Category: DEI matters

The University of Wyoming deep-sixes DEI

May 25, 2024 • 12:15 pm

The dismantling of DEI in America continues. It happened last week in the entire University of North Carolina system, and now occurred the University of Wyoming. This short post just documents what is clearly a trend—one I thought wouldn’t happen until I was six feet under. Click on the headline below to read the article from USA Today:

The piece:

The University of Wyoming Board of Trustees voted unanimously last week to eliminate the school’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) department and move its staff and some of its programming to other departments on campus.

The decision was made to balance input from the university community and the will of the Wyoming legislature, according to a written statement by University President Dr. Ed Seidel.

“We received a strong message from the state’s elected officials to change our approach to DEI issues. At the same time, we have heard from our community that many of the services that might have incorrectly been categorized under DEI are important for the success of our students, faculty and staff,” Seidel says. “These initial steps are a good-faith effort on the part of the university to respond to legislative action while maintaining essential services.”

Additionally, the University will no longer require job applicants to “submit statements regarding diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and no longer evaluating employees’ commitment to DEI in annual performance evaluations.”

State lawmakers voted in March to cut $1.73 million from the University of Wyoming’s block grant and forbid state funding for the school’s diversity program. At a packed Board of Trustees meeting in March, students, educators, and community members rallied in support of DEI initiatives, and the Board of Trustees pledged to vote on a path forward at their May meeting.

The decision from the Board of Trustees comes amidst a heated national debate on DEI. Donald Trump recently spoke against the “DEI revolution” and pledged to crush “anti-white” racism. Defenders of DEI argue that its programming is necessary in acknowledging the present-day effects of past violence.

The last sentence is the one that’s worth discussing. Are there inimical effects on today’s society of past “violence”? (I’d use “racism” rather than “violence”.) The answer is indubitably “yes.” Given that, how do we rectify them? How can we make people at least share a minimum level of equality and well being?  One remedy is the “color blind” approachy: giving everyone equal treatment and opportunity. But as is often pointed out, many minorities already begin with two strikes against them, having inherited a culture which isn’t conducive to conventional social success. Until recently that was also the case for women, but that’s being rectified very quickly.

The remedy I’ve tentatively hit on, one that seems fair and still maintains the virtues of meritocracy, is also a remedy that seems impossible: assure all Americans that they have equal opportunity from birth.  That’s impossible not only because of inherited status and wealth, but because at least increasing opportunities by a decent modicum, ensuring good schools for all, cultures conducive to well being and success, decent medical care and other bits of the social safety net—seem to require both resources and a will that is lacking in America.  In that respect we need to be more like Iceland or Denmark but we’re demographically and socially quite different. Topping it all off, we don’t know which interventions will work, especially for fixing education. Throwing money at schools doesn’t seem to improve education much, and so we have to go through a slow empirical process of testing different interventions.

But I’ve digressed. One thing I can say is that the way DEI is used today in America is not creating more social justice. In contrast, it’s creating more division and resentment, more guilt and victimhood, and promoting a denigration of merit that can’t be good in the long run.

I’ve also pointed out that some aspects of DEI are worthy, like having a place to adjudicate harassment and bias, but this kind of monitoring hasn’t been done well. (For example, I object to anonymous “bias reporting” that chills speech and creates a climate of fear. By all means have a place to report bias, but it can’t be anonymous.)  And schools can reach out to truly diverse communities, not just involving ethnicity, but also socioeconomic status and different viewpoints.  Oh, and bring back mandatory standardized testing, which seems to be good for everyone.

But now I’ve digressed too much and am off for a fat, juicy burger (no steak this week), so I’ll just convey the news above and pass on.

h/t: Ginger K.

The University of North Carolina system eliminates DEI

May 24, 2024 • 10:30 am

As expected, the entire University of North Carolina system has abandoned any formal bureaucracy based on DEI, though apparently some vestiges of DEI will remain. The vote passed the Board of Governors almost unanimously, and, better, the basis for the banning appears to be the adoption of a form of institutional neutrality, i.e., like Chicago’s “Kalven Principles.”

