ADVERTISEMENT

Fascinating article on DEI initiatives at the Secret Service

NorthernHawkeye

HB Legend
Dec 23, 2007
35,158
26,738
113
Secret Service equity director says DEI agenda is a 'mission imperative,' the 'ultimate goal'

DEI director Loucious Hires said when every Secret Service agent makes DEI a 'mission imperative' the agency will have 'achieved our ultimate goal'y

The director of equity at the Secret Service calls it a "mission imperative" and the "ultimate goal" to spread DEI within the agency, with the agency hosting seminars on "respectful use of pronouns."

The executive director of the Secret Services' Office of Equity Loucious Hires III discussed diversity, equity and inclusion, "a topic that is difficult for some to talk about," on the official government podcast "Standing Post" in February 2023. The agency said it was striving to be the "gold standard" of DEI in a recruitment brochure that same year.

During the podcast, the equity director outlined how every action at the Secret Service should be informed by DEI and claimed the ideology makes the organization stronger. Every employee should consider how every action is reflective of equity, according to the director.

"I could talk on and on what the agency is doing to promote diversity, equity and inclusion… DEI is every action every day," he said. "So the opportunity for improvement for every employee within the Secret Service is to ask themselves, ‘What action are you doing every day?’"

"Part of the things that we need to continue to do more is to be open and speak openly about diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. And when every one of us within this agency can say this is a mission imperative, then we have achieved our ultimate goal," he said during the podcast.

The Secret Service established a group of the agency’s "Game Changers" to form the "Inclusion Engagement Council" (IEC).

"The IEC’s collective duty is to help the Secret Service build, foster, create, and inspire a workforce where diversity and inclusion is not just 'talked about' -- but demonstrated by all employees through ‘Every Action, Every Day,’" the Secret Service's website says.

The IEC wants to go beyond pushing for equal employment opportunities, to change the culture "outside the agency’s mandated requirements."

"Having a diverse workforce enhances cross-cultural awareness. A successful organization is a cohesive one, where all members have mutual respect for each other’s diversity and culture," the Secret Service said on its website.

Andrew "Drew" Cannady, a supervisory attorney-advisor for the Secret Service’s Office of Chief Counsel, explained how the agency has been going to Pride events to recruit candidates and has seen more transgender people in the service as a result.

"We like every other organization. We benefit from diversity. And I actually am seeing more openly… trans recruits out of the training center, law enforcement recruits, which is great," Cannady said on the agency podcast in 2022.

Cannady provides advice and counsel on personnel, human resources, security clearance and other employment law matters at the agency. He said the Secret Service has put on programming to educate its workforce on how to use pronouns.

"We will put on things during Unity Day, which, you know, for listeners, is the annual day of the Secret Service, where we celebrate various groups… that the Secret Service has in its workforce. And, you know, during that, we've hosted things like a seminar on the respectful use of pronouns, to sort of try to educate the workforce," he said. "Because some of this stuff, you know, is cutting edge and new and people that just may not be familiar with it."

"We're going to have, I think, a Secret Service booth at Capitol Pride here in D.C. We're going to do something in Atlanta and New York. It's really a chance for us to be physically present at these Pride events. And, you know, people who might be curious about law enforcement or the Secret Service can come talk to members of the community and really get our experience with it. So I'm really excited about it," he added.

The Secret Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Secret Service has been heavily criticized for its failure to prevent former President Trump from being shot during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, last weekend. Many Republican lawmakers have called for Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to resign.

She was appointed by President Biden to lead the Secret Service in 2022, making her only the second woman to ever lead the agency. Prior to this role, Cheatle served as senior director of global security at PepsiCo, where she was responsible for directing and implementing security protocols for the company's facilities in North America.

Critics have accused Cheatle of prioritizing "woke" ideologies rooted in DEI instead of only focusing on hiring the best for the agency. While at the Secret Service, Cheatle has stressed the importance of increasing diversity in the Secret Service.
"Strategy is focused on achieving excellence through talent, technology and diversity," Cheatle said about the agency's strategic plan 2023-27.

"I am very conscious... that we need to attract diverse candidates ...and particularly women," she said in a CBS interview, which reported the agency was looking to increase women recruits to 30% of their workforce.

According to the agency's website, Cheatle is responsible for executing the agency’s integrated mission of "protection and investigations by leading a diverse workforce."
Despite growing calls to step down over the attack, which killed one rally attendee and critically injured two others, Cheatle said she will not resign.


