Posts Tagged ‘DEI’

Has Harvard been hiding illegals as employees?

July 30, 2025

Of course Columbia, Harvard and the other Ivy League and Californian woke-nests of disease have been the centres for the creation, release and spread of the the woke “freaks and monsters” viruses. Some of these viruses are now meeting resistance and even being destroyed though eradication is a long way away. I have no doubt that Harvard has been one of the centres (especially in their “humanities” faculties) promoting the spread of the US depravity sickness. Whether just battering the viperous, poisonous vectors over the head will control the sickness remains to be seen. It may be necessary to use more sophisticated and drastic measures to get the vectors to self-destruct. Flame throwers perhaps.

In any event the Harvard battle with Trump and his administration provides me with some entertainment. Columbia has settled (about $200 million). Ultimately the deals will be done. Every deal Trump makes starts with an outrageous demand and he later backs off to a settlement position. But the fundamental rule of any deal anywhere is always to be first with the outrageous demand. The more you dare to ask for the more you get is Dealmaking 101. I note that the initially outrageous Trump tariff deals are all getting done – bilaterally. And all better deals than the status quo was for the US.

I thought Harvard’s DEI selections of President and other posts was not just perverse, it was depraved. (It has always amused me that diversity of political opinion is always anathema to DEI). The manner in which Harvard (and not only Harvard) allowed antisemitic factions and Islamic terrorist supporters to take prominent, protected academic positions, and even take over whole departments, was disgraceful and cowardly. The battles with the Trump administration are going to take a while. In the latest news Harvard has apparently given in to providing some information to government about their employees. These are the I-9 forms which are mandatory for any employee anywhere. That Harvard was not providing this government required form, back to the government, can only mean that they are/were knowingly hiding illegal immigrants as employees.

Harvard Crimson: 

Harvard will turn over I-9 forms for nearly all employees in response to an inquiry by the Department of Homeland Security, the University’s human resources office wrote in an email to current and recent employees on Tuesday afternoon.

The University will not immediately turn over information on students who are currently or were recently employed in roles open only to students. Harvard is evaluating whether those records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, according to the Tuesday email.

An I-9 form is a federal document used to verify a person’s authorization to work in the United States. All employers must complete and retain an I-9 for every employee, who are required to attest to their citizenship or immigration status and provide supporting documentation. …..

Under federal regulations, the DHS may conduct I-9 form inspections and require U.S. employers to make them available for inspection. The July 8 notice of inspection gave Harvard three days to turn over the requested information. …..

……   And on Wednesday last week, the State Department launched a separate investigation into Harvard’s participation in the Exchange Visitor Program, which permits the University to sponsor J-1 visas for international instructors, researchers, and some students.

But Harvard is far from the only institution that has faced I-9 inspections as part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The Trump administration has used I-9 audits to exact multimillion-dollar fines from companies that employed unauthorized workers.

The I-9 form, officially called the Employment Eligibility Verification Form, is a U.S. federal form used by employers to verify the identity and legal authorization of individuals hired for employment in the United States. The purpose is to ensure that all employees (citizens and non-citizens) are legally allowed to work in the U.S. This is part of the requirements under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Section 1 – Employee Information and Attestation
Completed by the employee no later than the first day of employment and Includes: Full name, Other names used (if any), Address, Date of birth, Social Security number (mandatory if the employer uses E-Verify), Email address and phone number (optional), Citizenship/immigration status.

The employee must sign and date this section to attest the accuracy and truthfulness of the information.

Section 2 – Employer Review and Verification
Completed by the employer within 3 business days of the employee’s start date. This section includes Document title(s), Issuing authority, Document number(s), Expiration date(s), 

The employer must physically examine original documents from the employee to verify: Identity (e.g., driver’s license), employment authorization (e.g., Social Security card, permanent resident card, U.S. passport). Documents are categorized into three lists:

  • List A: Documents that prove both identity and work authorization (e.g., U.S. passport)
  • List B: Documents that prove identity only (e.g., driver’s license)
  • List C: Documents that prove work authorization only (e.g., Social Security card)

The employer attests (with signature and date) that they have reviewed the documents and believe them to be genuine.

