Rep. Eli Crane used the derogatory phrase in describing his proposed amendment to a military bill. Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.

  • TheRealGChu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Word choices aside, the more telling quote is this, “You can keep playing around these games with diversity, equity and inclusion. But there are some real threats out there. And if we keep messing around and we keep lowering our standards…”

    For those that can’t read between the lines, POCs, LGBTQIA+, women, and anyone else that’s not a white male, are “lowering…standards”.

    • Klypto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      OK then.

      Let’s sit down and read the actual amendment instead of taking out of context a section of some news quote which is likeky already out of context by said news before you shortened it.

      https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress/house-report/142

      1. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Crane of Arizona or His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

      At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:

      SEC. 5__. PROTECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL FREEDOM.

      Section 2001 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

      © Protection of Ideological Freedom.–(1) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces, may compel, teach, instruct, or train any member of the armed forces, whether serving on active duty, serving in a reserve component, attending a military service academy, or attending a course conducted by a military department pursuant to a Reserve Officer Corps Training program, to believe any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).

      (2) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces may be compelled to declare a belief in, or adherence to, or participate in training or education of any kind that promotes any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4) a condition of recruitment, retention, promotion, transfer, assignment, or other favorable personnel action.

      (3) The Department of Defense and the military departments may not promote race-based or ideological concepts that promote the differential treatment of any individual or groups of individuals based on race, color, sex, or national origin, including any of politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).

      (4) A politically-based concept referred to in this paragraph is any of the following:

            (A) Members of one race, color, sex, or national 
          origin are morally superior to members of another race, 
          color, sex, or national origin.
      
            (B) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, 
          color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, 
          sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or 
          unconsciously.
      
            (C) An individual's moral character or status as 
          either privileged or oppressed is necessarily 
          determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national 
          origin.
      
            (D) Members of one race, color, sex, or national 
          origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others 
          without respect to race, color, sex, or national 
          origin.
      
            (E) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, 
          color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility 
          for, or should be discriminated against or receive 
          adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the 
          past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or 
          national origin.
      
            (F) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, 
          color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated 
          against or receive adverse treatment to achieve 
          diversity, equity, or inclusion.
      
            (G) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, 
          anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on 
          account of his or her race, color, sex, or national 
          origin.
      
            (H) Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, 
          fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial 
          colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by 
          members of a particular race, color, sex, or national 
          origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, 
          or national origin.
      

      (5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as compelling any individual to believe or refrain from believing in any politically-based concept referred to in paragraph (4) in their private and personal capacity.‘’.

                                ----------
      
    • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      82
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or you know, he’s talking about actually lowering the standards which is the policy being discussed. Whether or not you think it’s worth lowering admittance standards to allow more women, LGBT, POCs to join and improve diversity, at least be honest with what’s being argued.

      There’s been ongoing debate on lowering standards, mostly for allowing more women into combat roles. While barring these groups entirely from certain roles is obviously wrong, changing and lowering requirements doesn’t seem right either.

      • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        No one is lowering standards. Affirmative action means that when all other things are equal, prefer the candidate who is underrepresented in the field.

        • Archpawn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How often do they get two candidates that are exactly equal? If they’re giving a benefit to people underrepresented, it needs to be worth something.

          And we’ve been constantly lowering standards, unrelated to affirmative action. There was a time when being a high-school graduate meant something. Now it’s easy to get through college, and completely necessary because if you don’t people will assume you’re the sort of person who can’t even get through college.

        • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is not about affirmative action. There are efforts to lower standards, separate from affirmative action. Maybe not for LGBT or POC but women are held to different physical standards in the military.

          Edit: For Ranger School, standards were lowered so women could graduate. For some positions who cares, but pushing people through positions they aren’t capable for in the name of equality is dangerous both for them and their fellow soldiers

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            but women are held to different physical standards in the military.

            When women can hold combat positions, that might matter.

            • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Women have been allowed in combat positions since around 2015. It’s been a slow integration and there’s very few, because of the exact point I made that the physical standards and training are very difficult for most women.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                So they are held to the same physical standards when it’s a combat position? I’m not seeing the problem then.

                • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  As of right now they are. There are efforts to lower standards to raise numbers, and that is what I’m saying is wrong.

                  If they’re held to the same standards, of course that’s not an issue.