The University of South Florida has adopted radical DEI programming that segregates students by race and promotes the idea that white students should think "I feel bad for being white" and "it's not my fault I’m white" as part of their "racial identity development."

Thread.🧵

I have obtained a trove of public documents exposing USF's radical DEI programming, much of which, according to the Wayback Machine, the university tried to delete from its website following Florida governor Ron DeSantis's recent request for information about university DEI.
The first step in this programming is the condemnation of American society. Following the death of George Floyd, nearly every appendage of USF condemned the United States for its supposed "systemic racism," "white supremacy," and "interlocking systems of oppression."
The university's DEI administrators offered the solution: racial reeducation. USF offered racially segregated counseling sessions and promoted "white identity development" materials for white students to confront their "white privilege," "white guilt," and "white fragility."
According to these materials, whites must first enter the process of "disintegration," experiencing "white guilt" and thinking, "I feel bad for being white." Next, after their identity is broken down, they enter a phase of "reintegration," thinking, "it's not my fault I’m white."
Finally, as whites move through the stages of "pseudo-independence" and "immersion," they will begin to "work against systems of oppression" and "use [their] privilege to support anti-racist work." At the end, their psychology should conform entirely to political ideology.
As the final step, whites must answer various loyalty tests. "Does your solidarity last longer than a news cycle?" the training asks. "Does your solidarity make you lose sleep at night? Does your solidarity put you in danger? Does your solidarity cost you relationships?"
The endpoint of USF's DEI programming is left-wing political activism. As part of the university's official "anti-racist" guidebook, diversity officials included materials promoting "reparations," "defund the police," "prison abolition," and rejecting "White, capitalist Jesus."
Finally, USF promotes a range of racially segregated scholarship programs that explicitly exclude white students. As University of Michigan professor emeritus Mark Perry has shown, these programs are a direct violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Here's the full story, including a link to 396 pages of original source material, at City Journal:
https://t.co/3DKjPrx6tv
I also made this video going through the documents and explaining the ideology that drives radical DEI programming:
https://t.co/c1rg7OnUl3

More from Category pdfmakerapp grab pdfmakerapp grab this readwiseio save readwiseio save thread threader compile summarize threadreaderapp unroll please ttttreads unroll unrollthreadcom savetobookmarks

You May Also Like

These 10 threads will teach you more than reading 100 books

Five billionaires share their top lessons on startups, life and entrepreneurship (1/10)


10 competitive advantages that will trump talent (2/10)


Some harsh truths you probably don’t want to hear (3/10)


10 significant lies you’re told about the world (4/10)
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.