#diversity and inclusion programs

[ef-1]

the Toto villain/unsympathetic idiot heel turn needs to be studied by scholars. It needs articles in peer reviewed journals. Who is the Toto of today? It's not the man who had the carefully crafted image of a competent and calculating leader who helmed Mercedes to the history books but IT SURE AS SHIT IS NOT THE MF WHO'D COMPARE HELMUT TO NIKI. NIKI LAUDA? TORGER YOU SAID HELMUT CAN REPLACE NIKI AND IS WELCOME AT MERCEDES? 3 TIME CHAMPION NIKI LAUDA? NIKI WHO RETURNED TO RACE 6 WEEKS AFTER BEING READ HIS LAST RITES BECAUSE DOCTORS WERE CONVINCED HE WOULD DIE? NIKI WHO PUT THE FEAR OF GOD IN F1? NIKI WHO WITHDREW FROM RACES IF HE FELT F1 WASNT TAKING DRIVER SAFETY SERIOUSLY?? TO HELMUT MARKO???? WHOS GREATEST HITS INCLUDE

racism

lying

lobbying for putting drivers in a covid camp and purposefully infecting them all

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Aaron Sibarium

Published: Jun 12, 2024

Congressional Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday that would eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion positions in the federal government and bar federal contractors from requiring DEI statements and training sessions.

The Dismantle DEI Act, introduced by Sen. J.D. Vance (R., Ohio) and Rep. Michael Cloud (R., Texas), would also bar federal grants from going to diversity initiatives, cutting off a key source of support for DEI programs in science and medicine. Other provisions would prevent accreditation agencies from requiring DEI in schools and bar national securities associations, like NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange, from instituting diversity requirements for corporate boards.

"The DEI agenda is a destructive ideology that breeds hatred and racial division," Vance told the Washington Free Beacon. "It has no place in our federal government or anywhere else in our society."

The bill is the most comprehensive legislative effort yet to excise DEI initiatives from the federal government and regulated entities. It offers a preview of how a Republican-controlled government, led by former president Donald Trump, could crack down on the controversial diversity programs that have exploded since 2020, fueled in part by President Joe Biden’s executive orders mandating a "whole-of-government" approach to  "racial equity."

From NASA and the National Science Foundation to the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S Army, all federal agencies require some form of diversity training. Mandatory workshops have drilled tax collectors on "cultural inclusion," military commanders on male pregnancy, and nuclear engineers on the "roots of white male culture," which—according to a training for Sandia National Laboratories, the Energy Department offshoot that designs America’s nuclear arsenal—include a "can-do attitude" and "hard work."

The Sandia training, conducted in 2019 by a group called "White Men As Full Diversity Partners," instructed nuclear weapons engineers to write "a short message" to "white women" and "people of color" about what they’d learned, according to screenshots of the training obtained by the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo.

The bill would ban these trainings and close the government DEI offices that conduct them. It would also prevent personnel laid off by those closures from being transferred or reassigned—a move meant to stop diversity initiatives from continuing under another name.

The prohibitions, which cover outside DEI consultants as well as government officials, would be enforced via a private right of action and could save the government billions of dollars. In 2023, the Biden administration spent over $16 million on diversity training for government employees alone. It requested an additional $83 million that year for DEI programs at the State Department and $9.2 million for the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility—one of the many bureaucracies the bill would eliminate.

A large chunk of savings would come from axing DEI grants made through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has a near monopoly on science funding in the United States. The agency hosts an entire webpage for "diversity related" grant opportunities—including several that prioritize applicants from "diverse backgrounds"—and has set aside billions of dollars for "minority institutions" and researchers with a "commitment to promoting diversity." All of those programs would be on the chopping block should Vance and Cloud’s bill pass.

Cosponsored by Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.), Rick Scott (R., Fla.), Kevin Cramer (R., N.D.), Bill Cassidy (R., La.), and Eric Schmitt (R., Mo.) in the Senate, the Dismantle DEI Act has drawn support from prominent conservative advocacy groups, including Heritage Action and the Claremont Institute. At a time of ideological fracture on the right—debates about foreign aid and the proper role of government bitterly divided Trump’s primary challengers, for example, both in 2016 and 2024—Wednesday’s bill aims to provide a rallying cry most Republicans can get behind: DEI needs to die.

