The DEI office at a college where I teach offered $100 to participate in an "anti-racist" workshop. The presenter, a Dominican woman (she/they) spoke of petty things that no university should concern itself with. It was like listening to a bunch of unintellectual women shit-talking in a bathhouse: She was forced to straighten her hair because 'white supremacy.' We need to "decolonize" the curriculum because 'white supremacy,' never mind that decolonizing is another word for colonizing. When a Chinese international shrugged off most of the petty concerns of the DEI presenter as 'just people being human' the presenter schooled her that this is 'racism,' she should feel upset, and report every incident (as if we were in Mao's China). Most of her issues seemed predicated on an aversion to American culture. Somehow, we all have to stop behaving like Americans to suit her race-obsessed, bitter, narcissistic needs -- meanwhile, she gets paid 100 grand a year to spew this drivel while I make much less doing actual work. The salient line: "Consider yourselves part of the white group that is detrimental to society." I honestly do not know how these people get by with this blatant racism that helps no one. It's filthy and disgusting.
Yes! Thank you for speaking out against this poisonous mind virus. DEI is now state guidance for K-12 schools in many places where it arguably does even more damage. I appreciate that you note many of its adherents mean well and are naive while others are radical Marxists and Maoists (like many professors in schools of ed) who are actively seeking socialist revolution. Meanwhile the minds of innocent children are being indelibly imprinted with this false binary worldview of white versus "POC." It's heartbreaking to see our vibrant multiracial society being destroyed from within by the Trojan horse of DEI. Subscribing now. Thank you for this important work!
This all seems so obvious. That testimony before congress is needed shows the depth of trouble our country has fallen into. I'm beginning to think this streak of illiberalism poses a greater danger than foreign enemies.
Thank you for daring to think for yourself. And please take care. I am simultaneously encouraged and worried about those who speak outside the narrative. Blessings to you.
My experience with DEI was as a dean of liberal arts at two institutions , one public one private. My experiences over 25 years showed the need for diversity training and the inability for administrators to provide this in a produce way
Faculty almost always liiked to replicate faculty turnover y hiring faculty who they felt comfortable with. This meant a prejudice for familiar schools, traditional fields.
The DEI program however only knew how to intrude in the hiring process with bureaucratic protocols without respecting the good things about faculty hiring faculty - that they know the disciplines and good teaching practice. So the faculty and DEI office spoke around each other.
The results at both institutions basically maintained status quo with regard to ethnicity and race and favoritism toward women (who had been underrepresented).
Racial diversity did not grow.
.Historical racism plus faculty conservatism plus ineffective DEI strategies equals status quo.
I wonder, if you read this, what you'd say to someone like Roland Fryer (WSJ Article DEI is worth saving)? His argument seems to be that objective, i.e. non-racial, standards should still be applied to judge different life backgrounds as opposed to a purely test based system. As in, a low income student raised by a single parent scoring a 90 would be picked over a high income student scoring a 98 - with a race not being a factor. He mentions a Black student who didn't have these disadvantages wouldn't get any preference over other races, so he seems to advocate for color blindness to an extent (he doesn't explicitly say this in the article). He calls this Talent Optimization, explaining that talented disadvantaged students have less opportunities to exhibit talent than, say, high income students.
I, for one, am fine with private institutions doing whatever they want and letting the market decide; and I think the history of discrimination tends to show that those who discriminate less objectively perform better (i.e. laws had to be passed to prevent Black workers from competing with Whites, I believe Union laws have a history of this). But Fryer notes that there is a market failure in which more talented poor kids are not given a chance to show talent, or he gives the example of toddlers and private schools (at 4 years old all infants are basically the same). Again, I'm more of the view that if education was 100% private it would be both cheaper and better, allowing for Talent Optimization, perhaps in the long run (maybe it may take longer to manifest, but I believe it would).
So are some aspect of DEI worth saving? I'd say, maybe, but certainly not by force of law.
Thank-you for the courage to speak out. DEI screws blacks by setting the stage for everyone to believe they can not compete head on with Asians and Whites. It minimizes women’s ability for the same reasons. It’s racist and sexist to the core and it should be eliminated. Those that it discriminated against (straight white and Asian men for decades) should get reparations.
The question boils down to what, exactly, constitutes the best measure of merit?
Are a few points less on a standardized test really a measure of total ability? Let's say one student put in more hours, with less resources, while one student had an expensive test prep with hired staff from the actual test agency that gave them inside information (not cheating per se, but they know what to focus in on and how the questions are framed) while the other student simply studied at school and bought a few test guides, but put in significantly more time and work?
That's why it gets complicated. I'm not for the "bare your sores" school of thought ether, but again, if the goal is Talent Optimization I think it is valid to include more than test scores. I think a lot of it is goal dependent, What are we actual looking for a college to be and do?
This was excellent. Thank you for saying what too many people, black or otherwise, are afraid to say. We need more people to speak up, but I see it happening more and more.
AnAn, I imagine that those who designate as BIPOC, would be any person who does not identify as “white” I could be wrong but I believe it is part and parcel of the current Canadian governments efforts to label/ segregate Canadians. For example if a person identifies as a member of BIPOC, they can receive preferential treatment in the hiring process as can those who “ label” as being members of the LBGTQ community - personally I consider it an ill advised policy. I believe the job,the grant etc should go to the person with the most merit! All things being equal, I guess you draw straws!