There are two articles below, the first from Inside Higher Education and the second from the Citizen Times of Asheville, NC. Click on either headline to read.  As both articles note, this change is part of a nationwide pushback against the more invidious aspects of DEI. (There are some useful aspects, but they don’t have to go under DEI or be part of a huge and expensive bureaucracy.)

From Insider Higher Ed:

The piece:

The University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted on Thursday morning to eliminate a policy requiring diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices, and to ask individual campus chancellors to cut positions and spending on DEI.

The vote, which passed 22 to 2, will institute a new “equality within the university” policy to replace DEI. Chancellors at the System’s 16 campuses must each submit a report outlining steps they’ve taken to comply with the DEI ban to System president Peter Hans by September.

“Our public universities must take a stance of principled neutrality on matters of political controversy … it is not the job of the university to decide all the complex and multi-dimensional questions of how to balance and interpret identity,” Hans said at the board meeting. “This policy will preserve the university’s role as a trusted venue for that vital debate.”

Board member Pearl Burris-Floyd, who is Black and voted yes on the policy change, stressed that the decision should not lead to the widespread disappearance of essential services for minority students, and that the board has not “turned their backs on them.”

“Even if it’s not called DEI, we have a way to help people and make that path clearer for all people,” she said.

DEI bans have been enshrined into law in Texas and Florida, where they’ve led to dozens of layoffs and the closure of student resource centers. Lawmakers in North Carolina had proposed a similar legislative mandate, but ultimately deferred to the UNC board.

The vote also comes shortly after the board of the System’s flagship, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, voted to divert $2.3 million in DEI funding to police and campus safety in the wake of pro-Palestinian student protests.

Note the “stand of principled neutrality on matters of political controversy” averred by the President. That’s simply Kalvenish institutional neutrality, and kudos for the UNC system to adopt it. I don’t know if people will lose their jobs (I’d prefer dismantling via transferring people or not replacing them), but that’s not my call. The system has to go.

And from the Asheville Citizen Times:

An excerpt:

The UNC Board of Governors adopted a policy requiring “institutional neutrality” and eliminating funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in a nearly unanimous vote May 23 at its regular meeting in Raleigh, with all but two members voting in favor.

The vote repeals two DEI policies adopted in September 2019, which required each of the state’s 17 public campuses — which include UNC Asheville, Western Carolina University and Appalachian State — employ roles such as a chief diversity officer and to set goals for advancing diversity and inclusion, among other requirements.

The Board of Governors has 23 voting members. The two “no” votes came from members Joel Ford and Sonja Phillips Nichols. Two board members, Gene Davis and Pearl Burris-Floyd, spoke in the meeting regarding the policy and why it had their support prior to the vote.

What I don’t get is why the two people who supported DEI were not among the “no” votes. Perhaps they weren’t voting members. At any rate, note the emphasis on “institutional neutrality” in the first paragraph. I hope that the UNC system enforces it, for keeping our own University neutral requires constant vigilance. Administrators and chairpeople seem to be unable to keep their gobs shut on political and ideological issues.

Here’s how they’ll enforce it:

The chancellor and student affairs director at each institution must provide written certification of compliance and what actions they’ve taken to comply with “the University’s commitment to institutional neutrality and nondiscrimination” by Sept. 1.

They’ll also have to report reductions in force and spending, “along with changes to job titles and position descriptions, undertaken as a result of implementing this policy and how those savings achieved from these actions can be redirected to initiatives related to student success and wellbeing,” the policy says.

But of course many places will try to do an end run around it. Appalachian State (part of the system) may be one:

Appalachian State University Interim Chancellor Heather Norris, regarding the policy change when it was proposed, reaffirmed the school’s commitment to supporting students.

“While there are a lot of unknowns, and we cannot answer questions about specific implementation details at this time, I can assure you our university’s commitment to supporting all of our students is unwavering, and we remain dedicated to providing a compassionate, high-quality college experience that is focused on student success,” Norris said in an email obtained by the Citizen Times.

