part, frustration with DEI requirements embedded in the CHIPS Act.  Commentators have noted that CHIPS and Science Act money has been sluggish. What they haven’t noticed is that it’s because the CHIPS Act is so loaded with DEI pork that it can’t move.

…

Handouts abound. There’s plenty for the left—requirements that chipmakers submit detailed plans to educate, employ, and train lots of women and people of color, as well as “justice-involved individuals,” more commonly known as ex-cons. There’s plenty for the right—veterans and members of rural communities find their way into the typical DEI definition of minorities. There’s even plenty for the planet: Arizona Democrats just bragged they’ve won $15 million in CHIPS funding for an ASU project fighting climate change. That project is going better for Arizona than the actual chips part of the CHIPS Act. Because equity is so critical, the makers of humanity’s most complex technology must rely on local labor and apprentices from all those underrepresented groups, as TSMC discovered to its dismay.  Tired of delays at its first fab, the company flew in 500 employees from Taiwan. This angered local workers, since the implication was that they weren’t skilled enough. With CHIPS grants at risk, TSMC caved in December, agreeing to rely on those workers and invest more in training them. A month later, it postponed its second Arizona fab. Now TSMC has revealed plans to build a second fab in Japan. Its first, which broke ground in 2021, is about to begin production. TSMC has learned that when the Japanese promise money, they actually give it, and they allow it to use competent workers. TSMC is also sampling Germany’s chip subsidies, as is Intel.

…

In short, the world’s best chipmakers are tired of being pawns in the CHIPS Act’s political games. They’ve quietly given up on America. Intel must know the coming grants are election-year stunts — mere statements of intent that will not be followed up. Even after due diligence and final agreements, the funds will only be released in dribs and drabs as recipients prove they’re jumping through the appropriate hoops. For instance, chipmakers have to make sure they hire plenty of female construction workers, even though less than 10 percent of U.S. construction workers are women. They also have to ensure childcare for the female construction workers and engineers who don’t exist yet. They have to remove degree requirements and set “diverse hiring slate policies,” which sounds like code for quotas. They must create plans to do all this with “close and ongoing coordination with on-the-ground stakeholders.”  No wonder Intel politely postponed its Columbus fab and started planning one in Ireland. Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo was launching a CHIPS-funded training program for historically black colleges.

…

This is the stuff declining empires are made of. As America pursues national security by building a diverse workforce, China does it by building warships.  The CHIPS Act’s current identity as a jobs program for favored minorities means companies are forced to recruit heavily from every population except white and Asian men already trained in the field. It’s like fishing in all the places you aren’t getting bites.

[lahtilbooks]

Walmart Under Scrutiny Amid Far-Right Criticism Over Diversity Policies

Read More in Google News

Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, is making headlines after rolling back several diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This decision follows heightened criticism from conservative groups who have been vocal in their opposition to such programs. The move has sparked a broader debate about corporate responsibility and the influence of political pressure on business strategies.

The Controversy: A Shift in Corporate Strategy

The controversy stems from Walmart’s announcement to discontinue certain DEI efforts. These include ending racial equity training programs and halting funding for its Racial Equity Center, a $100 million initiative launched in 2020. Additionally, the company plans to reevaluate its support for Pride events and supplier diversity programs.

Read More in Google News

Walmart’s decisions align with a growing trend among corporations to reconsider DEI policies due to rising conservative backlash. Critics argue that such programs are politically motivated and alienate segments of the consumer base. Robby Starbuck, a conservative activist, called Walmart’s decision a “major victory” in what he describes as a campaign against “corporate wokeness.”

Impact on Employees and Stakeholders

With 1.6 million employees in the U.S., Walmart’s policy changes could significantly affect workplace dynamics. The company has long been recognized for its diverse workforce, with over half of its hourly employees and 42% of its management identifying as people of color. While Walmart claims these changes aim to foster a sense of belonging for all associates, detractors fear they may erode progress made in inclusivity.

Broader Implications for Corporate America

Walmart’s move is part of a larger shift across corporate America. Several companies, including Harley-Davidson and Tractor Supply Co., have also scaled back DEI initiatives due to legal and political pressures. This shift has been influenced by landmark events, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action in college admissions, which has emboldened conservative groups to challenge similar corporate policies.

Read More in Google News

Balancing Act: Business and Social Responsibility

While Walmart emphasizes its commitment to creating an inclusive environment, its decisions highlight the challenges companies face in navigating societal expectations and political polarization. As debates over DEI policies continue, the question remains: can corporations effectively balance profitability with social responsibility?

In conclusion:

Walmart’s response to far-right criticism underscores the evolving role of corporations in addressing social issues. Whether this marks a turning point for DEI initiatives across industries or a temporary retreat under pressure, the ripple effects will likely shape corporate policies for years to come.

[sa7abnews]

6 ways DEI programs are evolving as companies reorganize, home in on employee skills, and leverage the power of AI

New Post has been published on Sa7ab News

6 ways DEI programs are evolving as companies reorganize, home in on employee skills, and leverage the power of AI

BI’s Workforce Innovation Board discusses how DEI can innovate by tapping artificial intelligence and focusing on outcomes.

... read more !

[douxlen]

6 ways DEI programs are evolving as companies reorganize, home in on employee skills, and leverage the power of AI

New Post has been published on Douxle News

6 ways DEI programs are evolving as companies reorganize, home in on employee skills, and leverage the power of AI

BI’s Workforce Innovation Board discusses how DEI can innovate by tapping artificial intelligence and focusing on outcomes.

... read more !

[ajeetsgroup]

Trending Recruitment Strategies in 2025: Embracing Innovation and Inclusion

The recruitment industry is undergoing a transformative shift in 2024, driven by advancements in technology, evolving workforce preferences, and a growing emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion. With talent shortages persisting and competition intensifying, organizations are reevaluating their hiring strategies. As we move further into the year, here are some of the most significant recruitment trends to watch for.

1. AI and Automation in Recruitment: Efficiency Meets Precision

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation tools is revolutionizing the recruitment process. From sourcing candidates to managing job applications, AI is helping employers streamline tasks and make more informed hiring decisions. AI tools are now able to screen resumes faster and more accurately than humans, reducing biases and narrowing down the pool of candidates to the most qualified individuals.

Additionally, automation is simplifying administrative tasks like scheduling interviews, sending follow-up emails, and providing real-time feedback to candidates. This not only saves time but also enhances the candidate experience by ensuring faster communication and a smoother hiring process.

2. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): A Strategic Priority

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives continue to take center stage in recruitment strategies. Companies are realizing that a diverse workforce leads to better innovation, improved problem-solving, and enhanced company culture. The spotlight is now on creating inclusive workplaces where all employees feel valued, regardless of their background, gender, race, or ethnicity.

In 2024, we’re seeing a growing commitment to removing unconscious bias in hiring practices. Tools that help assess job descriptions for inclusive language, software that blind-candidates resumes, and data-driven DEI strategies are becoming standard in recruitment processes. Beyond hiring, organizations are focusing on retaining diverse talent by fostering inclusive environments where people can thrive.

3. The Remote and Hybrid Work Revolution: Flexible Options to Attract Top Talent

The shift toward remote and hybrid work has fundamentally changed how companies recruit and retain talent. Many workers now expect flexibility, and organizations that offer remote or hybrid positions have a competitive edge in attracting skilled candidates, particularly in industries like technology, customer service, and marketing.

For recruiters, this shift means adjusting their recruitment processes to attract remote talent, such as optimizing job postings for virtual roles, using video interviews, and assessing remote-specific skills (self-discipline, time management, etc.). Companies are also emphasizing their remote-friendly culture and digital tools to ensure that new hires can collaborate effectively despite geographical distances.

4. Employee Experience and Retention: Beyond Recruitment

In 2024, recruitment doesn’t stop after a candidate signs the offer letter. Companies are focusing more on employee retention and enhancing the overall employee experience. The growing trend of "quiet quitting" and talent turnover has forced employers to reevaluate how they engage with employees beyond the hiring process.

Providing robust onboarding programs, offering continuous learning opportunities, ensuring work-life balance, and fostering a positive workplace culture are now key components of a comprehensive recruitment strategy. Companies that invest in the long-term happiness and growth of their employees are seeing better retention rates and more engaged teams. Recruitment efforts are increasingly tied to overall talent management strategies that focus on keeping employees motivated and satisfied.