The DEI office at a college where I teach offered $100 to participate in an "anti-racist" workshop. The presenter, a Dominican woman (she/they) spoke of petty things that no university should concern itself with. It was like listening to a bunch of unintellectual women shit-talking in a bathhouse: She was forced to straighten her hair because 'white supremacy.' We need to "decolonize" the curriculum because 'white supremacy,' never mind that decolonizing is another word for colonizing. When a Chinese international shrugged off most of the petty concerns of the DEI presenter as 'just people being human' the presenter schooled her that this is 'racism,' she should feel upset, and report every incident (as if we were in Mao's China). Most of her issues seemed predicated on an aversion to American culture. Somehow, we all have to stop behaving like Americans to suit her race-obsessed, bitter, narcissistic needs -- meanwhile, she gets paid 100 grand a year to spew this drivel while I make much less doing actual work. The salient line: "Consider yourselves part of the white group that is detrimental to society." I honestly do not know how these people get by with this blatant racism that helps no one. It's filthy and disgusting.
Yes! Thank you for speaking out against this poisonous mind virus. DEI is now state guidance for K-12 schools in many places where it arguably does even more damage. I appreciate that you note many of its adherents mean well and are naive while others are radical Marxists and Maoists (like many professors in schools of ed) who are actively seeking socialist revolution. Meanwhile the minds of innocent children are being indelibly imprinted with this false binary worldview of white versus "POC." It's heartbreaking to see our vibrant multiracial society being destroyed from within by the Trojan horse of DEI. Subscribing now. Thank you for this important work!
This all seems so obvious. That testimony before congress is needed shows the depth of trouble our country has fallen into. I'm beginning to think this streak of illiberalism poses a greater danger than foreign enemies.
Wow. You knocked that one out of the park. Thank you for saying so eloquently what many of us are thinking.
Thank you for daring to think for yourself. And please take care. I am simultaneously encouraged and worried about those who speak outside the narrative. Blessings to you.
I’m grateful for Mr. Smith. I’ve never been more exhausted actually trying to champion inclusion. Not black vs. white. I didn’t realize it was a show.
My experience with DEI was as a dean of liberal arts at two institutions , one public one private. My experiences over 25 years showed the need for diversity training and the inability for administrators to provide this in a produce way
Faculty almost always liiked to replicate faculty turnover y hiring faculty who they felt comfortable with. This meant a prejudice for familiar schools, traditional fields.
The DEI program however only knew how to intrude in the hiring process with bureaucratic protocols without respecting the good things about faculty hiring faculty - that they know the disciplines and good teaching practice. So the faculty and DEI office spoke around each other.
The results at both institutions basically maintained status quo with regard to ethnicity and race and favoritism toward women (who had been underrepresented).
Racial diversity did not grow.
.Historical racism plus faculty conservatism plus ineffective DEI strategies equals status quo.
I wonder, if you read this, what you'd say to someone like Roland Fryer (WSJ Article DEI is worth saving)? His argument seems to be that objective, i.e. non-racial, standards should still be applied to judge different life backgrounds as opposed to a purely test based system. As in, a low income student raised by a single parent scoring a 90 would be picked over a high income student scoring a 98 - with a race not being a factor. He mentions a Black student who didn't have these disadvantages wouldn't get any preference over other races, so he seems to advocate for color blindness to an extent (he doesn't explicitly say this in the article). He calls this Talent Optimization, explaining that talented disadvantaged students have less opportunities to exhibit talent than, say, high income students.
I, for one, am fine with private institutions doing whatever they want and letting the market decide; and I think the history of discrimination tends to show that those who discriminate less objectively perform better (i.e. laws had to be passed to prevent Black workers from competing with Whites, I believe Union laws have a history of this). But Fryer notes that there is a market failure in which more talented poor kids are not given a chance to show talent, or he gives the example of toddlers and private schools (at 4 years old all infants are basically the same). Again, I'm more of the view that if education was 100% private it would be both cheaper and better, allowing for Talent Optimization, perhaps in the long run (maybe it may take longer to manifest, but I believe it would).
So are some aspect of DEI worth saving? I'd say, maybe, but certainly not by force of law.
God bless you, Sir!
Thank-you for the courage to speak out. DEI screws blacks by setting the stage for everyone to believe they can not compete head on with Asians and Whites. It minimizes women’s ability for the same reasons. It’s racist and sexist to the core and it should be eliminated. Those that it discriminated against (straight white and Asian men for decades) should get reparations.
The question boils down to what, exactly, constitutes the best measure of merit?
Are a few points less on a standardized test really a measure of total ability? Let's say one student put in more hours, with less resources, while one student had an expensive test prep with hired staff from the actual test agency that gave them inside information (not cheating per se, but they know what to focus in on and how the questions are framed) while the other student simply studied at school and bought a few test guides, but put in significantly more time and work?
That's why it gets complicated. I'm not for the "bare your sores" school of thought ether, but again, if the goal is Talent Optimization I think it is valid to include more than test scores. I think a lot of it is goal dependent, What are we actual looking for a college to be and do?
Excellent. Thank you!
This was excellent. Thank you for saying what too many people, black or otherwise, are afraid to say. We need more people to speak up, but I see it happening more and more.
We just got notice of our university's Tunnel of Oppression.
Bless you.
AnAn, I imagine that those who designate as BIPOC, would be any person who does not identify as “white” I could be wrong but I believe it is part and parcel of the current Canadian governments efforts to label/ segregate Canadians. For example if a person identifies as a member of BIPOC, they can receive preferential treatment in the hiring process as can those who “ label” as being members of the LBGTQ community - personally I consider it an ill advised policy. I believe the job,the grant etc should go to the person with the most merit! All things being equal, I guess you draw straws!