"It’s absurd to fund these divisive policies, especially using Americans' tax dollars," Cloud told the Free Beacon. "And it’s time for Congress to put an end to them once and for all."

The bill has the potential to free millions of Americans—both in government and the private sector—from the sort of divisive diversity trainings that have become an anti-woke bête noire. Its most consequential provisions might be those governing federal contractors, which employ up to a fifth of the American workforce and include companies like Pfizer, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, and Verizon.

Each firm runs a suite of DEI programs, from race-based fellowships and "resource groups" to mandatory workshops, that have drawn public outcry and in some cases sparked legal challenges. By targeting these contractors, the bill could purge DEI from large swaths of the U.S. economy without directly outlawing the practice in private institutions.

Targeting accreditors, meanwhile, could remove a key driver of DEI programs in professional schools. The American Bar Association and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredit all law and medical schools in the United States and derive much of their power from the U.S. Department of Education, have both made DEI material—including course content on "anti-racism"—a requirement for accreditation, over the objections of some of their members.

Those mandates have spurred a handful of law schools to require entire classes on critical race theory. The transformation has been even more acute at medical schools, which, per accreditation guidelines released in 2022, should teach students to identify "systems of power, privilege, and oppression."

Yale Medical School now requires residents to take a mandatory course on "advocacy" and "health justice," for example. And at the University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, students must complete a "health equity" course that promotes police abolition, describes weight loss as a "hopeless endeavor," and states that "biomedical knowledge" is "just one way" of understanding "health and the world."

While the bill wouldn’t outlaw these lessons directly, it would prevent accreditors recognized by the Education Department from mandating them. Such agencies, whose seal of approval is a prerequisite for federal funds, would need to certify that their accreditation standards do not "require, encourage, or coerce any institution of higher education to engage in prohibited" DEI practices, according to the text of the bill. They would also need to certify that they do not "assess the commitment of an institution of higher education to any ideology, belief, or viewpoint" as part of the accreditation process.

Other, more technical provisions would eliminate diversity quotas at federal agencies and end a racially targeted grant program in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Unlike past GOP efforts to limit DEI, which have focused on the content of diversity trainings and the use of explicit racial preferences, the bill introduced Wednesday would also ax requirements related to data collection. It repeals a law that forces the armed services to keep tabs on the racial breakdown of officers, for example, as well as a law that requires intelligence officials to collect data on the "diversity and inclusion efforts" of their agencies.

Though officials could still collect the data if they so choose, the bill would mark a small step toward colorblindness in a country where racial record-keeping—required by many federal agencies—has long been the norm.

"DEI destroys competence while making Americans into enemies," said Arthur Milikh, the director of the Claremont Institute Center for the American Way of Life, one of the conservative groups supporting the bill. "This ideology must be fought, and its offices removed."

==

I don't care who raised it. If the Dems raised it, I'd support it. DEI is absolute poison.

[tamaharu]

NEEEEED people in the utah legislature to kill themselves

[crybabydraws]

They just banned TikTok at my college. No school wifi for me I guess 💀

(please read the tags)

[nationallawreview]

Legal News Reach Episode 7: Creating A Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Work Environment

Legal News Reach Episode 7: Creating A Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Work Environment

National Law Review Web Content Specialist Shelby Garrett closes out Legal News Reach Season 2 with an impactful minisode featuring Stacey Sublett Halliday, Principal and DEI Committee Chair with Beveridge & Diamond. Diversity, equity, and inclusion look different for every law firm, and smaller firms like B&D have to be even more resourceful in their approach to fostering dynamic work…

[procurengine3]

CAPEX vs. OPEX: Strategic Decision-Making for SaaS Procurement

Navigating SaaS Solutions: CAPEX vs. OPEX in Decision-Making

In the ever-evolving landscape of procurement, businesses are increasingly relying on subscription-based SaaS solutions to streamline their processes. However, the decision to categorize these solutions as CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) or OPEX (Operational Expenditure) is often challenging. This distinction is crucial as it influences not only the financial strategy but also the overall management of procurement operations.

