Just to note that I think we should be sceptical that a review from 4 years ago still applies today. Iâm fairly sure that the staff and research direction has changed over the last 4 years such that this may no longer apply (though Iâm not stating that it doesnât for sure).
Sidenote: I donât think a âdiversity surveyâ is egregious side-taking. Just going off the title, seems pretty normal and (at least) mildly good. Also, so much of animal advocacy is at least somewhat left-coded that Iâd be very surprised if someone who would be scared off by âdiversity surveyâ in a title hadnât already been scared off by something else.
âI donât think a âdiversity surveyâ is egregious side-taking. Just going off the title, seems pretty normal and (at least) mildly good.â
If the title diversity survey doesnât get to someone who thinks woke ideology is bad, the first sentence of the report might:
âIn June 2024, ACEâs Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) Committee conducted(...)â
Just 12 months ago they had an active Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) Committee, that of course was completely unconcerned with viewpoint diversity, as in having at least one right-leaning member.
But since I no longer stand by my original post, Iâm just nitpicking at this point.
Current language for Movement Grants is: âHowever, we are not able to fund groups or projects that: . . . . Conflict with our commitment to representation, equity, and inclusion.â That is indeed softer than the requirements language in the 2021 Forum post.
Just to note that I think we should be sceptical that a review from 4 years ago still applies today. Iâm fairly sure that the staff and research direction has changed over the last 4 years such that this may no longer apply (though Iâm not stating that it doesnât for sure).
Sidenote: I donât think a âdiversity surveyâ is egregious side-taking. Just going off the title, seems pretty normal and (at least) mildly good. Also, so much of animal advocacy is at least somewhat left-coded that Iâd be very surprised if someone who would be scared off by âdiversity surveyâ in a title hadnât already been scared off by something else.
âI donât think a âdiversity surveyâ is egregious side-taking. Just going off the title, seems pretty normal and (at least) mildly good.â
If the title diversity survey doesnât get to someone who thinks woke ideology is bad, the first sentence of the report might:
âIn June 2024, ACEâs Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) Committee conducted(...)â
Just 12 months ago they had an active Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) Committee, that of course was completely unconcerned with viewpoint diversity, as in having at least one right-leaning member.
But since I no longer stand by my original post, Iâm just nitpicking at this point.
Current language for Movement Grants is: âHowever, we are not able to fund groups or projects that: . . . . Conflict with our commitment to representation, equity, and inclusion.â That is indeed softer than the requirements language in the 2021 Forum post.