Mark Cuban confidently flubs another defense of DEI — this time tripping over 'equity'



Mark Cuban's attempts to defend the organizational discrimination scheme known as DEI have not been going well.

Last week, an EEOC commissioner hit the race-obsessive billionaire with a reality check, noting he was "dead wrong" in thinking race-factored hiring decisions could fly under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964.

Undaunted by this public humiliation, Cuban took up the mantle of DEI defender once again, intimating in a Sunday debate on X that critics of the discrimination regime have long misrepresented or at the very least misunderstood what is meant by "equity."

Cuban's apparent effort at moving the goalposts in the debate was thwarted with the unexpected help of Vice President Kamala Harris and corporate giants like Disney.

Total confidence

Billy Markus, the software engineer behind Dogecoin, wrote to Cuban toward the end of a lengthy exchange on X, "I would consider a good diversity program just a diversity program, and a bad one a 'DEI' program with 'equity' as its main goal."

Markus implored Cuban to "look into 'equity' as part of DEI - 'What is equity? Equity is about everyone achieving equal outcomes. We all have the same value and deserve a good life, but we all start from a different place.'"

The software engineer suggested that a proper understanding of the redistributive nature of "equity" would aid the billionaire in "understanding the more rational arguments against 'DEI' as opposed to the more hyperbolic ones. ... If taken more dogmatically, it is not actually about the best for the job or business but about providing equal outcomes for different races regardless of merit."

Cuban responded, "I can say with 100 pct confidence that anyone who believes 'Equity' is 'about providing equal outcomes' does not understand what the Equity in DEI is."

"'Equal Outcomes' is the disclaimer the Anti DEI movement uses to try to scapegoat DEI as unusuable and unsuitable," continued Cuban. "You will not find that in any corporate DEI program. Ever. (Feel free to provide a company website that says equality of outcomes to prove me wrong."

Cuban was so confident of the supposedly universal understanding of "equity" that he attacked the version of DEI that would embrace the alternate understanding.

"How would that even work?" wrote the Mavericks owner. "Have everyone who started the same day at comparable jobs all have the exact same career progression?"

The outcome

Cuban asked for examples and the internet obliged him. Community notes also slapped his declaration of confidence with a few examples for good measure.

The Rabbit Hole, a user who has repeatedly sparred with Cuban over the discriminatory nature of DEI, highlighted that critics' understanding comports with Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris' own understanding of equity.

In a Nov. 1, 2020, video post on X, Harris noted, "So there's a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests, 'Oh, everyone should get the same amount.' The problem with that, not everybody's starting out from the same place. So if we're all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you're still going to be that far back behind me."

According to Harris, "Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place."

— (@)

Since Cuban did specifically ask for corporate examples, critics found the billionaire a handful in short order, including examples from Disney and Microsoft, which New College of Florida board member Christopher Rufo previously highlighted.

— (@)

According to the global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company, equity "takes into consideration a person's unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal."

Deloitte has similarly made clear that "equity is not an initiative or a program — it is an outcome."

The accounting firm acknowledges in its equity imperative document that equity is an engineered outcome that factors in race.

The DEI peddlers at Diversio also suggest that equity "refers to fairness and equality in outcomes and not just support and resources."

The staffing and recruitment company HIRE Strategies readily admits that "equity is characterized by 'equality of outcome.' Equity recognizes that individuals may have different starting points and, therefore, tailors opportunities to align with each person's specific needs and perceptions of fairness."

A 2021 paper published in the American Journal of Law and Equality acknowledged that in "some current usages, 'equity' implies something more focused on results and on accommodation of individual differences. It is often used to call for systemic changes."

The paper noted, however, that another concept of "equity" — that ostensibly echoed by Microsoft, Disney, and the vice president — "calls for changing systems to produce something approximately equality of outcomes for groups defined along certain dimensions — chiefly race."

When prompted to explain the difference, Elon Musk's AI tool Grok answered, "Equality means treating everyone the same, while equity means providing people with what they need to reach an equal outcome."

Cuban took issue with various examples that were introduced into the debate as evidence, noting that many came from non-profit organizations or schools contra businesses.

He stressed that he doesn't "think DEI has anything to do with equal outcomes. ... And tbh as I have mentioned before, I don't follow how schools apply DEI."

"DEI is not an 'ideology'. It is a set of business processes that when done well makes a company more profitable," added Cuban. "When done poorly, like any other business process, hurts financial results and that company either resolves the problem or finds itself in a difficult position."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

DHS secretary says he would support an assault weapons ban, then fails to deliver a definition of 'assault weapon'



Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana that he agrees with President Joe Biden's position that assault weapons should be banned in the U.S. — but when pressed to define the term "assault weapon," Mayorkas failed to deliver.

During a Tuesday Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when Kennedy asked Mayorkas what an assault weapon is, Mayorkas responded by providing the example of an AK-47.

Kennedy asked Mayorkas if he could provide a definition aside from "pointing to a specific weapon," and he asked if there would be other firearms in addition to AK-47s that Mayorkas would ban.

