What is this DEI thing we love/hate?

Did DEI actually cause the recent crash of a plane and helicopter over the Potomac? No. Then why can President Trump score political points by claiming that DEI is at the root of such events? Do people believe him?

My friends and I do not believe him, but Trump gets away with such rhetoric because it’s true that DEI programs were out of control at all levels of government and in many corporations and non-profit organizations. How do I know this? I’ve had the privilege of meeting people whose careers were side-tracked because of DEI assumptions. I’ve had direct experience participating in DEI training with a non-profit that shocked me and brought me to my senses.

The notion of cultural appropriation somehow got tangled up with DEI jargon and one result was a decision that a white woman could not use a hip-hop video she produced to instruct college freshmen on how to use the campus library services. Bonkers. An entrepreneur was shut down for serving Asian noodles while white. Bonkers.

During the training I participated in, I learned that as a white person, I must let a person of color speak until she has said all that she wants to say. Why is that bad, you should ask. Of course it’s rude to interrupt people in a meeting. Let the person finish, for heaven’s sake. But what if the person who chairs the meeting is white? Can she interrupt the person of color in order to keep the meeting on track or enable others to speak? No, she cannot. I’m not sure what should happen if more than one person of color is present as we only ever had one in my training.

I also learned that Robin D’Angelo and Ibram X Kendi are gods. Thou shalt not challenge D’Angelos’s assertion that white people are fragile if they express discomfort with any of the new rules of the road such as let the POC talk until she has exhausted herself. Kendi asserts that any and all gaps in participation, income, achievement, etc. are evidence of racism, end of discussion. If Asians achieve higher scores than whites, it’s because they are white-adjacent, not because their families promote reading, writing, and arithmetic at home.

The fallout from this way of thinking are policies that work to the detriment of all. If schools find that fewer black and brown kids are taking advanced math classes, the solution is not to provide extra support to those are want to learn math yet struggle with it. The solution is to eliminate advanced math classes so that there is no visible disparity. If black students have lower scores on the tests that guide college entrance policies, just eliminate the tests. Base college acceptance on essays in which applicants can attest to their struggles with systemic racism and their efforts to achieve despite these barriers.

Policing, of course, has been the focus of DEI thinking for many years. We all know that police kill black men in disproportionate numbers and that this is a result of racism. Except that this bit of common knowledge is not true. If you are a black professor with actual evidence that this is not true, and if you publish this information, your funding will be cut, your programs suspended, and your ability to teach will be restricted. The good news is that you will survive this punishment and that the administrator who inflicted these punishments will herself be demoted.

People who are policing the police focus on statistics such as the number of calls to certain neighborhoods and the number of interactions with police tallied by race. A “good government” organization will accuse police of racism if data show that police are called to neighborhoods with more people of color more often than to predominately white neighborhoods. That organization will adopt a policy calling for elimination of disproportional policing in which POC neighborhoods are surveilled more than others. A citizen who asserts that police might be called to some neighborhoods more than others because more crime occurs in those neighborhoods will be shut down.

People my age remember when affirmative action was necessary. It began during an era when discrimination on the basis of race was common and visible. The good old boys controlled hiring in companies, departments, and organizations large and small. I got my first job because my dad knew a guy who was able to pull my application out of a stack of applications and tell someone to hire me. The original plan of affirmative action was to eliminate actions such as that and to solicit applications from many more sources on the assumption that qualified applicants of all colors were out there, We just needed to find them, encourage them to apply for jobs they were qualified for, and hire more of them.

In recent years, however, as disparities have persisted in many fields, HR departments began to tighten the scews and insist on hiring fewer white men and more people of color even if that meant lowering standards. I totally get that “standards” are not equally relevant to the task at hand. It’s not necessarily true that a person with a straight A record is the best person for a certain job. Yes, people skills, motivation, and willingness to try a new approach might be more valuable to a company than an academic record. I get that. I get that I should not have had the privilege of getting my application pulled from a stack of equally qualified applicants just because my dad knew a guy. I really do want employment to be based on fair standards and unbiased screening.