Full article:
 
Last edited:
I’ve stated numerous times I’m not a fan of DEI for DEI’s sake. For example, forced DEI in corporate environments is silly.

That said, there are absolutely situations where diversity in workforce would be a significant strength. Intelligence and operating in varying environments like the FBI (as an example) should warrant looking at hiring criteria. The pendulum swung too far with the DEI blitz/grift but if you’re looking for a positive maybe it opened some eyes to thinking differently.
 
Last edited:
I’ve stated numerous times I’m not a fan of DEI for DEI’s sake. For example, forced DEI in corporate environments is silly.

That said, I can see situations where diversity in workforce would be a significant strength. Intelligence and operating in varying environments like the FBI does could warrant looking at hiring criteria.
When your agency just allowed the former President of the United States to be shot at, your DEI priority is WAAYYY off base. The Secret Service has one goal and one goal only, protect those you are tasked with protecting. Anything other than that is nothing but an unnecessary distraction and detrimental to your mission. (I find it interesting that they require everyone to wear the same suit in the same color so they look the same on the outside, but they want everyone to look different inside the suit. Maybe they should worry more about their mission and worry less about appearances.)

I have no idea where this DEI nonsense came from or why it reared it's ugly head but it needs to be thrown overboard immediately before anymore damage occurs. The best for the job, period, hard stop.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: EagleHawk
When your agency just allowed the former President of the United States to be shot at, your DEI priority is WAAYYY off base. The Secret Service has one goal and one goal only, protect those you are tasked with protecting. Anything other than that is nothing but an unnecessary distraction and detrimental to your mission. (I find it interesting that they require everyone to wear the same suit in the same color so they look the same on the outside, but they want everyone to look different inside the suit. Maybe they should worry more about their mission and worry less about appearances.)

I have no idea where this DEI nonsense came from or why it reared it's ugly head but it needs to be thrown overboard immediately before anymore damage occurs. The best for the job, period, hard stop.........
Never figured you'd be against diversity.
 
"DEI (or DE&I) stands for diversity, equity and inclusion. As a discipline, DEI is any policy or practice designed to make people of various backgrounds feel welcome and ensure they have support to perform to the fullest of their abilities in the workplace."

All you right wing, fascist nutlickers have no idea what DEI is. What a bunch of moronic assholes you have become.
 
Last edited:
When your agency just allowed the former President of the United States to be shot at, your DEI priority is WAAYYY off base. The Secret Service has one goal and one goal only, protect those you are tasked with protecting. Anything other than that is nothing but an unnecessary distraction and detrimental to your mission. (I find it interesting that they require everyone to wear the same suit in the same color so they look the same on the outside, but they want everyone to look different inside the suit. Maybe they should worry more about their mission and worry less about appearances.)

I have no idea where this DEI nonsense came from or why it reared it's ugly head but it needs to be thrown overboard immediately before anymore damage occurs. The best for the job, period, hard stop.........

If we’re talking specifically about hiring practices and how the concept of DEI has been butchered into warping that, we are in agreement. Mark this day on your calendar and celebrate it.
 
"DEI (or DE&I) stands for diversity, equity and inclusion. As a discipline, DEI is any policy or practice designed to make people of various backgrounds feel welcome and ensure they have support to perform to the fullest of their abilities in the workplace."

All you right wing, fascist nutlickers have not idea what DEI is. What a bunch of moronic assholes you have become.
"Equity" is the problem. "Equality" would be the better focus IMO. Equality in opportunity should be the goal.
 
  • Love
Reactions: ClarindaA's
I’ve stated numerous times I’m not a fan of DEI for DEI’s sake. For example, forced DEI in corporate environments is silly.

That said, there are absolutely situations where diversity in workforce would be a significant strength. Intelligence and operating in varying environments like the FBI (as an example) should warrant looking at hiring criteria. The pendulum swung too far with the DEI blitz/grift but if you’re looking for a positive maybe it opened some eyes to thinking differently.
Only if the diversity wasn’t at the cost of better performance. Have you seen 4 states no longer require the attorneys in a state to pass the bar exam? They said not enough blacks passed it, so of course it’s racist. What I want to know, truly, is why it’s ok to say blacks on the whole ar gifted athletically, but it’s racist to say Asians and whites are more gifted intellectually?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SIXERS24
Have you seen 4 states no longer require the attorneys in a state to pass the bar exam? They said not enough blacks passed it, so of course it’s racist. What in want to know, truly, is why it’s ok to say blacks on the whole ar gifted athletically, but it’s racist to say Asians and whites are more gifted intellectually?

