https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/19/ask-politifac...
Why are they trying to destroy it? Are they saying that they do not want more DEI, JD Vance-type people, that one is enough?
That's not DEI. This program is about helping ex-military to find new employment.
DEI is about "we do not have enough racial / gender diversity at this company / office / organisation / employment level".
I assume that you're USA-based. Is there any chance that there're any state-sponsored programs for employers hiring people with disabilities?
I do still see a large difference between: - giving companies some benefits to cover the additional costs of having a disabled person working for them
vs
- requiring 40% women quota in board of directors: https://www.imd.org/ibyimd/diversity-inclusion/women-on-euro...
Again, my original statement was about what the JD Vance program is and what is not.
If you've applied for a job in the past 10 years surely you've had to declare your gender, ethnic background, veteran status, and disability status.
My message was specifically about the Yellow Ribbon Program, not if DEI includes people with disabilities.
> If you've applied for a job in the past 10 years surely you've had to declare your gender, ethnic background, veteran status, and disability status.
I did not. I believe that here, in Switzerland, it'd be illegal to ask for your gender or ethnicity. Age is legal, although not often practiced in IT. Veteran status - not a thing.
Last weekend the Washington Post published some internal DOGE memos showing this is absolutely true. What's happening has nothing to do with efficiency. It's all about ideology.