Understanding SaaS in Procurement

SaaS (Software as a Service) solutions have revolutionized procurement by offering flexible, scalable, and cost-effective procurement management software tools that enhance efficiency. Unlike traditional software, which often requires significant upfront investment and long-term commitment, SaaS solutions operate on a subscription basis. This model provides businesses with the agility to adapt quickly to changing market demands without the burden of heavy initial costs.

The CAPEX Perspective: Long-Term Investment in SaaS Solutions

When considering SaaS solutions as CAPEX, businesses treat the software as a long-term investment. This approach aligns with companies that have a stable financial base and are looking to capitalize on the long-term benefits of owning the software. Treating SaaS as CAPEX allows businesses to amortize the cost over time, providing a predictable expense in their financial statements.

Key Advantages of CAPEX:

Asset Ownership: By capitalizing SaaS solutions, businesses can consider them as assets on their balance sheets, which may increase the company's valuation.

Long-Term Budget Planning: CAPEX allows for better long-term budget planning as the costs are spread out over several years.

Tax Benefits: Some jurisdictions offer tax benefits for capitalized expenses, potentially reducing the overall cost of ownership.

However, the CAPEX approach may limit a company's flexibility, as the software is considered a long-term commitment. Upgrades and changes might require additional investments, leading to increased costs over time.

The OPEX Perspective: Flexibility and Agility in Procurement Management

On the other hand, treating SaaS solutions as OPEX aligns with companies seeking flexibility and agility in their procurement processes. OPEX allows businesses to classify SaaS subscriptions as operational expenses, which are recorded in the period they are incurred. This approach is particularly appealing to companies that prioritize cash flow management and prefer to avoid the long-term commitment associated with CAPEX.

Key Advantages of OPEX:

Cash Flow Management: OPEX allows for better cash flow management as costs are spread out over the subscription period, avoiding large upfront investments.

Scalability: Businesses can easily scale their SaaS subscriptions up or down based on current needs, providing a high degree of flexibility.

Tax Deductibility: OPEX expenses are typically fully tax-deductible in the year they are incurred, offering immediate financial benefits.

The OPEX model also aligns with the evolving nature of SaaS solutions, where regular updates and improvements are part of the subscription package. This ensures that businesses always have access to the latest features and functionalities without incurring additional costs.

The Role of Decision-Making Authority (DOA) in SaaS Procurement

Decision-Making Authority (DOA) plays a critical role in determining whether to classify SaaS solutions as CAPEX or OPEX. The DOA framework within an organization defines who has the authority to make these financial decisions and sets the parameters for budget approvals.

In many organizations, the procurement department works closely with finance and IT teams to evaluate the long-term impact of SaaS investments. The DOA framework ensures that these decisions align with the company's overall financial strategy and risk tolerance.

Key Considerations for DOA:

Risk Management: The DOA framework should include an assessment of the financial risks associated with both CAPEX and OPEX models.

Stakeholder Involvement: Involving key stakeholders in the decision-making process ensures that all perspectives are considered, leading to a more balanced and informed choice.

Alignment with Business Goals: The decision to classify SaaS solutions as CAPEX or OPEX should align with the company's broader business goals and financial strategy.

Balancing CAPEX and OPEX: A Strategic Approach to SaaS Procurement

While the CAPEX vs. OPEX debate is ongoing, many businesses find that a balanced approach works best. By combining elements of both models, companies can optimize their procurement strategies to suit their unique needs.

For example, a business might choose to capitalize certain core SaaS solutions as CAPEX, ensuring long-term stability and asset ownership. Simultaneously, it could treat other, more flexible SaaS tools as OPEX, allowing for agility and adaptability in a rapidly changing market.

Benefits of a Balanced Approach:

Flexibility with Stability: Combining CAPEX and OPEX allows businesses to maintain flexibility in their procurement strategies while ensuring long-term financial stability.

Cost Optimization: A balanced approach enables companies to optimize costs by choosing the most appropriate financial model for each SaaS solution.

Improved Decision-Making: By leveraging both CAPEX and OPEX, businesses can make more informed decisions that align with their financial goals and risk tolerance.

Conclusion: Making the Right Choice for Your Business

The decision to classify subscription-based SaaS solutions as CAPEX or OPEX is a critical one, with significant implications for a company's financial strategy and procurement management. By understanding the advantages and limitations of each model, businesses can make informed decisions that align with their long-term goals and operational needs.