5. Skills-based Hiring: The Future of Talent Acquisition

With the changing nature of work and the increasing demand for specialized skills, skills-based hiring is gaining momentum. In contrast to traditional hiring practices that prioritize degrees and years of experience, companies are focusing on the actual skills candidates bring to the table. This approach enables organizations to tap into non-traditional talent pools and reach candidates who might not have conventional qualifications but possess the necessary skills for the job.

Skills assessments, pre-employment testing, and virtual simulations are becoming common ways to evaluate candidates' practical abilities. This shift allows companies to broaden their hiring criteria and open the door to a more diverse range of applicants. In 2024, it’s clear that what you know can matter more than where you learned it, giving candidates from non-traditional backgrounds an opportunity to prove their worth.

Conclusion: The Recruitment Landscape in 2024

The recruitment industry in 2024 is all about adaptability. From embracing AI and automation to prioritizing DEI and offering flexible work options, companies must stay agile to meet the evolving demands of the job market. As the workforce becomes more diverse and the competition for talent increases, employers must find innovative ways to engage candidates, improve the hiring process, and retain top talent.

By incorporating these key trends into their recruitment strategies, businesses will not only attract the best candidates but also build a future-proof workforce capable of thriving in the rapidly changing world of work.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Wanjiru Njoya Mises.org

November 21, 2024

In considering the outcome of the recent elections in the United States, the question arises as to whether we can now expect to see the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion schemes which were beloved of the Biden administration. As we await the new administration, it is timely to evaluate the challenges facing those seeking to uproot the DEI industry. A key point to highlight is that the roots of this industry run too deep to be supplanted simply by closing down federal DEI programs. We can certainly celebrate the end of Mr. Biden’s Executive Orders on DEI, such as the “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” but the wider culture of what is often called “wokery” which now abounds will be much more difficult to displace.

A good example of the culture of “wokery” comes from universities. On the eve of President Donald Trump winning his historic second term of office, the website Campus Reform reported that, “Students at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy will be offered ‘self-care suites’ Tuesday, where they can play with Legos, use coloring books, and drink milk and cookies.” Campus Reform also highlighted its previous report that, “the University of Oregon’s University Health Services is providing therapy goats, dogs, and even ‘Quacktavious the Therapy Duck.’”

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Anna Krylov and Jay Tanzman

Published: Oct 2, 2023

Note: A version of this article will appear as an invited chapter in the forthcoming volume The Free Inquiry Papers edited by Robert Maranto, Lee Jussim, and Sally Satel.

1. An age of unreason

The liberal enlightenment, humanism, and democracy are under siege. A once-obscure postmodernist worldview, Critical Social Justice (CSJ) [1-3], has escaped the academy and is quickly reshaping our institutions and society at large. Long-standing merit-based practices in science are rapidly being subordinated to practices based on the tenets of CSJ theory [4]. Increasingly, scientists must compete for funding, no longer only on the basis of scientific merit, but also on the basis of how their proposed research will promote the goals of CSJ. As an example, an NIH neurology program requires grant applications to include a “plan for enhancing diverse perspectives” with the goal to “bring about the culture change necessary to address the inequities and systemic biases in biomedical research….” [5] Similarly, funding for fundamental research in chemistry and physics now depends on researchers demonstrating their commitment to “promote equity and inclusion as an intrinsic element to advancing scientific excellence” [6].

In the academy, faculty hiring and administrative appointments are increasingly made on the basis of the candidate’s identity [7-9]. Merit-based admission to schools and universities is being weakened, with standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT being abandoned on “social justice” grounds [10,11]. K–12 is affected as well. Some school districts have stopped giving D and F grades in order to improve “equity” [12]. In math classes, activist teachers claim that getting the right answer and showing your work are white supremacist concepts and are advocating, instead, a supposedly anti-racist CSJ pedagogy [13,14]. Accelerated mathematics programs for gifted students, necessary to prepare them for advanced training and careers in STEM [15], are being dismantled in the name of “social justice” [16-18]. Many school districts have eliminated honors classes altogether in the name of “equity” [19]. The resultant weakening of the workforce has already contributed to the fall of the US from its position as the world leader in science [20].

In the university, faculty and staff are instructed to use Newspeak—neopronouns and other neologisms—in their written and verbal communications for the purpose of “inclusivity” [21,22]. To be avoided are such apparently un-inclusive terms as “strawman,” “brown-bag lunch,” and “picnic” [22–25]. Professional societies and corporations are following suit, proscribing terms such as “field,” “dark times,” “black market,” “double-blind study,” “nursing mother,” “hip-hip hooray,” “smart phone,” “homeless,” and “the French” [26–30].

In biology, an education paper recommends that teachers emphasize the sexual diversity across species in nature, which includes “organisms such as ciliates, algae, and fungi [that] have equal-size gametes (isogamy) and do not therefore have gametic sexes [that is, binary sexes, as mammals do].” This is supposed to promote inclusivity of LGBTQIA2+ students in the classroom [25]. Chemistry education also needs to be reformed, according to the journal Chemical Education, which published a virtual Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) collection of 67 papers exploring such topics as decolonization of the chemistry curriculum, chemistry and racism, and gender and sexual orientation identities in the chemistry classroom [31]. A recent paper in the same journal describes “a special topic class in chemistry on feminism and science as a tool to disrupt the dysconcious racism in STEM,” which explores “the development and interrelationship between quantum mechanics, Marxist materialism, Afro-futurism/pessimism, and postcolonial nationalism.” “To problematize time as a linear social construct,” the paper says, “the Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of wave-particle duality was utilized” [32]. No, Deepak Chopra was not a co-author of the paper.

In STEM, prospective faculty are asked to pledge their commitment to the ideology of CSJ and to document their activism in advancing DEI [8,9,33,34]. Medical schools are abolishing long-accepted assessments of competency in order to improve racial parity in residency programs [35]. A pamphlet published by the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health claims that public health anti-obesity campaigns are an example of “fatphobia,” that public health’s “focus on body size is rooted in racism,” that “higher weight is not causal to worse health outcomes," and that “focusing on weight ignores systematic injustices” [36,37]. Under the doctrine of gender-affirming care, adolescents are offered life-changing transgender treatments, often after only perfunctory psychological assessment, despite the poor understanding that medicine currently has on the risks and benefits of these treatments [38–40].

[ Unreason and intolerance. Upper left: Yale students protest “offensive” Halloween costumes (2015). Lower left: Activists burn books by J.K. Rowling (2023). Right: Students at UC Davis disrupt a film viewing by throwing a bag of manure into the room. ]

Free speech itself, the cornerstone of liberal democracy, is under attack. As viewed by CSJ activists, free speech is dangerous, harmful, and equivalent to violence [41]. Adherents of DEI ideology believe that DEI should trump academic freedom [42]. Institutions essential for providing a platform for the marketplace of ideas, information exchange, and debate have largely abandoned their mission in the name of social justice activism. Articles in the press are infused with CSJ ideology [4]. Scientific publishers from Scientific American to the flagship journals Science and Nature have become mouthpieces for CSJ [43–56]. Universities, whose primary mission is education and truth seeking, have become complicit in censorship, scholarship suppression, indoctrination, and intimidation [57–59]. Universities and professional organizations have compromised their mission as seekers and communicators of objective truths by abandoning traditional institutional neutrality in favor of political activism, taking official positions on elections, police reform, abortion, wars, and other social issues [60,61], leaving dissenters out in the cold. Where debate, constructive disagreement, and discussion were once cultivated, conformity and dogmatism, enforced both top-down (by CSJ-infused DEI trainings [62,63]) and bottom-up (by ideologically driven activists [58]), now reign.

On campus, another essential provision of democracy, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no longer guides procedures for resolving conflict. Suspensions and terminations of professors without a hearing in response to offense taken by students, faculty members, or administrators has become commonplace (see, for example, Ref. 64–67). A predictable consequence is that there is now an unprecedented level of self-censorship by students and faculty [57,68,69]. Proposed changes to Title IX regulations will further erode the free speech of students and the protection of due process [70]. 

CSJ adherents accuse dissenters of being indifferent to existing inequalities and historic injustices, of being bigots, of having nefarious motives, and of perpetuating existing power structures. We reject these accusations. We oppose the practices of CSJ because they harm everyone, including those groups they purport to elevate [71-73]. It is precisely because we care about the existing problems in the world and about real social justice that we oppose CSJ.