To me that seems like coded language for “well, we will obey the formal rules, but we’re still gonna have DEI.” And of course this is going to happen with respect to the Supreme Court’s prohibition of race-based admission. Colleges everywhere are now asking prospective students to write essays on hardships they’ve overcome, and that, of course, is a blatant invitation to invoke race as one of those hardships.  Even that kind of ask may be illegal, so this whole mishigass isn’t over yet.

 

Will DEI be dismantled this week in the University of North Carolina System?

May 22, 2024 • 10:00 am

A reader sent me the tweet below (I don’t spend much time on Twitter), but it intrigued me not so much because University of North Carolina (UNC) system spends millions on DEI (that’s not unusual), but because it reports that its DEI policy may be eliminated across all UNC schools this week.  Note that there are 686 DEI positions in the system, with salaries adding up to over $70 million ($91 million if you include benefits).

The article below, from the “Open the Books” Substack site, while a bit rant-y, does give useful information about spending and salaries, even though the UNC system has refused to answer Freedom of Information Act requests from the author.  And the presumably impending end to DEI is also of interest, as it seems to be part of a national trend. Click below to read:

First, the new (the article’s slant is clear):

On Wednesday, the system’s governing board may end the controversial program that institutionalizes bias and prejudice based on neo-Marxist principles and falsehoods.

. . .UNC appears to be joining a group of schools that repudiate the institutionalized bias of “DEI.”

The UNC Board of Governors oversees the entire UNC system. It is expected to vote on a measure this week that would reverse and replace its DEI policy.

This follows an April vote by the Board’s five-person committee on University Governance to dismantle DEI offices.

Last week, UNC Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees diverted $2.3 million to Public Safety from DEI, as the campus has been embroiled in Pro-Palestinian protests and encampments.

I’ve already reported on the last statement: the diversion of money from DEI to campus cops and security—exactly the opposite of what progressives want.  Here’s how they calculated the payrolls (since the UNC system is part of the state government, salaries are publicly available).

Our audit team at OpenTheBooks.com reviewed official university payrolls after filing records requests and searched university websites for DEI committees and their membership lists. Here’s how the UNC program breaks down:

  • 288 are employed in DEI-related roles listed on the UNC system’s payroll.
  • Another 398 people were found to hold DEI-related roles not shown in the payroll records. Found on university websites, these employees are members of DEI committees, commissions and councils.
  • An additional 80 students were appointed to mostly volunteer DEI roles.
  • Another 66 employees are listed on the university websites for DEI committees but don’t appear in the university payroll – likely meaning the websites are out of date.

We found at least 30 DEI-focused groups steering DEI across the 16 universities. These pulled professors, lecturers, advisors, librarians, directors, and deans out of their academic functions and into efforts to spread DEI policies and principles.

We uncovered empirical evidence that DEI has permeated 300 departments across every aspect the UNC system of 50,000 employees.

For a truly complete picture, we know there is more research to be done. While we compiled a long list, there are indications that even more people are working in DEI-related roles.

Besides the money spent above, the site gives the salaries of the highest-paid UNC system officials connected with DEI, with salaries corrected for likely benefits:

In likely violation of North Carolina’s freedom of information laws, UNC has not acknowledged our April public records request for all university payroll to include all cash compensation (salaries, bonuses, other pay, benefits, etc.). UNC was required to respond, “as promptly as possible.”

After six weeks, the UNC system has only provided a ‘base salary’ payroll list. So, the payroll numbers are most likely 10-15 percent higher than disclosed. For total student and taxpayer cost — tack on another 30-percent for the cost of benefits.

It’s hard not to believe that UNC is stalling here. I wonder why. . .

It’s really a travesty to divert $91 from education to DEI initiatives.  A couple of million would suffice to prevent bias or expand admissions and hiring efforts to try to increase diversity. But “diversity” is invariably a euphemism for “racial diversity”, and while I do want to see that, I also want to see viewpoint diversity, which is the real meat of the college experience: the whetstone against which you hone your ideas.

There’s a lot more in the article, like some of the DEI-related courses taught or certificates conferred, but we’ll leave that for your own reading. The good news is that the UNC system is getting rid of a diversion that is ineffective (though generally well intended) and probably largely illegal.