Ultimately, the choice between CAPEX and OPEX should be guided by a thorough analysis of the company's financial objectives, risk tolerance, and the strategic importance of the SaaS solution in question. By adopting a balanced approach, businesses can leverage the strengths of both models to achieve optimal procurement outcomes.

[tripeakathlete]

Week of August 5 - 11, 2024

Hello Team, I hope you are all bundled up and holding down from the storm. This week we have the upcoming race with Special Olympics at Waterfront Park in Clermont, FL. So, please review this week’s schedule. Athlete Highlight: Kellie Overly What’s your go-to pre-race meal that never fails to fuel you up and make you smile? First Watch banana nut pancakes Tell us about a hilarious race…

[lifes-little-corner]

Strategies for Motivating Volunteers in Immigrant Support Programs

I remember the day I first stepped into a local immigrant support center. The energy was high, but so was the challenge. How could we keep our diverse volunteers engaged and motivated? This question has guided my volunteer management ever since. Motivating volunteers in immigrant support programs is tough. It needs a deep understanding of human nature, cultural sensitivities, and the challenges…

[jcmarchi]

Edgerton Center hosts workshop for deaf high school students in STEM

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/edgerton-center-hosts-workshop-for-deaf-high-school-students-in-stem/

Edgerton Center hosts workshop for deaf high school students in STEM

The percentage of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals who have bachelor’s degrees is 15.2 percent lower than their hearing counterparts, and for those who do have degrees, most are in business and education. Deaf adults with degrees in STEM fields are few and far between. MIT Edgerton Center instructor Amanda Gruhl Mayer ’99, PhD ’08 has set out to bridge this gap by piloting a new MIT workshop called STEAMED (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math Experience for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students). 

The workshop tasked students with building an underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV), teaching them new skills to build circuits, motors, and frames. At the end of the course, students tested their robots at the Z Center pool. Gruhl Mayer worked with Brian Gibson, a science teacher at Horace Mann School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; Edgerton Center instructors Chris Mayer and Christian Cardozo ’18; and MIT student mentors rising senior Ryn Moore and Ruben Castro ’24. With several instructors and mentors at varying levels of American Sign Language (ASL) fluency, ASL interpreters strengthened communication between all participants.

Gruhl Mayer became interested in deaf education when she moved into her first house in 2020 and met her neighbor’s deaf 13-year-old daughter, who was interested in science. Gruhl Mayer wanted to encourage her to delve deeper into STEM subjects. As she learned ASL, Gruhl Mayer quickly discovered that important scientific terms, like “amino acid,” “acceleration,” and “circuit,” lack common signs in ASL because there aren’t enough deaf scientists and engineers for the vocabulary to develop naturally. While pursuing a master’s degree in deaf education at Boston University, she deepened her passion for deaf culture. “I really want to push the pipeline for more deaf scientists and engineers. And I think we need to start with students,” Gruhl Mayer says.

Gruhl Mayer’s students entered the course not knowing exactly what they would be building, and quickly learned how to construct their own ROVs using SeaPerch kits from the MIT Sea Grant program. The ROV project is a favorite at the Edgerton Center for introducing high school students to power tools and circuits, and this is the first time it was presented to deaf students. During the workshop, the students and interpreters developed signs to use for new skills and concepts, like “soldering” and “buoyancy.”

Students waterproofed their motors, built thrusters, and connected them to controllers. They used power tools to create PVC pipe frames with attached foam core to make them neutrally buoyant, then tested the movement of their ROVs in a small tank inside the classroom. Students modified their designs to create unique ROVs, decorating them using lights and colored markers, and took them for a test drive in the Z Center Pool. Students picked up skills quickly and taught each other as they learned, each designing a unique ROV that could move in all directions, navigate through obstacles, and even pick something up off the bottom of the pool.

Brian Gibson, who’s been teaching hands-on science at Horace Mann for 21 years, says, “I’ve enjoyed watching the students become more independent and using different materials and tools that they haven’t used in the past and become pretty proficient with those tools.” The students also enjoyed the increased responsibility. “Typically, we’re not allowed to use certain tools. They don’t offer us much responsibility. And so now, we were able to see how the tools work. I think that opens new opportunities for us,” says Bárbara Silva, a rising junior at the Horace Mann School. Students also appreciated the freedom and creativity that comes with not being graded. “At school, at home, or anywhere, things have to be perfect. But here, you could fail, and then you learn something new,” says rising junior at Newton North High School Lucy Howard-Karp.

