Summary
Denmark and the Netherlands criticized Trump’s demand that foreign companies with U.S. government contracts eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Denmark called for a coordinated EU response, labeling the move a potential trade barrier.
The Trump administration sent letters to European firms—including in France and Belgium—warning they must comply with a DEI ban or risk losing U.S. contracts.
European officials condemned the letters, defending DEI as essential to corporate responsibility. The EU Commission is reviewing the situation, while the U.S. State Department called the effort a compliance measure.
TIL Equity isn’t always regarding to money. I thought the E in DEI stood for equality until now.
https://i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png
(I tried to upload it but kept getting errors)
Nice thanks.
If you want you can add it to a post with
like this:The obligatory follow up image
Or, replace the chain link fence with a dodgy internet stream of the game. It’s unjust that some people don’t get to see the game, and other people who paid for a ticket do.
(only partially joking)
You see freeloaders. I see people watching a game. Could just be a park? There’s no stands or tickets or anything.
Like a rorschach test revealing some cognitive bias. Maybe some introspection is in order.
I’m not perfectly clear on your point, but it read like only people who have money should get to watch at all?
If it’s just a park, why aren’t the spectators in the park?
I think the original is just meant to be a simple concept without a fully fleshed out world. In the true original version, it’s only meant to differentiate between equality and equity. It does that by showing that equality gives everyone the same resources, but equity focuses more on ensuring everybody has the same outcomes.
By changing the wall into a chain-link fence and labelling that as justice, it basically opens the door to asking more questions about this world being depicted. Why is there a wall in the first place? In most cases when you have spectators at a sporting event who have to stand on something to see over a wall, it’s because it’s a professional sporting event that sells tickets, and doesn’t want people who haven’t bought tickets to be able to see the event.
If justice is removing the wall and replacing it with a chain-link fence people can see through, what does that mean for the world of professional sports? Are people who didn’t buy tickets entitled to view the game regardless of buying tickets to see it? If you take that concept more broadly, should people be able to access any good or service they want without having to pay for it?
I’m mostly just making fun of the over simplified world depicted in the meme.
Nice
Cool illustration! Thanks!
Think of it like, “equality of opportunity” vs “equality of outcome.” With equity being closer to the latter.