A Black DEI Director Canceled by DEI
compactmag.com
compactmag.com
This vein of 'antiracism' is poison because it really is absurd. I've personally seen people call 'agendas' and 'goals' white supremacy. Hell, I had to listen to someone talk about how 'clock time' is a tool invented by white supremacists. I've had friends fall down the rabbit whole into this nonsense, where any shortcoming in themselves is just white supremacist culture trying to force things on them. It's really sad.
The most insidious thing is how well it has a built-in defense mechanism. By co-opting terms like 'anti-racist' and defining them under a narrow socio-political view point, it creates a complication for people to talk about their world view. I consider myself 'anti-racist' because I hate racists, but am I 'Anti-racist' in Kemba's viewpoint? No
And stop trying to make Latinx a thing, its not going to happen and is super cringy.
The term "antiracist" is laughable too, since by definition it's an ideology that requires you to actively judge people based on the color of their skin. Don't take it from me either, you can see it in the words of Ibram X. Kendi who is perhaps the most well known antiracist grifter:
“The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” ~Ibram X. Kendi
That just about sums up DEI and antiracist grifting in general.
Let me guess, you 'don't see race'?
Racism and sexism exist. They exist in the workplace. DEI is a remedy towards that.
I'm not sure why you are quoting Kendi? Are you under the impression that Kendi invented DEI or owns it?
Like this whole article was written by someone who is a leader in DEI and doesn't agree with Kendi.
If you want to continue this conversation, thats fine, but if you can't understand the difference between the concept of DEI and an individuals views,there really is no point.
> Let me guess, you 'don't see race'?
> Racism and sexism exist. They exist in the workplace. DEI is a remedy towards that.
It's also completely illogical. White neoliberals control most levers of power in society. I'm not just referring to the Executive branch and the Senate, but the majority of the Boards in the Fortune 500 who are so eager to implement DEI policies, the media (minus the tabloid trash at FOX News) and almost every institute of higher learning (save the rare exceptions like a Hillsdale College which only proves the rule). These people see themselves as saviors of the poor oppressed minority and if you ask them how they feel about poor whites (who happen to make up the majority of poor people in the US), they cringe. They hate nothing more than those dirty hillbillies, and their generational poverty...matters not.
Judging people by the color of their skin is racism, and DEI seeks to institutionalize those racist policies. I do not support institutionalized racism regardless of the target, and I would hope more people begin to see the idiocy in doing so. All it does is breed resentment, divisiveness and racial animosity.
The solution is simple. Help those who need help, do not base any policies on skin color or ethnicity, as it is immutable and will only cause problems. If these people didn't despise the "Trump-country poor white trash" so much, this would be a no-brainer. But alas, here we are.
I don't believe you. I don't know if you're lying to me or yourself, but you have racial bias (we all do).
> Policies that treat people differently based on the color of their skin (something that is foundational to the entire framework of DEI initiatives) is a bad idea.
Sure! We already have a socioeconomic system that treats people differently based on the color of the their skin. That's reality. It's not DEI thats the problem, its racists.
>White neoliberals control most levers of power in society.
This true, but I'm guessing you don't really understand that neoliberalism is just another word for conservative. Neoliberals hate DEI.
>Judging people by the color of their skin is racism, and DEI seeks to institutionalize those racist policies. I do not support institutionalized racism regardless of the target, and I would hope more people begin to see the idiocy in doing so. All it does is breed resentment, divisiveness and racial animosity.
LMAO bruh, judging people by the color of their skin was institutionalized 150 before DEI was ever thought of. The United States had FUCKING SLAVES based on the color the skin. Stop being a racist shit. Its been less than 50 years since the federal government *had to outlaw racial segregation because racist ass racists wanted racial segregation*. Quit your horseshit bud. There is still time for you to heal.
> We already have a socioeconomic system that treats people differently based on the color of the their skin.
The math doesn't back you up. The majority of poor people in the country are white. And if you want to look at the per capita rates of poverty, then you have to deal with that fact that asians outperform whites in every category per capita. So the whole idea that whites are outperforming everyone due to some inherent white supremacy built into the system is demonstrably false.
> This true, but I'm guessing you don't really understand that neoliberalism is just another word for conservative. Neoliberals hate DEI.
This is why you have Wall Street which is a Republican stronghold, fully embracing DEI. DEI fits nicely within the racially divisive neoliberal worldview.
> LMAO bruh, judging people by the color of their skin was institutionalized 150 before DEI was ever thought of. The United States had FUCKING SLAVES based on the color the skin. Stop being a racist shit. Its been less than 50 years since the federal government *had to outlaw racial segregation because racist ass racists wanted racial segregation*.
Uh, thanks for making my case for me bruh.
The claims about 'White Supremacy Culture' alone are asinine (sense of urgency?).
Why anybody would want to participate in academia as an administrator is beyond me. It just seems so toxic and petty.