What we are witnessing today—curriculum “decolonization,” the elimination of honors classes in schools, the ubiquitous war on merit [4], the imposition of political litmus tests for academic positions, Newspeak, the renaming of everything in sight, and on and on—are not isolated excesses perpetrated by a handful of overly zealous but otherwise well-meaning individuals; they are symptoms of a wholesale takeover of our institutions by an illiberal movement that currently has the upper hand. The current situation is not a pendulum that has swung too far and will self-correct [74]; it is a train hurtling full speed toward a cliff. Those of us unwillingly to go over the edge can either jump off—leave academia (or maybe start up alternative institutions)—or fight to get the brakes applied before it is too late. The remainder of this chapter is about the latter course of action.

2. Why we should fight

To put it simply, we should fight because it is the right thing to do. It is not only our duty to the next generation, but an opportunity to pay our debt to the previous generations of dissenters who fought against forces of illiberalism to create the free and prosperous world that we enjoy today [75,76]. By fighting, we, too, can fend off the forces of unreason and restore the values of humanism, liberalism, and The Enlightenment. Inaction and submission will only enable the further spread of illiberalism. The history of past illiberal regimes, such as the USSR and Nazi Germany, provide ample lessons and motivation to stand and fight today. The train is gaining momentum; the longer we wait, the harder it will be to stop it. We must act now, while we still can.

Although there are uncanny parallels with totalitarian regimes of the past [23,77–80], we are still living in a free, democratic society. Despite the advances of illiberal ideology, manifested by the rise of censorship, the spread of cancel culture [23,57,58,81–83], and the proliferation of institutionalized structures (such as DEI bureaucracies) to enforce CSJ ideology, the dissenters of today do not face incarceration in prisons, labor camps, and mental hospitals. Nonetheless, we can learn from history.

In his book To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter [84], Vladimir Bukovsky [85] describes his experiences as a dissident who refused to comply with the Soviets and challenged the regime. Bukovsky describes the apathy and complacency of the majority of the population at that time. People understood the corrupt and inhumane nature of the regime, but they chose to keep their heads down because—as the Russian proverb goes—“No man can splay the stone” (in Russian: плетью обуха не перешибёшь).

Because of this complacency, the economically bankrupt, oppressive, and inhumane Soviet regime lasted as long as it did (70+ years). But it was the actions of dissidents that ultimately catalyzed its downfall. Consider, for example, the impact of the books of Solzhenitsyn, who told the world the truth about the atrocities of the Soviet regime [86]. In addition to meticulously documenting the scale of the atrocities, Solzhenitsyn explained that they came to be, not due to deviations from the party line or shortcomings of its individual leaders, but as the direct result of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

In Bukovsky’s time (the late 1950s to mid-1970s), open dissent was rare. Growing up in the Soviet Union, I [Anna]—as most of my peers—did not even know dissidents existed. It wasn’t until Perestroyka in the late 80s, when I read Solzhenitsyn’s books and learned about Sakharov [87] that I found out. Yet, it is through the actions of the dissidents that the West came to understand the Soviet regime as an “evil empire,” and this understanding propelled the political forces in the West that ultimately decided the outcome of the Cold War. The impact of the dissident movement on the Soviet regime has been illuminated through a series of memoranda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, stolen and published by Bukovsky in his book Judgment in Moscow [88]. The acts of individuals splayed the stone after all.

I [Anna] was born (in the then-Soviet state of Ukraine) into the luckiest generation in the history of the USSR—the generation that witnessed the fall of the Wall when they were still young. We could escape to the free world, live as free people, and build successful and fulfilling careers in the West. Had the regime lasted another 20 years, my generation would have been yet another of the long list of those whose lives were ruined by the Soviet regime. I feel a personal debt to the dissidents of the day. 

Now, it is our turn to be the dissidents and to fight the good fight.

Fighting for what is right is not just the right thing to do; it is empowering. Standing up and speaking your mind is liberating, even exhilarating; while hunkering down in fear, hoping the storm will pass, is a bleak experience. Being honest feels good, while being complicit in lies is dispiriting. Fighting the good fight puts you in control, whereas passive submission leaves you helpless. Whether we ultimately win or lose this fight, those who choose to remain silent will look back and ask themselves why they did not act when they could. As Martin Niemöller wrote after World War II,

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Eventually, this illiberal movement, like those of the past, will come not only for the dissidents, but for the silent bystanders as well (and, eventually, for its own vocal supporters).

There are myriad excuses, as old as the history of totalitarianism and oppression itself, invoked to justify inaction, complacency, and collaboration. Bukovsky [84] enumerates a few of the more familiar: “What can I do alone?”; “I’ll be more effective after I get the promotion”; “It’s not my job; I’m a scientist.” “If I don’t collaborate, someone else will anyway (and I’ll probably do less harm).” These reasons may seem logical, even compelling; however, they are self-deceptions. Not pushing back against bad ideas allows them to spread. Not fighting back against illiberalism allows it to grow. Not standing up for truth permits the lies to flourish. Not confronting the CSJ ideologists permits them to advance. And when they advance, we lose. It is a zero-sum game.

The choice to fight in the face of potential consequences is personal [89] and not an easy one to make. But as you contemplate whether to act or to lay low, consider the importance of truth and integrity in your life. To paraphrase Bari Weiss: Worship truth more than Yale. As she says:

[D]o not lose sight of what is essential. Professional prestige is not essential. Being popular is not essential. Getting your child into an elite preschool is not essential. Doing the right thing is essential. Telling the truth is essential. Protecting your kids is essential. [90]

Sure, no one wants to become a martyr for free speech or experience bullying, ostracism, and professional damage [81,91–93]. Cancel culture is real, but the risks are not what dissenters to totalitarian regimes faced historically or face today—cancel culture does not put you in jail. One still can write a dissenting op-ed without the fear of being stripped of their citizenship and expelled from the country, as Solzhenitsyn was for his writings [83]. We still can criticize DEI policies without fear of being put under house arrest, as Sakharov was for his vocal opposition to nuclear weapons and his unwavering defense of human rights [87]. But if we delay, some of the totalitarian nightmares of the past may become a reality. There are already worrying signs of this totalitarian-style repression in America: parents opposing CSJ in schools have been accused of terrorism and investigated by the FBI [94]; a journalist who wrote about collusion between the government and social media was paid a surprise home visit by the Internal Revenue Service [95]; a student who questioned the concept of microaggressions [96] at a mandatory training was expelled and forced to “seek to psychological services” [97]. These incidents in America today are chillingly similar to practices in Russia in the Soviet era, when the KGB routinely investigated dissidents, and dissent from Soviet ideology was considered a psychiatric disorder [84,88]. In the absence of resistance, this illiberal movement, like illiberal movements of the past, will gain ever more power, and we will face ever worse repression and erosion of individual freedom.

Inaction does not guarantee survival, but fighting a successful fight does. The only way to defend yourself against repression by an illiberal ideology is to stop the spread of the ideology.

The dangers of inaction are real, but how much risk one should take must be a personal decision [89]. Above all, it rarely does any good to get fired. Getting fired is playing into their hands. It’s one less enemy in the organization to fight against its ideological capture. Should all the dissidents get fired, the ideology wins. Full stop.

But it’s not hopeless. As we elaborate below, there are ways to maximize the impact of your actions and minimize the chances of negative consequences of resistance.

3. How to fight

Although there is no sure-fire roadmap to solve the current crisis, there are some do’s and don’ts. A recently published handbook, Counter Wokecraft (which we highly recommend), written by an anonymous STEM professor, provides concrete recommendations for staging the resistance [98]. It convincingly explains how small but deliberate actions add up to big change and elaborates on the perils of delaying action. In what follows, we offer our view on how to fight, and we share examples of successful acts of resistance that give us reason for hope. Small contributions add up, so do something rather than nothing.  As Gad Saad writes in The Parasitic Mind:

The battle of ideas knows no boundaries, so there is plenty to do. If you are a student and hear your professors spouting postmodern nonsense or spewing anti-science drivel, challenge them politely and constructively. If you are a graduate and your alma mater is violating its commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of thought, withdraw your donations—and let the school know why. If your Facebook friends are posting comments with which you disagree, engage them and offer an alternative viewpoint.... If you are sitting at your local pub having a conversation about a sensitive topic, do not refrain from speaking your mind. If your politicians are succumbing to suicidal political correctness, vote them out of office. [99]

1. Educate yourself; knowledge is power.

To effectively counter the ideology of CSJ, it is crucial to understand its nature and the tactics it employs. As two-time Nobel Laureate Marie Sklodowska-Curie said:

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so we may fear less.