If you want to see how DEI has been used as a way to eliminate candidates with the “wrong” sociological views, have a look at this New York Post article on how Cornell University has been using diversity statements as reasons to hire or dismiss job candidates. The data—e.g., 21% of candidates for a “hard science” faculty job were rejected based on DEI statements alone—were leaked from Cornell to its Free Speech alliance, which then made it public.

In light of protests, UNC Chapel Hill cuts diversity funding and beefs up security funding

May 15, 2024 • 10:30 am

“Defund the police and fund DEI,” were common cries on campuses in the last few years. But, in at least one case, the funding directions have suddenly reversed.

As NBC News reports, this happened at the flagship campus of the University of North Carolina (UNC): UNC at Chapel Hill.  As I’ve reported, this was only the second university in America (after the University of Chicago) to adopt official institutional neutrality on ideological, political, or moral issues. (This is the equivalent of Chicago’s Kalven Report.) Sadly, while the school has adopted neutrality, it’s still violating it in several ways. So we can say that UNC Chapel Hill talks the talk, but still doesn’t completely walk the walk.

Curiously, the violations of Kalven UNC enacted involve just those that are now endangered for lack of funds: mandatory antiracism policies, including DEI initiatives. Click the headline below to read:

An excerpt:

North Carolina’s public university system considers a vote on changing its diversity policy, the system’s flagship university board voted Monday to cut funding for diversity programs in next year’s budget.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Board of Trustees approved a change that would divert $2.3 million of diversity funding to go toward public safety and policing at a special meeting to address the university’s budget. The board’s vote would only impact UNC-Chapel Hill’s diversity funding, which could result in the loss of its diversity office.

The vote to shift more funding to public safety comes as continued pro-Palestinian protests on UNC’s campus have resulted in several arrests in recent weeks. The budget committee vice-chair Marty Kotis said law enforcement has already been forced to react to protests, but they need more funding to keep the university “safe from a larger threat.”

“It’s important to consider the needs of all 30,000 students, not just the 100 or so that may want to disrupt the university’s operations,” Kotis said. “It takes away resources for others.”

It’s ironic that this tradeoff is apparently happening because of college protests (DEI was on the way out in many places before the war, anyway), for many of the protests are fueled by the DEI mentality, which sees Israel as a land of white colonialist oppressors. And yet the police are needed to ensure that the protests don’t produce any violence to people or university propertly. (To be sure, there has been almost no physical danger from either side, although Jewish students did attack the encampment at UCLA, and that may have followed a Jewish woman being stepped on and kicked by protestors.)

There’s more:

Last month, the statewide board’s Committee on University Governance voted to reverse and replace its DEI policy for 17 schools across the state. The change would alter a 2019 diversity, equity and inclusion regulation that defines the roles of various DEI positions — and it would appear to eliminate those jobs if the policy is removed.

The full 24-member board is scheduled to vote next week on the policy change. If the alteration is approved, it will take effect immediately.

Many of us have called for an end to diversity offices and diversity statements at colleges and universities on several grounds, including that of ineffective programs and compelled speech. But I’ve also argued that at least a few people in each school should be tasked with investigating and enforcing prohibitions against bigotry as well as harassment in the workplace.

h/t Jay

MIT’s banning of diversity statements now official

May 6, 2024 • 10:00 am

The other day, taking as my source the publisher of the MIT-centered satirical site The Babbling Beaver, I reported on the Beaver’s claim that MIT had become the first major university to ban diversity statements. Although the site is snarky and not every assertion it makes is true, the publisher affirmed that this one was.

But because of the site’s satirical overtone, several miscreants wrote me that there was no confirmation that the DEI claim was true (I did have some confirmation, but it was confidential). One such miscreant even started his email with “What are you doing with your blog, Jerry?”, a sentence that is both uncivil and inaccurate (this is of course not a “blog,” but a “website”).