Among the takeaways for the Edgerton Center instructors is recognizing the unique challenge of having to use your hands for communication while concurrently building. For example, hearing teachers often said “good job” to students while they were working, which made the students stop their work to watch the interpreter. Students requested that teachers wait for a good stopping point to give them praise, and only interrupt if the students are doing something that needs to be corrected. Gruhl Mayer points out, “Deaf students are just like hearing students. They have the same potential, enthusiasm, work ethic, etc. But there are educational tweaks that need to be made for deaf students, to help them learn in the way that’s best for them.”

Gruhl Mayer’s vision to make STEM accessible for deaf students has the potential to drive discoveries in the science community. “The term is called ‘deaf gain,’” she explains. “Deaf people see the world differently, which gives them a new and fresh perspective. This unique viewpoint drives their creativity and innovation. So many amazing discoveries have been made by deaf scientists and engineers.”

Gruhl Mayer plans to run the workshop again next summer with more participants, hopefully having this year’s students come back as mentors. The students plan to get their fellow classmates excited to sign up by bringing their ROVs to school and showing off what they built.

[free-air-for-fish]

[15] Chapter 16 Review Syndicate: The New Guys

I was a little intimidated by this assignment, as Meredith Bagby’s nonfiction book on NASA’s 1978 Astronaut Class 8 is the most comprehensive piece of nonfiction I have ever read about astronauts. I’m also not huge on books about space in general. (I’ve never been a huge space fan.) However, Bagby’s is the most comprehensive, well-researched work of nonfiction I’ve read, which is partly why I was…

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Erec Smith

Published: May 17, 2024

Recently, the University of North Carolina‐​Chapel Hill Board of Trustees voted, unanimously, to divert money from its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives into public safety. This is on the heels of other institutions shuttering diversity offices and laying off or repurposing positions focused on DEI work. Are we starting to see a trend? Is this the beginning of a “Great Diversion”?

Contemporary DEI initiatives have been a point of contention for years now. Anti‐​DEI sentiment, which does not necessarily mean an aversion to the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion per se, grows with every exposition of DEI’s driving ideology, Critical Social Justice, which is inherently divisive, illiberal, and, actually, racist.

However, any opposition to DEI programs is usually seen as a right‐​wing attack on anything that can improve the lives of minoritized groups. That accusation holds more water in response to calls for the eradication of DEI initiatives. But the diversion of DEI funds to another worthwhile endeavor—that is, trading one good for another good—is harder to scrutinize.

Yes, UNC‐​Chapel Hill has chosen to divert DEI’s funding to public safety to prevent disruption of university operations. Whether the good of public safety constitutes a “good for good” trade is understandably debatable. However, DEI funds can also be diverted to initiatives more clearly aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion in the true sense of those words. Initially, I thought of outreach and immersion programs.

Outreach programs geared toward K‑12 students are created by colleges and universities in collaboration with local high schools to help students understand what is necessary to get into college, what they need to do to prepare, and what to expect when they get there. When I say “immersive,” I refer to outreach programs where students visit campuses and experience what it is to be a college student or a particular major. According to the Compass Education Group’s “Guide to Successful Outreach Programs,” students and colleges benefit from such programs in distinct ways.

According to Compass, outreach programs can achieve the following for students: clarify career goals, assistance with access to resources, assistance with the application process, academic advising, introduction to a college’s academic support services, and, obviously, better prepare students for college‐​level work. This kind of outreach can assuage any “culture shock” that may set in among students from marginalized communities. It can also introduce students to the necessary merits for college success at a younger age, thus demystifying academic merits.

The benefits to participating colleges include greater student readiness, better resource management, and increases in enrollment, retention, and, of course, diversity. Regarding diversity, Compass does not mince words: “Helping these students prepare for and transition to postsecondary education helps colleges meet their diversity goals.” Redistributing money from DEI initiatives to outreach programs that can be geared toward underrepresented students may be a better way to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion. Perhaps outreach programs are the new—and more effective—DEI initiative.