But. But young white males cannot be put at the bottom of the pile because they are white and male. Where will that get us? And: white women should be able to participate in a group that is mostly white women. Yes. DEI has gone too far. It absolutely needs to change. Perhaps it needs to be trashed completely. Can agencies and companies and organizations hire and promote people responsibly without the DEI police? I like to think so. I wish DEI programs had not bought into Kendi’s assertion that all disparities are due to racism. (Does anyone really believe that professional sports teams should be racially balanced? Good grief.)

The backlash against DEI is due, in my humble opinion, to the irrational zealotry of recent years. Does that mean that blind air traffic controllers are responsible for the recent crash? No. But people who are legally blind often have some sight and can do normal things with the right technology. We should not assume they can’t do a certain job. If they apply, interview them. Find out what supports they need. Do the same with anyone with a disability. Find out what they can do. Talk to them! Give them a chance.

I wish Trump were not blaming DEI for everything. He’s just a jerk when behaves this way. I hate that crowds of his supporters cheer him on. And yet: DEI programs absolutely need to change.

MLK, BLM, Glenn Loury, Donald Trump

Flawed human beings can do good. 

This morning, I read a moving article by Angel Eduardo on the FAIR website. It made the case that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a saint, but he was the right man at the right time to bring our attention to injustices that we needed to address. King was a powerful orator who made masterful use of non-violent tactics to bring attention to Jim Crow laws in the south and Jim Crow sentiments in the north. Yet he wouldn’t pass muster today with people who expect leaders of both the past and present to have no earthly flaws. 

BLM employs powerful rhetoric and surely has a winning slogan, “Black Lives Matter.” Yet it clamors for justice for individuals who have somehow gotten the message that only “the system” is wrong, that their own actions cannot be scrutinized, that no one needs to obey a cop, that admitting mistakes will fail the cause. Rosa Parks was primed for her role in the fight against racism. A less sympathetic woman was passed over. Yes, the system was unfair to both, but we benefitted from the decision to use Rosa Parks to advance the cause. When individuals can readily be discredited, advancing the cause is more difficult. Knowing this, MLK hid his flaws. And he made sure to focus on people who were undeserving of the ill treatment they received.

Glenn Loury: Flawed. Intelligent. Honest about his struggles. And barely getting the attention he deserves. I look forward to the release of his memoir this spring, Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative. Glenn posts on Substack, and every other week, he and John McWhorter do a podcast on race issues in which they speak heresy and challenge each other to clarify and justify their thinking. Thomas Sowell might be more famous, but Loury is absolutely the real deal in terms of a flawed person who has overcome many struggles (drugs and infidelity in addition to poverty) accomplished a great deal, and is now sharing his insights and wisdom. Admitting his flaws elevates Loury’s message that individual responsibility is still a vital element in individual achievement.

And then there’s Donald Trump. One thing I learned when I began reaching out to Trump voters is that his supporters are able to overlook his flaws because they like his message. Or they like some of his policies. Or they like the way he stands up to elites. This lesson is why I think it’s vital that we not vilify his supporters if we feel that Trump is dangerous or is too flawed to be President. If someone tells me that MLK was a womanizer, I’m not going to let that fact drown out his important message. 

No. I do not think Trump is of the same stature as Martin Luther King, Jr. No, I do not equate Trump and King in any way. I’m not even sure that Trump has a message for America. To me, he’s all about Trump, and he’s latched onto victim status in a way that true victims can only watch with amazement.

Here, I am just addressing the fact that people who support Trump are able to overlook his character flaws, so we might do better to address issues rather than character flaws when discussing Trump. There are some, you know: No plan for health care; no follow-through on infrastructure; no understanding of America’s role in global trade and global affairs; appointment of cronies to important agencies; insistence on gutting government rather than right-sizing it. 

And lest you think you’re right about everything, here’s a nifty (short) commercial that challenges that idea. From the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression: FIRE commercial

All Lives Matter. Yup.

There. I’ve said it: All Lives Matter.

Some of us do not pay a lot of attention to political things, and I find that refreshing. I have to take little breaks from time to time in order to regain my sanity. Then I plunge back in and wallow in the insanity of the day again, while these friends remain calmly focused on other things.