But the important thing is that the Beaver’s claim is indeed true: MIT has banned diversity statements. It’s confirmed in the article below by John Sailer at Unherd (click headline to read):

From Sailer:

On Saturday, an MIT spokesperson confirmed in an email to me that “requests for a statement on diversity will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions at MIT”, adding that the decision was made by embattled MIT President Sally Kornbluth “with the support of the Provost, Chancellor, and all six academic deans”.

. . .This is momentous. The pushback against diversity statements has succeeded almost exclusively at public universities in red states, encouraged or enacted by lawmakers. Conservative states such as Florida, Texas, and Utah have passed laws banning diversity statements at state universities. Some appointed state university leaders, such as the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, have also barred the practice.

The decision at MIT is different — reform from within, prompted by a university president alongside deans and provosts, at a private institution.

It’s very possible that more private universities, and state universities in blue states, will eventually follow MIT’s lead for one basic reason: a significant number of faculty from across the political spectrum simply cannot stand mandatory DEI statements. Last month, Harvard Law School’s Randall Kennedy — a self-described “scholar on the Left committed to struggles for social justice” — described the general sentiment: “It would be hard to overstate the degree to which many academics at Harvard and beyond feel intense and growing resentment against the DEI enterprise because of features that are perhaps most evident in the demand for DEI statements.”

I’d say a statement by “an MIT spokesperson” is evidence enough that the school has deep-sixed diversity statements.  I’ve always opposed them because they constitute compelled speech (your statement has to be “progressive” or it won’t fly), and because if they’re used to show that you’re socially committed, well, there are other ways of doing stuff for society besides furthering DEI. For example, you could work at a soup kitchen for the poor, or tutor illiterate adults, both activities that I have done but wouldn’t give me DEI credits.

But MIT’s getting rid of such statements is, as Sailer said, “momentous.”

The College Fix reports it, too (click below to read), but all it does is repeat what it’s in Sailer’s article as well as in the Babbling Beaver article. Nothing new there.

MIT abandons use of DEI statements

May 4, 2024 • 11:45 am

DEI statements are affirmations made when you’re applying for college admission, university jobs, or even science-society grants, recounting to the authorities your philosophy of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” your history of DEI activities, and how you will implement DEI initiatives if you get the admission/job/grant.  I have posted quite a bit about them (see collection here), and object to them because they are not only compelled speech and are often completely irrelevant to what you’re applying for, but also ignore the fact that there are many ways to make contributions to society beyond enacting DEI. (For example, what about a college applicant who has taught illiterate adults to read?)  And I think many institutions are eliminating them. For one thing, some of them may violate the recent Supreme Court decision on race-based admission. Now MIT has joined the statement-eliminators.

The top headline in the screenshot below, which really is true, needs to be promulgated widely, as MIT is doing all it can to keep it quiet. So pass it on, repost it, or whatever.

Because this report originally came from The Babbling Beaver (a website that satirizes the mishigass at MIT, much like the Onion but better), my friend Jay Tanzman, who sent it to me, wasn’t sure whether it was true or false (click to read):

Here’s the entire article, and you can get an idea of its snark, a snark that makes one wonder if the ditching of DEI statements is genuine. But it is! There is of course snark, like the “carrying water for Hamas” bit, but the kernel of the article is true.

Quietly, in the dead of night, with neither announcement nor fanfare, MIT President Spineless Sally Kornbluth did the right thing. She banned the use of DEI statements for faculty hiring and promotions, across all schools and departments at MIT. In order not to rile up the Wokies, she left it to the Beaver to get the word out.

A private anonymous faculty poll revealed that about two-thirds of MIT’s professors hate the damned things. Merit lives, despite the fact that supporters have been largely hiding under their desks afraid to fight back.

About one in twenty faculty polled believe “DEI activities are as important as research and teaching in evaluating candidates.” It’s time to track those people down and show them the door. That’s precisely how MIT got saddled with a race-grifting chancellor totally unqualified for the job, along with a party-pack of radical progressive humanities professors that have been driving MIT’s culture into the ditch.

It remains to be seen whether individual departments will continue training their graduate students how to fill out these loyalty oaths when they seek academic positions elsewhere. One would think ChatGPT could do a bang-up job.

Reaction has been muted, most likely because DEI true believers have been too busy carrying water for Hamas. Or maybe they’re beginning to see the writing on the wall as the whole country wakes up to the damage DEIdeology has done to our college campuses.

And so, the pendulum swings. May it keep on swinging until sanity is restored.

Jay then wrote to the publisher of the piece, who replied with a statement that I can put on this site. Note: the pejorative characterization of MIT’s President is the publisher’s, and I know almost nothing about Sally Kornbluth.  Below the asterisks is Jay’s comment, with the BB publisher’s statement doubly indented:

********************

I asked the Publisher if the story was true, and the Publisher replied that it is. Specifically, the Publisher replied:

“It’s true. MIT has banned DEI statements. We have multiple confirmations, including one from President Spineless Sally Kornbluth herself. Alas, she didn’t have the courage to announce it. As far as I can tell, this report from the Babbling Beaver is the first publication to mention it.”

In a second email, the Publisher elaborated:

“Even better, let me give you a quote from an “Officer of the MIT Free Speech Alliance.

“The MIT administration has advised the departments that were requiring DEI statements to stop requiring them and to stop using this kind of information. This has just recently been disclosed to the faculty, but a general announcement to the students is not planned.”

“The MIT Free Speech Alliance is gratified that one of its key recommendations on putting an end to compelled speech on campus has been adopted.”

And please share the Babbling Beaver piece widely. Someone in the mainstream press needs to pick up on this story. It’s a real crack in the dam.

I then asked the Publisher if I could share this information with you [Jerry] in case you wanted to report it on your website, and he replied:

“Yes. The Babbling Beaver is a big fan of WhyEvolutionIsTrue. This story needs to get out.

***********************

So that’s the report: another crack in the dam.

An indictment of DEI for being “prescriptively racist”

April 29, 2024 • 11:15 am

This article by Erec Smith was first published in the Boston Globe, where you can find an archived link here, but has also been published unpaywalled by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank where author Erec Smith is a research fellow (he’s also “an associate professor of rhetoric and composition at York College of Pennsylvania, and cofounder of Free Black Thought”).

Smith’s thesis is that DEI is racist because it rests on prescribing “approved ways” that black people should behave and think, ways that he instantiates by giving two quotes. The first is a now-deleted tweet by Nikole Hannah-Jones:

And from President Biden:

“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, you ain’t Black.”

That, says Smith, is “a statement that implicitly prescribes how Black voters should think.”

Smith developed this take because as a black kid in a white school he was expected to “act black,” yet when he moved to a mostly black school he was criticized for “acting white”—speaking “white English” and so on.  DEI, he avers, practices “prescriptive racism” by expecting black people to have the opinions that other “progressive” black people have, so that there is an approved and proper way of Thinking While Black promoted by DEI. Smith also criticizes right-wing racists for their past practice of criticizing “uppity Negroes” who didn’t act like black people should, though we don’t see much of that these days.

When Smith got to college and then became a faculty member, he saw this same tendency in DEI, except that the “uppity Negroes” are now those blacks who don’t conform to the prescribed progressive ideology. You can think of some “uppity” blacks, including people like John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, and Thomas Sowell, all worth reading or listening to.

Click to read:

I’ll give a few excerpts:

Unlike traditional racism — the belief that particular races are, in some way, inherently inferior to others — prescriptive racism dictates how a person should behave. That is, an identity type is prescribed to a group of people, and any individual who skirts that prescription is deemed inauthentic or even defective. President Biden displayed prescriptive racism when he said “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, you ain’t Black,” a statement that implicitly prescribes how Black voters should think.

. . .prescriptive racism casts a broader net, disadvantaging people for not abiding by a long list of things a Black person shouldn’t do. A prescriptive racist may not mind that a Black person has a master’s degree, but he may scoff at the sight of a Black man watching the Masters — especially if Tiger isn’t playing. A white prescriptive racist would look at a Black person speaking standard English the way a Black person would look at a white person wearing a dashiki. Lest you think that last statement is mere speculation, I have met several people who have voiced derision and irritation upon hearing standard English come out of my mouth. My use of language was an affront to their expectations and sensibilities.

