Demonize, Demean, Divide

   In this new year I plan to focus mostly on old things, but so far have been distracted. As well, I admit that it is easier to start with something, rather than come up with something fresh. The 'something' I discussed yesterday is  "DEI" which I cleverly concealed in my last post that covered some current news. The reason for its concealment was that the post indicated there is some (a lot) of discontent over DEI in the United States, while here in Canada the 'notion' is still fresh and in its ascendancy. It does seem odd to me that something likely to be discarded south of the border, is being so wholeheartedly endorsed north of it. 

   The reason I am bringing DEI up again, and openly, is because of an article I read today which is directly related to the one I mentioned yesterday. In short, diversity, equity and inclusion are generally regarded as ideas and goals that are 'good' ones and they are particularly robust now in Canada. No one wants to question them and it would be unwise to do so in our cold climate. The article now presented suggests that the canning of the ideas and their distribution from DEI departments may need reconsideration.

  "To put it succinctly: Opposing D.E.I., in part or in whole, does not make one racist. We can agree that the legacy of racism requires addressing and yet disagree about how best to do it. Of course in the pure sense, to be opposed to “diversity,” opposed to “equity” and opposed to “inclusion” would fairly be called racism. But it is coy to pretend these dictionary meanings are what D.E.I. refers to in modern practice, which is a more specific philosophy.
   D.E.I. programs today often insist that we alter traditional conceptions of merit, “decenter” whiteness to the point of elevating nonwhiteness as a qualification in itself, conceive of people as groups in balkanized opposition, demand that all faculty members declare fealty to this modus operandi regardless of their field or personal opinions, and harbor a rigidly intolerant attitude toward dissent. The experience last year of Tabia Lee, a Black woman who was fired from supervising the D.E.I. program at De Anza College in California for refusing to adhere to such tenets, is sadly illustrative of the new climate. (Like Ackman, she believes that what he calls the “oppressor/oppressed framework” of D.E.I. contributes to campus antisemitism by defining Jews as “oppressors.” 
   D.E.I. advocates may see their worldview and modus operandi as so wise and just that opposition can only come from racists and the otherwise morally compromised. But this is shortsighted. One can be very committed to the advancement of Black people while also seeing a certain ominous and prosecutorial groupthink in much of what has come to operate under the D.E.I. label. Not to mention an unwitting condescension to Black people."
Source: "Claudine Gay Was Not Driven Out Because She is Black," John McWhorter, New York Times, Jan. 8, 2024

Diversity, Extremism, Exclusion

  The title of this post comes from words found in another article in the New York Times. I will take credit for the ones above in the subtitle. They all indicate that there are problems as does the title of the article: "Universities Are Failing at Inclusion," (David Brooks, Nov. 16, 2023.) In trying to understand why campuses "have become brutalizing ideological war zones," here is some of what Brooks has to say.

   It centers on a hard-edged ideological framework that has been spreading in high school and college, on social media, in diversity training seminars and in popular culture....

   The common ideas associated with this ideology are by now pretty familiar:

 *We shouldn’t emphasize what unites all human beings; we should emphasize what divides us.

*Human relations are power struggles between oppressors and oppressed groups.

*Human communication is limited. A person in one group can never really understand the experience of someone in another group.

*The goal of rising above bigotry is naïve. Bigotry and racism are permanent and indestructible components of American society.

*Seemingly neutral tenets of society — like free speech, academic freedom, academic integrity and the meritocracy — are tools the powerful use to preserve their power.

 The words appearing in the title of this post are found in this passage:

   One upshot is that universities have become battlefields. Eboo Patel is the founder and president of Interfaith America, which over the past 20 years has worked on about 1,200 campuses to narrow toxic divides and build bridges between people of all faiths or no faith. Over these decades, he has concluded that far from creating a healthier, more equitable campus, this ideology demonizes, demeans and divides students. It demeans white people by reducing them to a single category — oppressor. Meanwhile, it demeans, for example, Muslim people of color, like Patel, by reducing them to victims.

 I should add that Mr. Patel doesn't argue that we should try to end DEI. I will also add that Mr. Brooks is generally labelled as a "conservative." Dr. McWhorter is a linguist at Columbia University. He is also a columnist for the NYT and the author of books including, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Portrayed Black America.

It shouldn't matter, but I will mention that McWhorter is also BLACK.