The un-bolded part is silly to me as well. Although maybe the bar exam uses a bunch of old timer words and could use a refresher? I don’t know.

The bolded part doesn’t cross my mind and I don’t care.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NoWokeBloke
I’ve stated numerous times I’m not a fan of DEI for DEI’s sake. For example, forced DEI in corporate environments is silly.

That said, there are absolutely situations where diversity in workforce would be a significant strength. Intelligence and operating in varying environments like the FBI (as an example) should warrant looking at hiring criteria. The pendulum swung too far with the DEI blitz/grift but if you’re looking for a positive maybe it opened some eyes to thinking differently.
That might make you feel better, but there's no real evidence for it. There is substantial evidence that the most qualified person, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference is a significant strength.
 
The un-bolded part is silly to me as well. Although maybe the bar exam uses a bunch of old timer words and could use a refresher? I don’t know.

The bolded part doesn’t cross my mind and I don’t care.
I’m having a hard time seeing my screen, eye issue. You don’t find hypocrisy in it?
 
That might make you feel better, but there's no real evidence for it. There is substantial evidence that the most qualified person, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference is a significant strength.

You’re not understanding what I’m saying. Sometimes cultural knowledge (which often follows race for an example) makes the person the most qualified.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: abby97
I’ve stated numerous times I’m not a fan of DEI for DEI’s sake. For example, forced DEI in corporate environments is silly.

That said, there are absolutely situations where diversity in workforce would be a significant strength. Intelligence and operating in varying environments like the FBI (as an example) should warrant looking at hiring criteria. The pendulum swung too far with the DEI blitz/grift but if you’re looking for a positive maybe it opened some eyes to thinking differently.
It’s largely been a joke and every company is walking it back because it is an enormous waste of money. We lead the world in innovation and have the most dominant economy ever built with the highest standard of living that any major country has ever enjoyed. It was a move to placate the masses and curb the rampant stupidity in the summer of 2020. The idea that it was going to yield increased production was absolutely preposterous.
 
Last edited:
"DEI (or DE&I) stands for diversity, equity and inclusion. As a discipline, DEI is any policy or practice designed to make people of various backgrounds feel welcome and ensure they have support to perform to the fullest of their abilities in the workplace."

All you right wing, fascist nutlickers have not idea what DEI is. What a bunch of moronic assholes you have become.
If you believe DEI is designed by make people feel welcome, you are more of a simpleton than I even thought. It is simply designed to pander to various Democratic constituencies. Please keep in mind that if your spouse or parents or children needed the best surgeon available to save their life, I'm sure you would proudly settle for the nearest diversity hire who barely made it out of medical school.
 
And why do you believe that?

Professors punished by school administration, say DEI can't be questioned or you become a 'target'

DEI is really about 'filtering out people that don't have the right viewpoints,' one fired college professor said

 
  • Love
Reactions: ClarindaA's
Professors punished by school administration, say DEI can't be questioned or you become a 'target'

DEI is really about 'filtering out people that don't have the right viewpoints,' one fired college professor said

Fox news, didn't read. FNDR, is that a thing yet?
 
And why do you believe that?
One of the staunchest groups advocating for DEI are colleges, their administrations and professors, yet they are as far from diverse as any group could be. I once heard an anecdote about student who applied to an Ivy league school but because he didn't belong to a group that the college considered under represented, he wasn't admitted. He lost a spot to an African American who was brought up in an upper middle class home in the burbs and with a majority white population. Now the kid who didn't get in was white, but he grew up in Bosnia, English was his second language and he was Muslim. See, it's not about diversity of thought and experiences, it's about pandering to political constituencies. Quotas were ruled to be illegal, so the left changed the name to DEI.

 
Ahh, my point is, the stereotypes are their based on real life data.

Stereotypes are easy for the common man to grab on to and apply far too universally. And we've strayed far beyond the DEI discussion in the OP which is why I disqualified your initial comment from the context of this conversation in my response. It's moot.
 
When your agency just allowed the former President of the United States to be shot at, your DEI priority is WAAYYY off base. The Secret Service has one goal and one goal only, protect those you are tasked with protecting. Anything other than that is nothing but an unnecessary distraction and detrimental to your mission. (I find it interesting that they require everyone to wear the same suit in the same color so they look the same on the outside, but they want everyone to look different inside the suit. Maybe they should worry more about their mission and worry less about appearances.)