Okun's website attempts to clarify all of this; for instance, the page expanding on "worship of the written word" explains that it's a reaction to the idea that anything not written down according to formal standards is worthless. That's not a crazy DEI idea, so much so that it's part of the plot of the Terry Gilliam movie Brazil.
But people just want fortune cookies to memorize and repeat, and it is somewhat on people like Okun for providing those fortunes and only 20 years later clarifying them. And, of course, De Anza wasn't at all engaged with Okun's actual thoughts; it was using them to prevent managers from setting agendas for meetings.
Again: everybody involved in this story is a crank.
As for FAIR, I’m not sure what evidence you have that it’s conservative. The board members consists of liberals like Jonathan Haidt, John McWhorter, and Steven Pinker. I don’t see anything wrong with operating from a premise that doesn’t rely on CRT either, since it’s really pure rhetoric and scant on evidence, and clearly the cause of the illiberalism and nasty behaviour that the author is calling out in her essay. Consequently, I doubt you’re presenting their “prominent side hustle” in good faith as well.
Your summary is so disingenuous, it’s a great pity that it’s the top most comment. You miss the crux of the essay, which is sounding the alarm that the people who you described as “unironically still using Tema Okun’s…”, are the ones running the show in academic institutions. For anyone reading this comment, I’d urge you to read the source directly, the quality of HN comments for such topic isn’t that great.
You can take a side here. Lots of people do. But this whole incident is just a culture war episode. The sides are at opposite, equally off-putting poles.
As for Rufo, I've heard of him in passing, but never engaged with his content. Regardless, I think it shouldn't be a problem since FAIR is supposed to be non-partisan. Given the membership of the other liberals I've mentioned, Rufo's presence shouldn't be a problem, since everyone mentioned has a stake in the organization.
As for the "anti-trans" aspect, I just googled and can't see how FAIR is "anti-trans". The current mainstream trans activists are rather dogmatic, asserting that gender-affirming care is medically credible and well-established, and any discussion otherwise is "harmful" and transphobic. As far as I best know, the evidence base for gender-affirming care is incredibly dubious, and UK and other European countries have responded accordingly by pausing such treatments. It does make sense then for FAIR to have an interest in this, since said activists have exhibited intolerance, silencing their opponents under the guise of social justice in spite of the fact that the facts aren't in their favour. This is as best as I know about accusations of "transphobia" that are levied against FAIR, and honestly calling them "anti-trans" on that basis strikes me as nonsensical.
I can't comment on FAIR's supposed origin as an "anti-CRT" organization, since I don't precisely understand what that means (e.g. are they against CRT because of some unsubstantiated moral panic, or are they simply against CRT-centric approaches towards activism for equality, or something else). As you can see, some interpretations for "anti-CRT" ain't great, some interpretations of it sounds reasonable. It would be great if you can provide some sources for me to follow up on and better understand this.
For the record, I'm not asserting that FAIR is a fantastic and faultless organization as I do not follow or keep up with them. Hence, my views are not an endorsement of their work. I'm simply disputing the claims you've made about FAIR (supposedly conservative, anti-trans, anti-CRT), which doesn't seem justified by the information and news I can find about them online.
If you're an incoming DEI dean at a community college where leadership at the school has told you there's a problem with overwrought wokeism and performative displays displacing actual inclusion, then it's absolutely part of your job to undo all that woke stuff. But your role as the "DEI dean" is, principally, to persuade faculty and registered student organizations to adopt a more productive "DEI" frame. You can't be persuasive introducing propaganda from FAIR, because: regardless of what De Anza's status is in the ranking of US higher learning institutions, everybody there can Google and find out what FAIR is about, and the moment you cite them you've nailed yourself to a pole in the culture war.
This isn't the only disqualifying action Tabia Lee took at De Anza (I sheepishly admit: I burned an hour or two looking random stuff up here, for no valid reason I can retrospectively discern), but it's the easiest illustration to give of how not to productively push back on wokeism. Don't do things that are trivially caricatured, and especially don't do those things when there's real substance to the accusation.
A hard-won lesson: being right is worth nothing if you can't persuade people. Congratulations, you can tell people you told them so, and they'll just be even more irritated with you.
Looking forward to seeing where Lee ends up on the conservative speaking circuit. Nobody's going to make the mistake of hiring her in an institutional role again.
This is not possible with the identitarian left. There is no compromising with those who declaim that anything but their own shining path is some form of -ism or -phobia leading to harm and genocide. They do not want to compromise, instead they insist on dictating the terms, placing themselves above all other interests because they consider themselves to be morally superior.
So, lefties, please... clean up in your own ranks for the good of all. Excise those who put themselves over others with claims of moral superiority, show them a mirror and tell them they to clean up their act - shape up or ship out. If you don't they will destroy your chances of ever achieving any of your goals, subjecting you to a continuous struggle for dominance over imagined oppressors both inside as well as outside of your own movements.