Mayorkas indicated he would support banning other weapons as well and said that when he served as a federal prosecutor, most law enforcement leaders he worked with supported the assault weapons ban.

Kennedy interrupted and asked Mayorkas if he knew "why we get so frustrated with you? Because you won't give straight answers."

"I think I just did," Mayorkas chimed in.

"No you didn't," Kennedy said before again pressing Mayorkas for a definition of an assault weapon.

Mayorkas said he is "confident there is a technical definition" that was used in connection with a previous assault weapons ban.

The U.S. previously had an assault weapons ban, which is no longer in place, and some politicians want to impose another ban. Last year, the House passed the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2022," which Biden supported, but the measure never reached his desk.

Kennedy has served in the U.S. Senate since 2017.

JUST IN: Alejandro Mayorkas Faces Intense Grilling At Senate Judiciary Committee | Full Hearing youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Cambridge Dictionary website includes absurd definition for 'woman' that reflects radical leftist gender ideology



The Cambridge Dictionary website is promoting radical leftist gender ideology by including definition for the word "woman" that does not reflect biological realities but instead perpetuates the dogmas of the left-wing gender-bending zeitgeist.

While the site does provide an accurate definition of "woman" by defining the word as "an adult female human being," it also provides a definition that says, "An adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth."

Example sentences for that definition include, "She was the first trans woman elected to a national office" and "Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth." A transgender woman is a biological man who identifies as a woman.

The site also includes a definition for the word "man" along the same line.

"They won't stop until we don’t remember what real women are anymore," Megyn Kelly tweeted in response to a tweet from Christopher Rufo, who had highlighted the absurd definition for the word "woman."

\u201cThey won\u2019t stop until we don\u2019t remember what real women are anymore.\u201d
— Megyn Kelly (@Megyn Kelly) 1670895390

"1984 wasn't supposed to be a how-to manual," Dan McLaughlin tweeted.

"The Emperor is naked and he is still a man even though he had plastic surgery to remove his genitals," Margot Cleveland tweeted.

"Women should loathe trans activists for their vicious attempts to completely erase us," Ashley St. Clair tweeted. "Issues REAL women face are thrown under the rug so that the cries of men playing dress up can be heard."

"I refuse to play along with this delusion. Airbrushed makeup, heels, fake breasts and an exaggerated valley girl voice impersonation does not make you a woman. The fact some people think it does is insulting. Stop erasing women," Robby Starbuck tweeted.

\u201cI refuse to play along with this delusion. Airbrushed makeup, heels, fake breasts and an exaggerated valley girl voice impersonation does not make you a woman. The fact some people think it does is insulting. Stop erasing women.\u201d
— Robby Starbuck (@Robby Starbuck) 1670894841

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand mocked mercilessly for her expanded definition of 'infrastructure'



Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) took the bold step of expanding the definition of infrastructure to an unrecognizable state on Wednesday, as she and other Democrats work hard to sell Americans on President Joe Biden's $2 trillion "infrastructure" plan that includes a whole lot of non-infrastructure-related initiatives.

But social media had a field day with the New York senator's attempt, mocking her with expanded definitions of their own.

What are the details?

Gillibrand declared on Twitter, "Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure."

Fox News pointed out that politically, infrastructure "is often considered to refer to transportation, roads, bridges and items of that nature." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary says infrastructure is "the system of public works of a country, state, or region," or "the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)."

Baffled observers were quick to play along with Gillibrand's game, with The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro replying, "Unicorns are infrastructure. Love is infrastructure. Herpes is infrastructure. Everything is infrastructure."

Unicorns are infrastructure.Love is infrastructure.Herpes is infrastructure.Everything is infrastructure. https://t.co/GhEVac1rzM
— Ben Shapiro (@Ben Shapiro)1617803833.0

Concordia University professor and author Gad Saad tweeted, "Exactly. Violent crime is climate change. Open borders is climate change. Defund the police is climate change. People menstruate is climate change. Voting fraud is climate change."

Someone else wrote that by Gillibrand's reasoning, "strip clubs" are infrastructure, while others told her, "your mom" and "my a**" also qualify as infrastructure.

The Libertarian Party of Texas added, "Lower taxes is infrastructure. Gun rights is infrastructure. Ending the drug war is infrastructure. Are we doing this right?"

Even fellow Democrats scolded Gillibrand for her stunt. One person tweeted back to the senator, "Words mean things. If you use 'infrastructure' for everything, then it means nothing. This is just dumb pandering. BTW, I'm a lifelong democrat. I'm for all of those things. But they need to stand on their own merits."

Someone else told the senator, "As a Dem I would love it if we stopped making important words meaningless."

Anything else?

NBC News published an analysis Wednesday acknowledging in that Biden "threw everything, including the kitchen sink, into his $2 trillion-plus 'infrastructure' proposal," adding that "loading up a bill with Democratic priorities in addition to more bipartisan policy goals, such as rebuilding roads and bridges, has put Biden in danger of capsizing his own plan."

But the outlet rightly pointed out that catch-all bills that bundle unrelated policy initiatives are not an uncommon practice in Washington.