Many prescriptive racists are often people of the same minority group. A Black person lambasting another Black person for acting in ways deemed racially inauthentic — for example, speaking in dialects coded “white” — is engaging in prescriptive racism.

And how it enters DEI:

And prescriptive racism is not just a social phenomenon; it is now being institutionalized. More and more, it is erroneously labeled diversity, equity, and inclusion, and it is winning out over initiatives more in line with the civil rights movement and classical liberal values like individuality, free speech, reason, and even equality. It is becoming policy in academia, corporate America, and even the military. To put it another way, contemporary DEI is prescriptive racism.

In academia, I’ve found, Blackness is a role, a “pre‐​script,” to which Black people are expected to conform if they want to be accepted or, sometimes, acknowledged at all. A Black scholar cannot simply study and write about Plato; she has to write about Plato from a Black perspective. Nobody shows much interest in a Black graduate student drafting a dissertation on American Transcendentalism that isn’t focused on its relevance to the Black experience. In this sense, applying for graduate school or a professorship is akin to auditioning for “Black person” in some live‐​action role‐​playing event.

I hadn’t realized the expectations outlined in the second paragraph, but I’m sure they’re true, for nearly every black academic I know of is engaged in writing about the connection between their discipline and “blackness”. (This also applies to “studies” programs, in which white people also conform to DEI expectations by imbuing scholarship with ideology approved by DEI.)  What is clear is that DEI is racist in expecting groups to behave in certain approved ways and to hold certain approved views. John McWhorter, for instance, has not done that, and he’s suffered for it. As he says, he’ll never be invited to another linguistics meeting nor get an invitation to speak about linguistics at another university.  What a pity for such a smart guy! But that’s what you suffer for thinking independently—for being “heterodox.”

One more quote on “political blackness”:

Political Blackness made much more sense several decades ago. Both Malcolm X and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. could have been construed as politically Black. Why? Because, when these men lived, whether Black Americans were gay or straight, Islamic or Christian, working class or middle class, none of them could sit at the front of the bus in the Jim Crow South. However, in this third decade of the 21st century, the efficacy of political Blackness has waned significantly. Though things are not perfect and racist environments still exist, policy changes have afforded Black Americans opportunities and resources traditionally denied them. As a result, “the Black experience” has become so varied that the use of “the” is questionable.

The idea of an indefinite abject oppression that justifies essentialism and political Blackness does not reflect reality. The facts that roughly 80 percent of Black Americans are working class or higher and that the number of Black immigrants has skyrocketed (strongly suggesting that the United States isn’t a fundamentally anti‐​Black country) are just two of many things that illustrate this. But activists who still want power must fabricate an insidious specter of oppression, and an essential victimhood has to be prescribed, whether they are homeless or Oprah Winfrey. If you are a Black American who does not abide by this prescription, be you liberal or conservative, you are seen as weakening the political power of Black Americans.

The inherent paradox of contemporary social justice is the essentialism that says “you are bad if you stereotype other people, but you are also bad if you don’t.”

Smith goes on to say that he and others have founded a new organization to combat prescriptive racism:

I and a few others have cofounded Free Black Thought, a nonprofit newsletter and podcast representing “the rich diversity of Black thought beyond the narrow spectrum of views promoted by mainstream outlets as defining ‘the Black perspective.’” We come from a classical liberal standpoint, meaning we believe people should be treated as sovereign individuals and not deindividuated members of a group. In other words, we’re sticking it to the prescriptive racists.

The “free” in Free Black Thought is both an adjective and a verb. We want to promote thought free from the tyranny of prescription, which means we publish and promote a wide array of ideological points and artistic expression, highlighting Black artists and thinkers typically neglected in mainstream media. But we also seek “to free” Black thought by offering alternatives to K‑12 curricula informed by critical social justice, like BLM in Schools and Woke Kindergarten, to let schools know that other ways to promote true DEI do exist.

Another sin laid at the door of DEI, which I’m hoping is on the way out. Note that I said “hoping”, not “predicting.”