A couple of months ago, our retirement community posted a large “Black Lives Matter” banner above a garage door (note: above the garage door of the common people and our employees, not the garage door of our more privileged people, some of whom remain oblivious to this statement of solidarity with the ongoing protests). When a dear friend of long standing first noticed this banner, the reaction was, “WTF, don’t all lives matter?”

Not wanting this friend to come across as ignorant in public, my advice was to never say those words aloud. “But why?” I did my best to explain why “All Lives Matter” is a no-no, but I couldn’t even really convince myself. I know people can’t say that, that they reveal themselves to be “deplorable” if they do. But, in the time that has transpired since then, I’ve slowly decided that we can never be at peace as a society until we can safely say out loud that All Lives Matter.

As cancel culture has evolved into a major thing over the past several years, I’ve been seeking out a variety of voices to try to find words that seem thoughtful and credible to me. I’m finding a bunch of folks worth reading and listening to. Sadly, many of them are left-leaning, but show up in conservative journals or on conservative podcasts or channels because puritanical leftists won’t publish them or invite them to speak. 

The purity police have been totally successful in shutting down any voices who claim All Lives Matter. Meanwhile Black Lives Matter protesters have become so emboldened that they now challenge people sitting at outdoor restaurants to raise their fists and join them in BLM chants. Videos of people who resist being surrounded and harassed are part of my motivation for writing this post today. 

I’m also tired of watching my city council boast of their commitment to black and brown people, their determination to fund organizations that aim to help black and brown people, and their determination to strip away funds from police who exist to help us all. 

So, again, why must all lives matter? My contention is that feelings of compassion and empathy that screen for skin color or other minority designation cannot get us anywhere we need to go. We simply don’t know the details of other people’s lives that are not visible. If the challenges of poverty are more common in some groups than others, that cannot alter the necessity of addressing poverty regardless of skin color in such a wealthy society. If unemployment affects some groups more than others, that cannot alter the necessity of addressing the impact of unemployment on any person who wants to work and cannot find a decent job. 

If lack of access to health care affects some groups more than others, we still need to address the need to remove barriers to decent health care for all Americans. I could go on, but I hope you get my point. Our concern for those who are not thriving in our society needs to be colorblind. We don’t need health care for black Americans or brown Americans or Native Americans or disabled Americans. We need health care for all Americans because health care is one element that help people thrive. Same for education. Same for employment.

Yes, of course, there are circumstances that affect certain groups and need to be addressed. We are admonished to address any factors that specifically affect black and brown people, and I have no objection to this. Yet I assert that we must do this within the context of broader colorblind programs that address all factors that keep people down.

Your thoughts might also go to policing; this summer’s protests rest on the assumption that racism is rampant in policing everywhere, that no amount of training can scrub the stain of racism from any police department anywhere, that it’s inherent to the job. I.e., no one would apply to be police officers unless these applicants bring racist assumptions with them. Therefore, social workers can take the place of most police officers. Public safety rarely requires an officer with a gun. 

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. But I’m entitled to another opinion. I believe that many police officers are people of good will, people who can, perhaps reluctantly, accept that bias affects them as it affects us all, and who want to learn how to do their jobs without disadvantaging any group of citizens. I believe it is a challenge to recruit those who are willing to learn and adapt, but that it is essential to do so. I also believe it is imperative that we stand up to people who spread the “All Cops Are Bastards” slogan (even when addressing the city council). Why aren’t council members challenging this sort of talk? 

I’m going to go further out on a limb here. Although SPD has been very successful in managing even very large protests and marches in the past, this year’s protests have been unique because they have focused so directly on police as the subject of the protest, even when our department has made huge strides under the consent decree. I can’t imagine how disheartening it must be to be attacked locally after a police action in Minneapolis! BLM succeeded immediately, nationwide, in casting aspersions on all police everywhere. And here, where we’d made real progress, there was no acknowledgement of that effort. It was simply ignored by protesters and council alike. If our police need to finesse the art of sorting out miscreants from “legitimate” protesters who chant, “ACAB!” then fine. Learn to finesse. 

But seriously, “All Cops Are Bastards!” My response is simply, All Lives Matter.