Although Curie was referring to phenomena of the natural world, the observation applies equally to the world of ideas. By understanding the origins and tenets of CSJ, we can fear less—and fight more effectively.

For me [Anna] and my former compatriots, who were forcibly schooled in Marxist-Leninism and experienced its implementation as Socialism firsthand, it is easy to recognize the current illiberal movement’s philosophical roots [78,79]. We recognize the familiar rhetoric and the Orwellian co-option of the language: the media outlet of the Communist Party, which disseminated its lies, was called Pravda (Правда), which is Russian for “truth”; victims of Red terror were called “enemies of the people” (враги народа); Soviet troops invading other countries were called “liberators” (освободители); and  nuclear weapons were developed with the slogan “nucleus for the cause of peace” (атом—делу мира). We are used to looking behind the facade of nice-sounding words and seeing their real meaning to those in power [100]. It is not hard to see that today’s “Diversity,” “Equity,” and “Inclusion” have about as much in common with the noble concepts of diversity, equality, and inclusion as Orwell's Ministry of Love had to do with love or his Ministry of Plenty had to do with plenty. (A more-fitting operational definition of DEI would be Discrimination, Entitlement, and Intimidation.) This linguistic tactic is used because it works. It has fooled many STEM academics and ordinary citizens and has enabled the illiberal ideology to get its foot in the door [3].

As Counter Wokecraft explains, the tactics CSJ employs to gain power in our institutions include the use of liberal-sounding “crossover words” to shroud the illiberal aims of the movement [98]. The concise essay “DEI: a Trojan Horse for Critical Social Justice in Science” by the same author offers insights into the philosophy that undergirds the CSJ movement and clearly elucidates its aims [3]. For a deeper dive into CSJ, we recommend the book by Pluckrose and Lindsay [1].

2. Use all existing means of resistance, but first and foremost, the official ones.

Mechanisms of resistance are available through existing institutions, even if the institutions themselves are failing to protect their mission [101]. These mechanisms can be exploited to change the institution from within.

Bukovsky describes how their dissident group worked within the legal boundaries of the Soviet regime [84]. He contrasts this approach with anarchism and revolutionary destructivism, which, he argues, lead to outcomes that are worse than the original evils. Bukovsky and his dissident comrades structured their activism and resistance within the framework of the Soviet constitution—which many legitimately considered to be a joke. When allowed to speak in court, Bukovsky framed his defense to emphasize the constitutional rights of Soviet citizens, for example, to peacefully demonstrate. Bukovsky attributes their success to this strategy. As an example of an important victory, he describes how he and his fellow political prisoners managed to resist and ultimately eliminate mandatory “corrective labor” for political prisoners. Following legal protocols, they rolled out a concerted effort of filing official complaints. Although isolated complaints never had any effect (they would be registered, duly processed, and dismissed), by flooding the bureaucratic system with a massive number of such complaints (which each had to be properly registered and responded to), they pushed the system beyond its limits. The sheer number of complaints compelled administrative scrutiny of the prison and its officers. And the prisoners won the fight.

Today, we can work within the system of our universities and professional organizations, even if they have already been ideologically corrupted. We can participate in surveys; communicate our concerns to leadership; nominate candidates committed to liberal principles to committees and leadership; vote against CSJ ideologues; speak up against practices that violate the stated mission of the institution [43,102,103]; publish well-reasoned opinion pieces [4,14,15,23,82,83,102]; and insist that our institutions adhere to their stated institutional (and legal) commitments to free speech and non-discrimination, such as being equal opportunity employers. Counter Wokecraft [98] provides concrete suggestions on how to effectively oppose the advances of the CSJ agenda by simply insisting that standard protocols of decision-making be followed—that is, through formal meetings with organized discussions that adhere to a set agenda, vote by secret ballot, and so on. In short, the existing governance structures and institutional policies can still be utilized to defend and even restore the institutional mission, even when the institution’s workings have been undermined by CSJ activists.

The following success stories illustrate the effectiveness of working within the system.

At the University of Massachusetts, a faculty group fought—and won—against a proposed rewriting of the university mission statement, which would have redefined the purpose of the university as engaging in political and ideological activism, rather than pursuing the truth [104].

Faculty at the University of Chicago succeeded in having departmental statements that violated institutional neutrality (by voicing collective support for specific social and political issues in violation of the University’s Kalven Report [105]) rescinded [106].

Also at the University of Chicago, in response to faculty complaints to the institution’s Title IX coordinator and general counsel, at least seven programs that gave preferences to specific races or sexes in violation of Federal regulations were discontinued [106].

The faculty of the University of Washington voted down a proposal to require DEI statements for all tenure and promotion candidates [107]. As reported to us, an email campaign initiated by a single faculty member was decisive in defeating the proposal.

At the University of North Carolina (UNC), the Board of Trustees adopted [108] the Chicago Free Speech Principles [109] and Kalven Report [105]. The former articulates the university’s commitment to free speech and is considered to be a model policy on this issue; the latter ensures institutional neutrality, prohibiting units of the university from taking stands on moral, political, or ideological issues, unless they directly affect the mission of the institution.

Also at UNC, responding to a faculty petition, the Board of Governors moved to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements from its hiring and promotion process. The mandate states that the university “shall neither solicit nor require an employee or applicant for academic admission or employment to affirmatively ascribe to or opine about beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as a condition to admission, employment, or professional advancement” [110].

In California, mathematicians organized a petition that has, so far, blocked the implementation of radical, CSJ-based revisions to the K–12 math curriculum [18]. At the time of publication, the fight is not over; but they’ve won so far.

A new nonprofit, Do No Harm, has been formed to fight against the encroachment of identity politics in medicine [111]. Among their successes, filings with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against two medical schools has resulted in the elimination of race as a requirement for certain scholarships. Scholarships “meant for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, [a] worthy goal, can and should be met without racial discrimination,” writes the organization’s founder [112].

Adverse publicity and mockery, too, can cause Universities, which are sensitive to their public image, to roll back woke policies, as the following examples illustrate.

The administration of MIT reversed its own decision and reinstated the use of standardized tests for admission [113], the elimination of which had been mocked by dissidents [114].

The Stanford University “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” website, which listed 161 verboten expressions, including “beating a dead horse,” “white paper,” “insane,” and even “American,” was taken down after sustained mockery in the press and on social media. The university’s president ultimately disowned the initiative and reaffirmed the university’s commitment to free speech [29].

At the University of Southern California, the interim provost made a clear statement that “the university does not maintain a list of banned or discouraged words” in response to the mockery [115] of an earlier memorandum the university's School of Social Work announcing the cancellation of the word “field” as racist [26,29].

At Texas Tech, the administration announced that it was dropping mandatory DEI statements from the hiring process [116], after details of how these statements influenced hiring decisions had been publicized [9].

These examples illustrate the maxim that sunlight is the best disinfectant [117]. We can use social media and the press to shine a light on the excesses of CSJ to bring about change.

Pressure from state governments can also force universities to change course away from DEI ideology. Facing threats from the state assembly to cut funding, the University of Wisconsin system has announced it will eliminate mandatory DEI statements for job applicants. As we are writing this chapter, the state assembly is also threatening to eliminate funding for administrative positions at UW dedicated to DEI [118].

Arizona has also dealt a blow to DEI ideology. The state’s Board of Regents has mandated that public universities drop the use of DEI statements in hiring. The move was in response to a finding by the Goldwater Institute that DEI statements, which were required in over three-fourths of job postings, were being used “to circumvent the state’s constitutional prohibition against political litmus tests in public educational institutions” [119].

Organizations such as the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have successfully used institutions’ own governing policies and bylaws as well as the law to defend scores of scholars who have been attacked for their extramural speech and threatened with administrative discipline or firing [120,121].

A move is afoot to strengthen universities’ commitment to academic freedom by encouraging them to officially adopt the Chicago Trifecta (the Kalven report, the Chicago Principles, and the Shils report). The “Restoring Academic Freedom” letter [122], which calls on universities to do so, has garnered 1700 signatures so far.