I have no idea where this DEI nonsense came from or why it reared it's ugly head but it needs to be thrown overboard immediately before anymore damage occurs. The best for the job, period, hard stop.........
I must have missed where DEI was determined be the reason someone took a shot at Trump.
That might make you feel better, but there's no real evidence for it. There is substantial evidence that the most qualified person, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference is a significant strength.
I think it can be argued that more often than not, the most qualified person is rarely hired for a job, especially as vague as that term is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: abby97
TL;DR Summary:

In a recent article, Kimberly Cheatle, the Secret Service's director of the Office of Equity and Inclusion, emphasized the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as mission imperatives within the agency. Cheatle argued that DEI initiatives are essential for fostering a sense of belonging among employees and for improving the overall effectiveness of the Secret Service. She highlighted the agency's commitment to these principles, stating that a diverse workforce leads to better decision-making and enhanced performance. The ultimate goal, according to Cheatle, is to integrate DEI into every aspect of the Secret Service's operations, ensuring that all employees feel valued and empowered.

Cheatle's statements come at a time when many organizations are scrutinizing their DEI efforts. She noted that the Secret Service is working to create a more inclusive culture through various programs and initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of DEI principles among its employees. This includes training programs, employee resource groups, and outreach efforts to attract a more diverse pool of candidates. Cheatle believes that these efforts are not just about compliance but are critical to the agency's mission of protecting national leaders and securing the country's financial infrastructure.

Food For Thought:

Fascinating:
Something that captures and holds one's attention and interest due to its unique, intriguing, or compelling qualities.
 
I must have missed where DEI was determined be the reason someone took a shot at Trump.

I think it can be argued that more often than not, the most qualified person is rarely hired for a job, especially as vague as that term is.

This is where the broken brain of the simpletons can't comprehend a concept that should be very easy to grasp. "Most qualified" can mean a lot of things and it isn't just years in the job. For example, let's say you're hiring for a sales manager for FUBU. You're damn right I'm going to take into account their understanding and cultural experience as part of the criteria and not just look at their resume. Smart companies leverage cultural differences all the time. It does make them better. It just doesn't need to be forced with DEI.
 
Only if the diversity wasn’t at the cost of better performance. Have you seen 4 states no longer require the attorneys in a state to pass the bar exam? They said not enough blacks passed it, so of course it’s racist. What I want to know, truly, is why it’s ok to say blacks on the whole ar gifted athletically, but it’s racist to say Asians and whites are more gifted intellectually?
I assume two of those states are Wisconsin and New Hampshire, each of which got rid of the bar exam requirement years ago. Those decisions had absolutely nothing to do with “not enough blacks” passing the exam, it was because they didn’t have enough attorneys working in their states and wanted to encourage more attorneys to work there.

I would question the motives of whatever source you are using that led you to draw the conclusion you did in your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
"DEI (or DE&I) stands for diversity, equity and inclusion. As a discipline, DEI is any policy or practice designed to make people of various backgrounds feel welcome and ensure they have support to perform to the fullest of their abilities in the workplace."

All you right wing, fascist nutlickers have not idea what DEI is. What a bunch of moronic assholes you have become.
That's great and all but there have been pro DEI companies that have publicly stated they won't hire white men. Or they have stated "we plan on hiring way more minorities this year" before you know a fair interview and hiring process.

Those companies are the problem children of DEI. If every company followed DEI as you stated that'd be fine but that's just simply not the case and I feel like you even know that.
 
Lol so the Secret Service messes up big time, fails to do their job, and lets a Presidential candidate just about get his head blown off….and they blame DEI? Comedy at its finest. Of course the boards most gullible members are eating it up.

From now on, if I make a mistake at work, rather than looking internally at myself and what I could do better, I’m just going to say DEI caused my failure and move on.
 
I assume two of those states are Wisconsin and New Hampshire, each of which got rid of the bar exam requirement years ago. Those decisions had absolutely nothing to do with “not enough blacks” passing the exam, it was because they didn’t have enough attorneys working in their states and wanted to encourage more attorneys to work there.

I would question the motives of whatever source you are using that led you to draw the conclusion you did in your post.
Washington and Wisconsin, and they specifically mentioned the reason in Washington being the 91-66 disparity in percentage of white versus black who passed. This article only mentions marginalized groups

 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT