Hacker News Reader

Comment by duxup | Hacker News Reader

>O’Connor said the settlement’s provisions for choosing an independent monitor improperly required considering the race of the person appointed and minimized his role in the process.

How did considering the race of the person appointed even come up?

I can't imagine either side thinking there was some kind of advantage to doing so?

View on HN

According to the NPR article about this: "The judge also objected to a requirement that the monitor selection process adhere to the DOJ's diversity and inclusion policy." So it seems as if the judge doesn't like something the DOJ routinely has, because the judge is saying the court should have a large part in deciding who the overseers are. The judge brought up DEI. Neither of the parties seem to have, besides what seems to be a standing policy. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/05/nx-s1-5217960/court-rejects-b... I agree with you, it would be very odd (even as someone who is generally pro DEI) to include it in this provision.

That makes a lot more sense thanks.

Yeah I don't see a reason that just because the DOJ is a part of a legal deal ... somehow their department policies should be injected. Could have some very negative outcomes and strangeness about what kind of deal DOJ can even make if a department policy gets injected that counteracts something in the deal.

> Reed Charles O'Connor (born June 1, 1965) is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007

Yeah, makes sense that he would interpret a reference to DEI as discriminatory. Maybe he wants to get noticed by the incoming administration for appointment to a higher court?

Good luck to him. It is nigh time to slay the DEI beast.

I can think of one reason, and it is that Boeing was accused of loosening hiring requirements because of their DEI policies. I do not believe this is the case for this ruling, and there is no evidence that Boeing changed hiring or training standards due to DEI policies.

The Biden admin has been putting in DEI requirements on a number of legal settlements and contracts. For example, largs delays in CHIPs act rollout and EV charging station rollouts were caused by this. This is not routine, but extremely unusual and likely violates the US Constitution.

Yeah. Both parties have become very used to backdooring things that can't come in through the front door. Hey, there's a reason they can't come in the front door!

The current DEI issue is simply one of many. The DEI focus is not routine, the overall problem is.

Something something diverse viewpoints mumble mumble equity

The concept that a given person's race or background makes them willing or even qualified to speak / address all people with similar background or race to me makes zero sense to me.

If you mean that's what DEI is about, it's not.

Also, I'd say it's human nature to feel more comfortable and familiar with your "in group". Do you disagree?

I don't know. My response was based on the other users response. I wasn't looking to sum up DEI or anything like that.

Fair enough--that's why I asked the questions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com