3. Don't play their game: You can’t win.

We are trained to seek compromises and solutions that bring different groups on board; we seek consensus. That is a fine approach under normal circumstances, when all agents are acting in good faith. But we must recognize that we are up against agents who are driven—knowingly or unknowingly—by an ideology whose goal is to take over the institution. Every compromise with them brings them closer to their goal [1,3,74,98,123]. Therefore, we must stand our ground.

A major advance in the spread of illiberalism has been the establishment of DEI bureaucracies in our intuitions to enforce CSJ ideology through policy [3,8,98,124-127]. It is important to understand the power of this system and to distinguish the system from the people. A DEI apparatchik can be a nice, well-meaning individual, who has been fooled by the movement’s deliberately deceptive language [1,98]; a cynical opportunist who seeks power and career advancement; or a True Believer. A DEI administrator may be completely unaware of the philosophical origins of CSJ, whose goals the DEI machine has been installed to implement. But just as a Soviet apparatchik need not have read Das Kapital to have been an agent enforcing conformity to Marxist doctrine, a DEI apparatchik need not have read the works of the critical theorists Gramsci, Derrida, Foucault, Bell, Crenshaw, and Delgado to be implementing CSJ-inspired ideology. But even participants who are naive of the movement’s history, philosophy, or ultimate goals are furthering its aims; they are still cogs in the machine. Do not be fooled by DEI administrators who may naively or deceptively deny that they are advancing CSJ ideology. They are, whether or not they know it or acknowledge it.

The power of the system—the DEI bureaucracy—and its ideological foundation make the motivations of the individual participants irrelevant. The story of Tabia Lee illustrates this point [128]. Lee—a black woman who directed a DEI program at a community college in California—questioned anti-racist and gender orthodoxy, declined to join a “socialist network,” objected to land acknowledgments and Newspeak terms such as “Latinx,” “Filipinx,” and neopronouns, and supported a campus event focused on Jewish inclusion and antisemitism. Lee describes her non-orthodox worldview as follows:

I don’t have ideological or viewpoint fidelity to anyone. I’m looking for what’s going to help people and what will help our students and how we can be better teachers and our best teaching selves. [128]

This attitude was found to be incompatible with the ideology of DEI. When Lee refused to change her worldview to comply with the orthodoxy, she was terminated from her position [128].

The establishment of the DEI bureaucracy in our institutions represented a tectonic shift from CSJ as a grass-roots movement to CSJ as an official power structure within the university equipped with a massive budget to promote its ideology [124,126,129-132].

A 2021 report by the Heritage Foundation [130], which documented the size of this new bureaucracy, identified 3,000 administrators with DEI responsibilities among the 65 universities they surveyed [124,131]. This number is in addition to the already extensive staff of Federally mandated Title VI, Title IX, and disability offices, who also perform DEI-related tasks. The new diversicrats already outnumber the mandated staffers. For example, the average university examined had 4.2 DEI personnel for every one ADA compliance administrator [124]. Given the sheer number of DEI officials and their generous salaries (one-third of chief diversity officers are paid more than $200,000 annually [132]), it is not surprising that DEI budgets are enormous; for example, in 2021, UC–Berkeley dedicated 41 million dollars to DEI [129].

The DEI bureaucracy is given official status within the university and is empowered to interfere in faculty hiring, to disseminate CSJ ideology by means of mandatory trainings, to infuse the ideology into teaching [10,13,16,25,31], and to curtail academic freedom [42,127]. Khalid and Snyder provide insight into the logic and financial incentives behind the DEI machine:

This attitude was found to be incompatible with the ideology of DEI. When Lee refused to change her worldview to comply with the orthodoxy, she was terminated from her position [128].

The establishment of the DEI bureaucracy in our institutions represented a tectonic shift from CSJ as a grass-roots movement to CSJ as an official power structure within the university equipped with a massive budget to promote its ideology [124,126,129-132].

A 2021 report by the Heritage Foundation [130], which documented the size of this new bureaucracy, identified 3,000 administrators with DEI responsibilities among the 65 universities they surveyed [124,131]. This number is in addition to the already extensive staff of Federally mandated Title VI, Title IX, and disability offices, who also perform DEI-related tasks. The new diversicrats already outnumber the mandated staffers. For example, the average university examined had 4.2 DEI personnel for every one ADA compliance administrator [124]. Given the sheer number of DEI officials and their generous salaries (one-third of chief diversity officers are paid more than $200,000 annually [132]), it is not surprising that DEI budgets are enormous; for example, in 2021, UC–Berkeley dedicated 41 million dollars to DEI [129].

The DEI bureaucracy is given official status within the university and is empowered to interfere in faculty hiring, to disseminate CSJ ideology by means of mandatory trainings, to infuse the ideology into teaching [10,13,16,25,31], and to curtail academic freedom [42,127]. Khalid and Snyder provide insight into the logic and financial incentives behind the DEI machine:

DEI Inc. is a logic, a lingo, and a set of administrative policies and practices. The logic is as follows: Education is a product, students are consumers, and campus diversity is a customer-service issue that needs to be administered from the top down. (“Chief Diversity Officers,” according to an article in Diversity Officer Magazine, “are best defined as ‘change-management specialists.’”) DEI Inc. purveys a safety-and-security model of learning that is highly attuned to harm and that conflates respect for minority students with unwavering affirmation and validation.

Lived experience, the intent–impact gap, microaggressions, trigger warnings, inclusive excellence. You know the language of DEI Inc. when you hear it. It’s a combination of management-consultant buzzwords, social justice slogans, and “therapy speak.” The standard package of DEI Inc. administrative “initiatives” should be familiar too, from antiracism trainings to bias-response teams and mandatory diversity statements for hiring and promotion. [127]

The DEI bureaucracy is a categorical enemy. Don't deceive yourself that you can work with it to accomplish good for your institution [128]. This bureaucracy is founded on ideas that are in direct opposition to the liberal enlightenment and humanism [1,3,4,42,79,99,125–128,133,134]. Their goals are not your goals; consequently, you cannot ally or compromise with them. We must, instead, focus our efforts on stripping the DEI bureaucracy of its power, ideally, ridding the institution of it completely. This will not be an easy fight, but neither is it an impossible dream. State legislatures are already taking action against DEI. At the time of this writing, 35 states have introduced bills that would restrict or ban DEI offices and staff, mandatory DEI training, diversity statements, and/or identity-based preferences for hiring and admissions [135]. Recognizing that such bills could go too far and compromise academic freedom, the Manhattan Institute has drafted model legislation that would abolish DEI bureaucracies on campuses while preserving academic freedom [136]. To date, at least one state, Texas, has enacted legislation based on the Manhattan Institute’s model [137].

Another reason not to attempt to work with the DEI bureaucracy is that CSJ ideology leaves no space for rational dialog. As explained by McWhorter [71], Pincourt [3,98], Pluckrose [1], Saad [99], and others, CSJ is not a rational or empirical worldview, but an ideology whose adherents have accepted a set of unfalsifiable tenets that may not be questioned. Thus, CSJ ideologues are not open to reasoned arguments that contradict their worldview; it is, thus, futile to argue with them. We need, instead, to reason with those of our colleagues who have not yet drunk of the Kool Aid.

Finally, since the goal of CSJ is to take over the institution, small compromises with them ultimately lead to large losses for us. Give CSJ an inch, and it will take a mile. Consider, for starters, the following example, in which the dean of the Duke Divinity School made the mistake of conceding to student activists, which led to ever-increasing demands and personal attacks on the dean herself [138]. “The chickens have come home to roost at Duke’s divinity school,” writes John Staddon. Dean Heath, the dean of the school, fully allied herself with the CSJ agenda, rolled out a variety of DEI initiatives, issued a self-flagellating editorial admitting the “structural sins” of the school, and forced non-conforming faculty to resign. Yet, despite these concessions, the demands of “marginalized groups” only grew stronger, culminating in uncivil acts, such as the disruption of the dean’s state-of-the-school address by “four dissident female students bearing bull-horns and chanting, ‘I am somebody and I won’t be stopped by nobody,’ followed by a rap, a little theatrical performance [of a rude nature].”

Staddon writes:

There is poetic justice in this incident. Despite the dean’s earnest attempts “to provide a welcoming and safe place for students,” even after she designed “a space for the work of Sacred Worth, the LGBTQIA+ student group in the Divinity School”—even after disciplining, and losing—Professor Griffiths [a non-conforming faculty], in spite all this, she has apparently not done enough! The LGBT folk want more, much more, in the form of 15 demands. “We make up an integral part of this community, and yet our needs remain deliberately unheard.”

The demands include:

“To appoint a black trans woman or gender non-conforming theologian” as well as “a tenure-track trans woman theologian” and a “tenure-track queer theologian of color, preferably a black or indigenous person.”

A dissident MIT website, the Babbling Beaver [139], illustrates the same point by a mock resignation statement by MIT’s former President Reif:

You would think giving them a Women’s and Gender Studies Program, hiring six dozen DEI deans and staffers, most of whom couldn’t pass 18.01 [MIT’s introductory math course] if their lives depended on it, and cancelling invited lecturers to appease shouting Twitter mobs would be enough,” lamented the weary lame duck. “But noooo ... The only thing I accomplished by giving in to the incessant demands was encouraging additional demands, each more strident than the last.” [140]

The statement is satire, but the concessions made by the president and the ever-increasing demands were real.

Stories of how CSJ, once it is let in the door, rapidly infiltrates the organization and eventually takes it over are too many to enumerate. We present but one example, where the process has been meticulously documented. The report, spon.sored by the organization Alumni and Donors Unite, explains how CSJ took over University of San Diego “first gradually then suddenly.”

Gradually, over the course of a decade, CSJ-DEI became sown into the university’s fabric through changes in hiring committees and curriculum. Then suddenly in 2020–2021 the administration, outside all normal channels of decision-making, initiated a hostile takeover of USD and adopted a radical woke agenda into nearly all facets of the university’s life. [141]

The devaluation of merit and intellectual honesty in the guise of social justice that we now witness will inevitably lead to the decline of our institutions, if not to their destruction [4]. A case in point is The Evergreen State University, which, in 2017, experienced a notorious CSJ uprising on campus [142]. Since then, the university has suffered a 25% drop in enrollment and has lost 45 faculty through lay-offs and attrition [143].

Learn how to recognize and take on categorical enemies [98]. Remember—it is a zero sum game.

4. Focus on truth, not partisanship. Do not fear verbal attacks.

When you take on CSJ, there is something you will need to come to terms with: you are going to be called names, and your views and beliefs are going to be distorted and misrepresented. These are standard tactics of the CSJ movement. Since the adherents of CSJ have adopted an ideological, rather than a rational, worldview, they cannot rationally defend it; so they use the only tools they have: personal attacks and strawman arguments. They will call you transphobe, racist, misogynist, alt-right, Nazi, etc., no matter what you say or do. They will use deliberate misrepresentation of your expressions to subvert and discredit them [98]. They will use the “Motte and Bailey” trick [144] to derail conversations. Learn about these tactics so that you can anticipate, recognize, and counter them [98]. As Gad Saad explains:

The name calling and accusations are locked and loaded threats, ready to be deployed against you should you dare to question the relevant progressive tenets. Most people are too afraid to be accused of being racist or misogynist, and so they cover in silence.… Don't fall prey to this silencing strategy. Be assured in your principles and stand ready to defend them with the ferocity of a honey badger. [99]

Because you will be attacked no matter what you believe, what you say, or how carefully you say it, there is no point in affirming in your interactions with CSJ ideologues that you are committed to traditional humanistic, liberal values. They don’t care. In her essay “I'm a Progressive, Please Don't Hurt Me,” Sarah Haider calls this practice of hedging “throat-clearing” and explains why it is not effective [145]. She also points out the hidden bigotry of it, that is, the implicit assumption that those on the other side of the aisle are inherently evil. Haider writes:

Before touching on any perspective that I knew to not be kosher among other Leftists, I tended to precede with some version of throat-clearing: “I’m on the left” or “I’ve voted Democrat my whole life.” I told myself that this was a distinction worth insisting on because 1) it was the truth and 2) because it helped frame the discussion properly—making clear that the argument is coming from someone who values what they value. But there was another reason too. My political identity reminders were a plea to be considered fully and charitably, to not be villainized and presumed to be motivated by “hate.” The precursor belief to this, of course, is that actual conservatives should not be taken charitably, are rightfully villainized, and really are motivated by “hate.” But I’m done sputtering indignantly about being mischaracterized as “conservative,” or going out of my way to remind the audience that I really am a good little liberal.

She goes on to explain that throat-clearing is counterproductive because: (1) it doesn’t work, you won't be spared; (2) it is a tax on energy and attention; (3) it is bad for you; and (4) it is bad for the causes you care about.

So we should stop worrying about our group loyalties and focus on our cause. Truth wears no clothes, so do not try to dress it up in partisan attire. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and move on.

It may be tempting to stay out of the fight in order to preserve friendships. It is true that some people you thought of as friends may turn against you—privately or even publicly. It has happened to us, and it hurts. But it also lets you know who your real friends are—those who stick up for you whether they agree with your views or not. And you will find new friends and allies who share your values. These relationships, forged fighting the good fight, will be enduring and empowering.

5. Do not apologize.

We cannot stress this enough. Your apology will be taken as a sign of weakness and will not absolve you—in fact, it will make matters worse. Apologies to the illiberal mob are like drops of blood in the water to a pack of sharks. Additionally, your apology can be interpreted as an admission of guilt, which can come back to haunt you in the event you need to defend yourself legally or in an administrative proceeding. The Academic Freedom Alliance advises: “If you confess to an offense you didn’t commit, or if you concede to a claim or accusation that is factually inaccurate or not truly an offense, the admission can and will be used against you.” [146] Recognize that the CSJ activists on Twitter do not care about your apology; they care about publicly flaying you in order to sow fear among other potential dissenters [147]. Someone claims to have been offended by your speech? Someone claims it caused them pain? Fine, that's their problem [148]. You know what your views are. And your friends do too. Stay on message. 

6. Build a community and a network.

Communities and networks provide moral support and there is safety in numbers. Some groups already exist. The Heterodox Academy (HxA), for example, provides a platform to organize communities (e.g., HxSTEM is a community of STEM faculty) and to connect with colleagues who are open to reasoned debate, as per the HxA statement, which each member is asked to endorse: “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education.” The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) also provides resources and support to those who push back on anti-humanistic policies, especially in schools, universities, and in the medical profession.

Organizations like FIRE and the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) provide educational resources, opportunities to network, and—most importantly—protection, including legal representation. Join and support them. Build groups and act as a group—e.g., write an op-ed piece with a group of co-authors. Ten people are harder to cancel than one. Counter Wokecraft describes how to identify the allies among your colleagues and how to build effective resistance at your workplace [98].

Stand up for others. Next time they will do it for you. When you see a colleague being ostracized for what she said, think first, “Which parts of her message do I agree with?” not “Which parts do I disagree with?” If you agree with the main message, say so, and be charitable about imperfect expression. Way too often do we hear colleagues justifying their silence with excuses like “I agree with her in general, but she should have been more careful about how she said this or that.”

Some communities, including mathematicians and psychologists, in response to CSJ takeovers of their professional societies, have simply started new ones [149,150]. Perhaps we need more of these to send a strong message to the old societies that they need to change course. We see evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy; for example, the American Mathematical Society [151] cancelled its CSJ-dominated blog shortly after the establishment of the new Association for Mathematical Research [149], whose apolitical mission is simply to “support  mathematical research and scholarship.”

In 2022, in response to increasing ideological influence and censorship in their profession, behavioral scientists founded the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences, dedicated to “open inquiry, civil debate, and rigorous standards” in the field [152]. It publishes the Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences, which commits to “free inquiry,” “rigorous standards,” and “intellectual exchange” [152]. Notably, its terms and conditions state that the journal will base retraction decisions strictly on the basis of the widely accepted COPE guidelines [153]; otherwise, the terms and conditions state, “We will never retract a paper in response to social media mobs, open or private letters calling for retraction, denunciation petitions, or the like....” [154]

There is even a new university—The University of Austin (UATX)—established in response to the current crisis in higher education [155]. The message on the UATX webpage—“We are building a university dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth”—makes clear what void in the American academy UATX aspires to fill [156]. That the university received over $100 million in donations and over 3500 inquiries by professors from other institutions within six months of the project’s announcement, makes clear the demand [157].

