Jose L. Walteros

It’s great to be a Florida Gator.

Perhaps a good idea would be for me to communicate with you personally to voice my concerns rather than continue doing this publicly here. I've been a member since 2009. This community is just too important for me.

I still don't get why pursuing the 4th would compromise the first 2. If it is because of fear of retaliation by the US Gov., I could understand that, but perhaps there were better ways of announcing that to the community---if the plan is indeed just a rebranding of the "controversial" term DEI.

I apologize, as this response looks pretty hostile. My intention was not to demonize you or the INFORMS board. I am just upset and feel that this situation was not handled appropriately.

Dave, I am sorry, but you used to believe that. This was on your INFORMS President nomination website. It was one of your five strategic plans. Perhaps Senator Cruz's report changed your mind.

Final thought. Email says this was done without trying to run into political discourse. If the committee did not reflect “INFORMS evolving values”, then why is this being done right after the change in the US admin, which is anti DEI? Was INFORMS contemplating this before the US election? Unlikely

I understand the difficulties of addressing the challenges of the current political landscape, but you have to understand that many members of the community may feel abandoned by you. In my opinion, and maybe the one of others by looking at their comments, that you dropped the ball with that email

Also, are you guys closing WORMS too? Since (I)nclusion is apparently no longer part of INFORMS core interest.

Also, you mention “even within INFORMS, members view DEI differently”. I would like to see official data from the community. I would love to see a poll asking members about how they view that committee.

So the problem is indeed the name then. Just to push back a bit. Cruz report flagged any NSF grant with words like “vulnerable” or “diverse” in the title without considering context. Are we just playing a word game?

The whole "...the work of inclusion & engagement must evolve and be strengthened" does little to explain why the committee is being/should be sunsetted. What needs to evolve? At the end of the day, these actions reflect INFORMS values. Are we stopping pushing for a div., equit., and incl. community?

Eliminating the committee without describing what will replace it is wrong. I get that the new admin's policies challenge DEI, and perhaps the leadership wants to avoid confrontations with the gov. But doing so feels like INFORMS is validating such policies, and I, as a member, don't want that.

I can only speak for myself. I feel that eliminating this committee by no means "strengthens" the work of inclusion in our community, as the email states. Quite the opposite IMHO! You have to admit that the wording is not only terrible but also leaves many members (from minorities) in disarray.

Dave, I have a sincere question (not trying to be combative). Is the problem just the name DEI? Because, honestly, isn't a community fostering "respect, opportunity, and belonging" a community that accepts our differences (D), provides equal opportunities (E), and promotes a sense of belonging (I)

I just received an email telling me I was selected for a “meritorious reviewer award” from IJOC. Made me happy enough to share it as my first post here.