Section 3 – Reverification and Rehires
Used only when 

  • An employee’s work authorization has expired
  • An employee is rehired within 3 years of the original I-9

Retention Requirements:
Employers must retain the completed I-9 for: 3 years after the date of hire, or 1 year after the date employment ends—whichever is later. 

They must be made available for inspection by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or Department of Labor (DOL).

The I-9 is a government required form for the government and if Harvard has not been providing the information it can only be for nefarious purposes. 

My guess would be about $500 million, the death of DEI and the culling of the sociology departments of infectious “animals”, is the price Harvard will have to pay to settle. And, of course, they will settle.

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Academic misconduct, Behaviour, Corruption | Comments Off on Has Harvard been hiding illegals as employees?

No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award

January 4, 2025

DEI programs are part of the wokery delusion. By definition a “DEI hire” would not have been appointed to any position or received any award without having received unfair favour – to the detriment of somebody else being discriminated against. No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award.

Claudine Gay is one of the more famous woke/DEI catastrophes. She would never have been appointed to be President of Harvard if she had not been black and female. She was neither best qualified nor most competent for the job. But she was black and she was female. The insidiousness of cancerous DEI programs is that I now assume – as the default assessment – that any black person in a high position in US academia must probably have been a DEI hire. Almost every university has its token employees and some in very high positions. I was listening to a black Dean from Columbia recently and my automatic assumption was that this was  a “DEI hire”. The Dean said nothing sufficiently insightful to change my mind during the 4 minute interview. I have written him off in my mind as a “DEI hire” but, for all I know, the Dean may actually have been quite competent and deserving of the appointment. 

Too late. DEI has struck. The label is permanent. 

I find most DEI / affirmative action / reservation schemes fundamentally flawed and unjust. By definition a “DEI hire” would not have been appointed to any position or received any award without having received unfair favour – to the detriment of somebody else being discriminated against. No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award. No matter how qualified, the beneficiaries of such schemes will always carry the stigma of not having been the “best” for the position (whether job or student place). There is no doubt that in the US, competence has suffered as a consequence of affirmative action and DEI. The reservation system and its distorted benefits in India has helped perpetuate the caste system. So much so that the reservation system is institutionalized and corrupted. In Europe the decline in competence of public service TV employees is on continuous display with program presenters and coordinators lacking in basic competences but fulfilling some “inclusivity” or “diversity” wish. In countries with quotas for women directors, competent women are unfortunately being painted with the quota brush. The New Zealand Navy has prioritized diversity over the sinkability of its ships. It was recently apparent that the US Secret Service has also decreased its capability to protect its charges by giving priority to diversity in hiring. A small person holding up her hands, apparently to protect a very tall person, was one of the more ludicrous images that persist.

These schemes are not far short of stupid. Reverse discrimination involves actions against the innocent to favour the currently disadvantaged to try and compensate for criminal discrimination by other people to other victims. They are all inherently unjust schemes with a remarkable lack of common sense.

I try to list the failings of such schemes (mainly as practiced in the US and Europe).

  • Tokenism: DEI programs are often just a facade to appear inclusive. That ethnically diverse work places provide benefits is a religious woke belief but there is no evidence that it is so.
  • Reverse Discrimination: DEI initiatives always lead to reverse discrimination, where qualified individuals from majority groups are overlooked in favor of less-qualified candidates from underrepresented groups. This has inevitably caused resentment and emphasized the stupidity of such schemes.
  • Lack of Measurable Results: The effectiveness of DEI programs is unproven due to the impossibility of measuring their impact on organizational performance. Diversity and inclusion only bring political benefits to the program organizers, but benefits to the organization cannot be quantified.
  • Focus on Diversity Over Inclusion: DEI programs often prioritize diversity in terms of demographics (race, gender, etc.) but neglect the importance of the primary purpose of any workplace – which is to do some specified work.
  • Administrative Burden: DEI initiatives are extremely time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring significant administrative effort to implement and maintain. This are a significant burden on organizations, especially smaller ones with no quantifiable benefits.
  • Stereotyping: DEI initiatives lead to stereotyping and perpetuating of such stereotyping.

It is often sanctimoniously claimed that DEI is “about creating a workplace where everyone feels valued, respected, and has equal opportunities to succeed”. What they conveniently forget is that a workplace is for doing work. Getting the work done is the objective not the practicing of religious rituals.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics | 1 Comment »