The success of such new initiatives will inspire more educators and scientists to stand up and defend the key principles of science and education. And it will send a strong message to our leadership. Even if we cannot appeal to their sense of duty, the financial considerations (Go Woke, Go Broke [158]) and the effect of negative publicity of the excesses of CSJ (such as DEI loyalty oaths, “decolonizing” the curriculum, renaming everything, and Newspeak [9,23,24,139]) may provide incentives to straighten out their act.

4. Conclusion

Will we succeed? Will we stop the train before it goes over the cliff? We do not know what will happen if we fight. But we know what will happen if we don’t. The task ahead might look impossible. But remember the USSR. It looked like an unbreakable power, yet in the end it collapsed like a house of cards. The Berlin Wall looked indestructible, yet it came down overnight. Recalling his 20 years’ experience in the gay marriage debate, Jonathan Rauch told us: “I can tell you that the wall of received opinion is sturdy and impenetrable...until it isn't. And that it's the quiet people in the room who are the swing vote.... and please illegitimi non carborundum [159].”

We are not helpless. We have agency and we should not be afraid to exercise it. We should fight not just because it is the right thing to do, but because fighting brings results. If we behave as if we were living in a totalitarian society, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Afterword

A Russian proverb says, “Fear has big eyes” (у страха глаза велики), meaning that people tend to exaggerate danger. Accordingly, it may feel like resisting the mob will inevitably lead to career damage. But this is not the case; the flip side of risk is reward. In recognition of her activism, including her publication of “The Peril of Politicizing Science” [23], which “launched a national conversation among scientists and the general public,” Anna Krylov, co-author of this chapter, was awarded the inaugural Communicator of the Year Award, Sciences and Mathematics, by the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences [160]. In “Victory Lap” [161], Lee Jussim, co-editor of the book in which this article will appear, documents how as a result of his public resistance to a mob attack on a colleague falsely accused of racism, his career enjoyed a variety of benefits including additional conferences invitations, massive positive public support for his activism, national attention to his scholarship, and an appointment to a departmental chair (with commensurate increase in salary), which he was offered because he had demonstrated that he could take the heat.

==

Stop saying "nO oNe iS sAyInG aNy oF tHiS!!" They are. You know they are. Dotted throughout the article are references to sources for quotes and claims. For the list of references, see: References.

Liberalism really is under attack. It's always been under attack from the religous right, but its influence has diminished over time, with society becoming increasingly secular and irreligious, or at least indifferent to religious influence. And principles like the US's First Amendment keep it, at least in theory, from breaching the threshold.

But where the religious attack is on the downswing, the attack from the illiberal left is on the upswing, and both more rapid and more successful, having infiltrated everything from government to science and even knitting clubs. And it hides behind nice-sounding words like "equity" and "diversity," people don't recognize it for what it is, and welcome it inside in a way they don't welcome religious intrusion.

This isn't about left vs right. It's about do we want a liberal society, or do we want a rampantly illiberal, or indeed anti-liberal society?

[dankusner]

DMN parent company continues to struggle financially after third quarter report shows loss

The Dallas Morning News’ Parent Company Faces Financial Turmoil Amid Growing Controversy And Backlash

The DallasNews Corporation, which operates the Dallas Morning News and the advertising agency Medium Giant, reported a net loss of $3.9 million for its third quarter of 2024.

This is a deterioration compared to the $1.4 million loss in the same period last year, reported Tip Ranks.

Although it experienced a net loss, DallasNews Corporation’s adjusted operating loss improved slightly due to expense savings.

The corporation reported total revenue of $31.1 million, a 9.7% decrease from last year, reported Tip Ranks.

As previously reported by The Dallas Express, DMN has been criticized by local leaders for its bias.

“There is a reason people don’t trust traditional media, because traditional people are constantly under attack with radical ideology.

Rags like The Dallas Morning News seem only able to focus on seeing racism in everything or shoving the debunked notion that there is such thing as ‘trans’ down everyone’s throat.

Just look at their subscription numbers.

Go woke.

Go broke,” Tarrant County Republican Party Chairman Bo French previously told DX.

DMN’s parent company, DallasNews Corporation, promotes DEI initiatives.

DallasNews Corporation is committed to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion are embedded in the hiring, promotion, and development of our employees, in reaching diverse audiences with our content, and in choosing the companies with which we do business,” the page reads.

In 2021, the company formerly known as A.H. Belo Corporation changed its name to DallasNews Corporation because of the social justice movement in America at the time and to distance itself from its founder, who allegedly had a racist past, as The Dallas Morning News reported.

“We are keenly aware that the relationship of our company’s name to a person who figured prominently in the Confederate Army is the source of discomfort, even pain, for many of our fellow citizens. And that is intolerable to the leaders of this enterprise,” former Belo CEO Robert Decherd said at the time.

DX reached out to DallasNews Corporation CEO Grant Moise about the latest earnings report, but he was not available for comment.

Job cuts loom as losses mount at Dallas Morning News

Revenue from advertising, marketing particularly hard-hit

Job cuts loom as losses mount at Dallas Morning News Revenue from advertising, marketing particularly hard-hit  

The owner of the Dallas Morning News struck a dour headline this week, as one of DFW's largest media companies said “sustainable” profitability remained out of reach in the most-recent fiscal quarter despite dozens of recent job cuts that have reduced its workforce by 12%.  

In a Nov. 12 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, DallasNews Corp. (Nasdaq: DALN) reported total revenue of $31.1 million in the quarter that ended Sept. 30 — a 10% decrease from the $34.5 million booked in the year-earlier period.

The company also reported an operating loss of $4.1 million.  

The company did not respond to a request for comment.  

DallasNews said revenue from advertising and marketing were particularly hard-hit, falling 18.5% on a year-over-year basis.

Those declines were mostly due to a $3.1 million decrease in print advertising revenue following the company’s termination in August 2023 of its shared mail program and print-only niche publications.

Ad and marketing revenue account for roughly a third of the company’s total revenue.  

The Dallas Morning News ranks among the top-circulated newspapers in the country at a time when local news organizations struggle to maintain profitability.

Many have been forced to cut staff amid broad yet rapid shifts in print and online advertising.  

CEO Grant Moise voiced a positive note with analysts Thursday, noting that new pricing and promotional strategies appear to be resonating with subscribers.

He said more time is needed to see those changes positively affect revenue.  

“This strategic decision successfully ended our 14-month digital member volume decline, and I’m pleased to say that the digital member growth has exceeded our early expectations since we implemented this new strategy,” he said.  

DallasNews reported $16.1 million in circulation revenue during the third quarter, a 1% decrease for the period.

Digital-only subscription revenue increased $400,000, or 8.8%, which the company said was mostly offset by declines in print circulation.  

DallasNews had 534 employees as of Sept. 30, down from the just over 600 at the same time last year.

The year-over-year drop equated to a 12% reduction in total headcount, the company said.  

The company announced in May that it will move its printing operation from Plano to a smaller facility in Carrollton.

The decision is expected to save the newspaper around $5 million and include the elimination of around 85 positions.  

During an earnings call Thursday, Chief Financial Officer Cathy Collins said the additional cuts remain on track and are scheduled for the first three months of 2025.

Collins said a smaller staff will be needed to run a more "modern" printing operation.

[b2bbusiness]

The Future of Work Market: Navigating New Trends and Technologies

The "Future of Work" is more than just a trending term; it's a transformative force reshaping how businesses and individuals operate. As advancements in digital technology, artificial intelligence, and evolving workforce expectations take center stage, the future of work market is experiencing rapid growth. Companies are increasingly investing in new tools, flexible work policies, and training programs to meet emerging demands. Below, we explore the main drivers, technologies, and benefits that shape the future of work market.

Key Trends Driving the Future of Work Market

Rise of Remote and Hybrid Work Models The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the shift towards remote and hybrid work, which has now become a standard across many sectors. Companies have discovered the benefits of flexible work models, from reduced overhead costs to increased productivity. In response, software solutions that enable seamless remote work are surging in popularity, including video conferencing platforms, collaborative tools, and remote project management systems.

Automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) AI and machine learning are transforming industries by automating routine tasks and enhancing decision-making processes. In sectors like finance, customer service, and manufacturing, automation tools streamline workflows, reduce costs, and free up employees for more strategic, value-added tasks. Companies integrating AI into their operations can achieve higher productivity, allowing them to stay competitive in a rapidly evolving market.

