Thanks for a great, well balanced article on Vance. Like him or not, he overcame a very difficult childhood, served his country, graduated from college and law school and went on to become a successful business man and now politician. Along the way he met the love of his life (the way she looked at him while he was being sworn in, should…
Thanks for a great, well balanced article on Vance. Like him or not, he overcame a very difficult childhood, served his country, graduated from college and law school and went on to become a successful business man and now politician. Along the way he met the love of his life (the way she looked at him while he was being sworn in, should quell any doubts about that) - appears to be a loving husband and father and possibly the future of the Republican Party. We all have baggage from our childhood but few are able to overcome what he has and go on to achieve so much. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to deny his resilience and intelligence. Let’s see what he does.
He’s incredible!! It’s astonishing that he has become so successful after his difficult childhood. I admire him so much. He’s incredibly articulate on any subject.
As mentioned down-thread by Emily, Vance, according to his memoir, received a generous financial aid package due to his disadvantaged economic background. This does not diminish his own hard work and resilience, but it does raise questions as to why he supports an administration so vehemently against DEI efforts which Vance benefited from. I'm curious about your thoughts on this dichotomy?
Not sure financial aid is under the same umbrella as DEI focuses on race and gender whereas financial aid focuses on income level - and admission still requires the academic qualifications are met. I realize that every college has different requirements.. but from what I understand, a merit or financial aid package isn’t the same as DEI. I also believe colleges should be looking more at income disparity than race or gender discrimination. Just my opinion.. and go!
Hmm, I see your perspective here that economic disadvantages are different than race/gender disadvantages, but it feels like splitting hairs to me. DEI programs very much have economic disadvantages as a driving force - and it's well documented that people of color and women in our country are more economically disadvantaged than white men. What I hear you saying is that financial assistance for the economically disadvantaged is fine - but what happens when that financial aid disproportionately goes to POC/women because of their economic disadvantages? Are those programs dubbed DEI all over again despite a "rebranding" to simply financial aid?
It’s complicated I agree… my main point is that there are poor white people and wealthy minorities… so may be pitting more focus on income is actually more fair. I do think that people should consider rigor of the college as when applying. Getting into a more prestigious college and not succeeding doesn’t lead to a good outcome either. So many factors.
DEI is not just about people of color. It addresses (or did, because our current admin is doing their best to eliminate it) income disparities, accessibility issues among others. Many people will suffer with the elimination of DEI.
I'm not convinced that if DEI were renamed Income Inequality, that Republicans would back it. We have plenty of evidence in Repub disdain for welfare programs focused solely on income inequality. As to consideration of college success, I'm not sure where that point entered the discussion. But scholarship recipients are generally MORE likely to graduate, so if a "good outcome" is the concern, I say we focus more on those who need economic assistance than those who can get in without aid.
Thanks for a great, well balanced article on Vance. Like him or not, he overcame a very difficult childhood, served his country, graduated from college and law school and went on to become a successful business man and now politician. Along the way he met the love of his life (the way she looked at him while he was being sworn in, should quell any doubts about that) - appears to be a loving husband and father and possibly the future of the Republican Party. We all have baggage from our childhood but few are able to overcome what he has and go on to achieve so much. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to deny his resilience and intelligence. Let’s see what he does.
Well said! I love his wife- she is beautiful and they seem to have such a loving relationship. I hope he considers running for President one day.
And those kids… adorable.
He’s incredible!! It’s astonishing that he has become so successful after his difficult childhood. I admire him so much. He’s incredibly articulate on any subject.
As mentioned down-thread by Emily, Vance, according to his memoir, received a generous financial aid package due to his disadvantaged economic background. This does not diminish his own hard work and resilience, but it does raise questions as to why he supports an administration so vehemently against DEI efforts which Vance benefited from. I'm curious about your thoughts on this dichotomy?
Not sure financial aid is under the same umbrella as DEI focuses on race and gender whereas financial aid focuses on income level - and admission still requires the academic qualifications are met. I realize that every college has different requirements.. but from what I understand, a merit or financial aid package isn’t the same as DEI. I also believe colleges should be looking more at income disparity than race or gender discrimination. Just my opinion.. and go!
Hmm, I see your perspective here that economic disadvantages are different than race/gender disadvantages, but it feels like splitting hairs to me. DEI programs very much have economic disadvantages as a driving force - and it's well documented that people of color and women in our country are more economically disadvantaged than white men. What I hear you saying is that financial assistance for the economically disadvantaged is fine - but what happens when that financial aid disproportionately goes to POC/women because of their economic disadvantages? Are those programs dubbed DEI all over again despite a "rebranding" to simply financial aid?
It’s complicated I agree… my main point is that there are poor white people and wealthy minorities… so may be pitting more focus on income is actually more fair. I do think that people should consider rigor of the college as when applying. Getting into a more prestigious college and not succeeding doesn’t lead to a good outcome either. So many factors.
DEI is not just about people of color. It addresses (or did, because our current admin is doing their best to eliminate it) income disparities, accessibility issues among others. Many people will suffer with the elimination of DEI.
I'm not convinced that if DEI were renamed Income Inequality, that Republicans would back it. We have plenty of evidence in Repub disdain for welfare programs focused solely on income inequality. As to consideration of college success, I'm not sure where that point entered the discussion. But scholarship recipients are generally MORE likely to graduate, so if a "good outcome" is the concern, I say we focus more on those who need economic assistance than those who can get in without aid.
People who struggled academically aren’t getting into Ivy Leagues (except for maybe the trust fund kids…)