Several colleges already have outreach programs that, typically, take place in the summer. However, with sufficient funding, these programs can become more robust. In fact, non‐​profit organizations exist to do that. For example, The Hidden Genius Project, started by five black professionals, “trains and mentors Black male youth in technology creation, entrepreneurship, and leadership skills to transform their lives and communities.” This project has locations all over the country and offers a variety of programs to introduce students to entrepreneurs, leaders, and technologists through either single or multiday events or deeper and longer immersion into a professional culture. What’s more, this project’s effects align with concepts important to DEI initiatives, like cultural representation.

Hidden Genius alum, Tehillah Hephzibah says,

Growing up, I was never really in a place where a majority of the people looked like me. In the program, I enjoyed being around people who look more like myself and connecting with them. Throughout my life, all of the schools I attended were predominantly white or Hispanic students so joining The Hidden Genius Project was a sigh of relief and comfort for me.

Another program graduate, Brandon Bazile, shares a similar sentiment.

As a Black man who has only ever had at most two other Black boys in my grade, to suddenly having a group of Black males who look like me was eye‐​opening. Being taught and surrounded by excellent Black minds, inspired me to believe that I could always better myself, which was a feeling I had never felt before.

This program is a clear source of agency and empowerment for young black students, a goal DEI proponents claim to have.

MIT’s Introduction to Technology, Engineering and Science (MITES) is an outreach program that has strong partnerships with universities nationwide. The program “provides transformative experiences that bolster confidence, create lifelong community, and build an exciting, challenging foundation in STEM for highly motivated 7th–12th grade students from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.” As with the Hidden Genius Project, representation and confidence building are some of the most salient effects of MITES.

Indigo Davitt‐​Liu, a graduate of the program, stated, “I’ve always loved math, but I always saw STEM kids as a group removed from me, a type of person I could never be. Through this program, I realized the true amount of diversity there is in STEM fields. I now see myself as part of a STEM community.” Also similar to the Hidden Genius Project, MITES immerses students in environments indicative of a given STEM field. This immersion helps students gain merits they would not have otherwise. MITE graduate Moses Stewart says,

MITES connected me with so many other brilliant and passionate people and gave me an avenue to explore a brighter future for myself. It gave me the opportunity to learn about career paths that would have otherwise been inaccessible. And, to apply and assert myself in challenging courses. Most of all, it gave me guidance and helped me grow into someone who is more confident, hard‐​working, and optimistic about the future.

The outcomes of MITES, the Hidden Genius Project, and comparable programs strongly suggest that funding for DEI programs that have proven to be more ineffective than effective could be put to better use elsewhere.

I must be clear, current DEI initiatives are often undergirded by Critical Social Justice, an ideology that frames the world into an oppressor/​oppressed dichotomy and insists that oppressive forces are present in every human interaction. Surely, funds should be diverted to initiatives that don’t promote divisiveness, resentment, and even a kind of racism. However, I believe diverting funds to immersive outreach programs for K‑12 students is so important that even DEI initiatives steeped in classical liberal values cannot be justified. Workshops on the history and nature of discrimination, cultural differences, and policy are important and should take place, but these things need not be expensive or necessarily whole offices.

No matter what ideological foundation a DEI program has, funds are better spent on programs like The Hidden Genius Project and MITES.

A great diversion is in order. DEI programs have proven relatively ineffective at enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, thus proving to be a waste of money. Continuing to spend money on these programs is indefensible, especially when better ways to help our students abound. The day after UNC‐​Chapel Hill diverted funds away from its DEI initiatives, Virginia Commonwealth University and George Mason University did away with required DEI courses for students. The tide is turning when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Let’s make sure it turns in a healthy and generative direction.

[usadvlottery]

Embrace the chance to diversify your life with the DV Lottery. This unique opportunity invites individuals from underrepresented countries to participate in a lottery for U.S. permanent residency. Learn about the straightforward application process and set the course for a new chapter in the land of opportunities.

[speckofglitter]

Harnessing the Power of Networking

In the dynamic landscape of today’s professional world, networking has emerged as a crucial skill for career advancement. For young women navigating their way through diverse industries, effective networking can be a powerful tool that opens doors to opportunities, mentorship, and personal growth. Building a Strong Professional Identity: Networking provides a platform for young women to…