Focus on Employee Wellness and Experience Today's workforce places a high premium on work-life balance, mental health support, and overall well-being. Companies are investing in wellness programs, flexible schedules, and support for mental health, which leads to higher employee satisfaction and retention. Tools and platforms that track employee engagement and provide resources for wellness are becoming integral to modern workplaces.

Upskilling and Reskilling Initiatives The speed of technological change has created a demand for continuous learning. As new technologies reshape job functions, companies are offering training programs to keep their teams up-to-date. Digital learning platforms and online course providers are crucial players in this space, enabling organizations to provide scalable and flexible training solutions.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) DEI has gained prominence as a key focus area for companies. Businesses recognize that diverse and inclusive teams drive innovation and productivity. In response, the future of work market is seeing growth in platforms that help recruit diverse talent, promote unbiased hiring, and track inclusion metrics.

Leading Technologies in the Future of Work Market

Collaboration and Communication Tools Applications like Slack, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom are vital in connecting teams across geographic boundaries. These tools facilitate real-time collaboration and help maintain communication consistency in remote work setups.

Cloud Computing and Virtual Workspaces Cloud computing has become an essential technology, enabling access to files and applications from anywhere. Virtual desktop environments allow employees to securely access their work systems remotely, which is crucial for organizations with distributed teams.

AI-Powered HR Solutions From recruitment to performance management, AI is revolutionizing human resources. AI-driven systems can analyze vast amounts of data, predict employee turnover, and match candidates to roles with greater accuracy. By automating routine tasks, these solutions allow HR teams to focus on strategic initiatives.

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) VR and AR technologies are finding new applications in training and development. For example, companies in fields like manufacturing, healthcare, and engineering use VR simulations to train employees in realistic scenarios without real-world risks. AR enhances remote assistance by overlaying instructions on equipment, which is particularly useful in complex or technical roles.

Cybersecurity Solutions As remote work expands, so does the need for robust cybersecurity. Companies are increasingly adopting advanced security measures to protect sensitive information. Tools like two-factor authentication, end-to-end encryption, and real-time threat detection help maintain a secure digital environment for employees.

Benefits of Embracing the Future of Work

Enhanced Productivity and Efficiency Automation and AI tools reduce manual work, leading to higher productivity. Employees can focus on strategic and creative aspects of their roles, which contributes to a more engaged and motivated workforce.

Greater Flexibility and Talent Acquisition Companies with remote and hybrid work policies have access to a global talent pool. By offering flexible options, businesses can attract top talent from diverse backgrounds, resulting in increased innovation and competitive advantage.

Cost Savings and Operational Efficiency Remote work has enabled companies to reduce office space and related costs. By leveraging cloud-based systems and automation, companies can further streamline their operations and allocate resources to growth initiatives.

Stronger Employee Engagement and Retention A focus on wellness, DEI, and flexible work options improves employee satisfaction and retention. Organizations that prioritize the employee experience foster a positive workplace culture, leading to better team morale and loyalty.

Resilience and Agility The future of work market equips businesses to adapt quickly to changes. In uncertain times, companies with digital and flexible work infrastructures can pivot more effectively, ensuring continuity and resilience in the face of disruptions.

Buy the Full Report for More Insights into the Future of work Trends Download a Free Report Sample

[gsinfotechvispvtltd]

Ensuring Diversity in Remote Hiring

Introduction

As the workforce becomes increasingly global, ensuring diversity in remote hiring has become a critical focus for businesses aiming to create inclusive and dynamic teams. Remote hiring opens up access to talent from all corners of the world, but without proper strategies, companies may inadvertently overlook diverse candidates. Here are key ways organizations can foster diversity when hiring remotely.

1. Redefine Job Descriptions

Job descriptions often reflect biases that inadvertently limit the pool of diverse applicants. Companies should carefully assess their job descriptions for gendered language or unnecessary qualifications that could discourage certain groups from applying. For example, words like "aggressive" or "competitive" might appeal more to male candidates, while terms like "supportive" might lean toward female applicants. Tools like Textio can help optimize job descriptions for inclusivity.

2. Leverage Global Job Boards

Remote hiring presents a unique opportunity to tap into diverse talent pools by expanding beyond local or national job boards. Platforms like We Work Remotely, Remote.co, and AngelList allow companies to connect with candidates from varied backgrounds and locations. Additionally, niche platforms catering to specific groups, such as PowerToFly for women in tech, can help organizations target underrepresented demographics.

3. Implement Blind Recruiting

To combat unconscious bias, some companies are adopting blind recruiting practices where personal details such as names, genders, or ages are removed from the initial stages of hiring. This allows the focus to remain on the candidate's skills and qualifications, rather than their identity. Tools like HireVue and Codility provide blind screening options, which can help recruiters assess candidates more objectively, increasing diversity in their hires.

4. Structured Interviews

Structured interviews, where each candidate is asked the same set of standardized questions, help mitigate biases and ensure that all candidates are evaluated based on the same criteria. By focusing on skills and experience that are directly relevant to the job, companies are more likely to hire diverse candidates who may otherwise be overlooked due to biases that emerge in unstructured interviews. Platforms like Interviewing.io and HireVue also help standardize the interview process for remote teams, making it easier to evaluate applicants fairly.

5. Inclusive Onboarding and Training

Once diverse candidates are hired, it is equally important to ensure they feel included and valued. Remote teams can sometimes experience isolation, which can affect employee retention, especially for minority groups. Offering an inclusive onboarding experience that introduces new hires to the company culture and provides mentorship opportunities can help foster an inclusive environment. Training programs focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) also encourage teams to be more mindful of their interactions and behaviors.

6. Ongoing Assessment and Feedback

Ensuring diversity in remote hiring isn't a one-time effort. It's important to continually assess the effectiveness of diversity strategies and seek feedback from employees. Regular surveys, like those from CultureAmp, can help companies understand the diversity challenges they face and measure the success of their diversity initiatives. Incorporating diverse perspectives into decision-making processes can lead to more innovative solutions and a healthier company culture.

Conclusion

Diversity in remote hiring not only helps companies build more inclusive teams but also drives creativity, innovation, and better decision-making. By refining hiring practices, leveraging global talent, and committing to ongoing inclusion, organizations can build teams that reflect a wider range of experiences and perspectives, ultimately leading to greater success in today’s competitive global market.

[updates-about-springworks]

Navigating The Future: HR Trends To Watch In 2025

As we move into 2025, the HR landscape is set to transform with emerging trends driven by technology, shifting workforce expectations, and an emphasis on flexibility and inclusivity. HR teams aiming to stay competitive will need to keep an eye on the latest trends to foster more engaged, resilient, and productive teams.

1. Emphasis on Engagement Pulse Tools

With employee engagement becoming a priority, companies are increasingly investing in engagement pulse tools. These tools offer regular insights into workforce sentiment, helping HR teams address issues before they escalate. Unlike traditional annual surveys, engagement pulse tools provide frequent, real-time data, enabling organizations to adapt more responsively.

2. Prioritizing Mental Health & Well-being

In 2025, mental health support will become a critical part of HR policies, with companies adopting more comprehensive wellness programs. Enhanced benefits, flexible working hours, and digital wellness solutions will play a crucial role in promoting employee well-being and satisfaction.

3. Leveraging Anonymous Feedback Forms for Honest Insights

To create an open and trust-filled environment, many organizations are turning to anonymous feedback forms. These tools allow employees to voice concerns or share suggestions without fear of backlash, fostering a culture of transparency. HR leaders recognize that anonymous feedback can reveal valuable insights that might not surface through other channels.

4. AI-Driven Talent Management

AI technology is continuing to redefine talent management, from automated recruitment to AI-driven performance evaluations. In 2025, organizations will likely adopt more advanced AI tools to streamline HR tasks, predict employee success, and enhance decision-making.

5. Focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Building diverse and inclusive workplaces remains a top priority. Expect to see new approaches to DEI initiatives, from using data analytics to address bias to promoting policies that ensure representation and equity at all organizational levels.

6. Skills Development & Continuous Learning

As job roles evolve, continuous learning will be key. Companies will invest in skill development programs, making use of personalized learning platforms to enable employees to stay agile and skilled.

By embracing these trends, HR departments can build a future-ready workforce that is engaged, satisfied, and aligned with the organization’s goals. Stay ahead of the curve by integrating tools like engagement pulse surveys and anonymous feedback forms to foster transparency and enhance the employee experience.