Two longtime and esteemed commenters delivered worthy comments of the day on the same post almost back-to-back, and I’ve decided that they should be posted that way, since the second referred to the first. The original post concerned my response on Facebook to a particularly facile and lazy defense of DEI.
Heeeeeere’s Here’s Johnny and Chris Marschner in their tag team Comment of the Day on the post, “Popeye Time: I Am Finally Forced Into Responding To Woke Nonsense on Facebook“…
Well, one good point by [the banned commenter whose name must never be spoken, BCWNMNBS for short ]: Avoid a rush to judgment, as in “Now THIS is legitimate guilt by association”.
But [BCWNMNBS] is wrong about allowance of liberal comments here. I’ve made a few myself, sometimes sincere (I’m bi-polar when it comes to politics), sometimes playing the role of a progressive just to provoke an argument and force a stronger defense of a position. So far, I’m still here.
As to that Facebook post, the demand to be specific is rather ironic since neither DEI nor the component parts of that acronym have specific definitions.
Diversity — the high school where I taught in my second career had a welcoming sign in the lobby that said “Strengthened by Diversity.” My own thought on that was that we are strengthened by unity, but enriched by diversity. But, then, the enrichment can lead to strengthening. But, the enrichment and the strengthening come from voluntary association, not forced association which usually is counterproductive. What does the FB poster have in mind for diversity? Hmmm. Don’t know. No specifics.
Equity — for Progressives, this seems to mean equal outcomes, which is destructive of initiative, individual effort, perseverance, and so on. Or, does it mean ensuring a broadening of opportunities? Again, I don’t know what the FB poster has in mind.
Inclusion — Again, don’t know, but this sure sounds like something forced on people, which would be contrary to a basic right of freedom of association.
So, to the FB poster, from now on, be proud of your opinions, state specifically what you mean, don’t hide behind a simplistic slogan, let everyone know exactly what it is you are promoting.
And, to [BCWNMNBS], who may still be lurking, what you see as sealioning could actually be a variant of the Socratic method. Motive matters, and often enough, the motive of the one asking the questions is perceived differently by an observer, but, in either case, the effect should be to cause a refinement or adjustment of an initial position on an issue.
***
Soon thereafter, Chris Marschiner contributed Part II:
There is another angle to the whole diversity, equity and inclusion concept that never gets mentioned and that is one’s willingness to step out of the safety of the preferred group.
We rarely hear about any concerted effort on the part of leaders in the minority communities to promote, within their own, the idea to expand their understanding of the wider community beyond their own. It always assumes that the minority adds value to the group but never benefits from adopting ideas and culture from the larger group. If this were not the case DEI offices would exist in minority run operations. You do not find high paid DEI positions at HBCU’s Where’s the DEI at the HBCUs?
HJ’s statement, “Or, does it mean ensuring a broadening of opportunities?” was got me thinking on this. What happens if the person who may feel held back because of past injustice relies on the past injustice to avoid availing him or herself to a wide variety of opportunities. Is it the complete fault of public schools if the kids are illiterate going into eighth grade or do the kids and the families of the kids play a significant role in retarding their ultimate opportunities? How can you broaden economic opportunities when early opportunities to achieve such success are wasted and or ridiculed?
In order for people to be included they must have some commonality. Our nation is fractured today because far too many want to limit themselves to their own little enclaves and do not see themselves as just a member of the larger group. In some respects they do not want to be included because their own ability to exclude would be in jeopardy. Exclusion helps create a sense of preferred identity which makes them feel safe. Until the benefits of creating minority identities are less than the benefits accrued in e pluribus u unum will we actually achieve any real beneficial results from DEI. Until then it will remain a negative sum game favoring the supposed marginalized group d’ jour.
Ethics Alarms 
Did you ever get a response to your Facebook reply?
Not that I’ve seen.
I appreciate the recognition and being in the good company here of Chris Marschner. And, I realize I should have been more specific myself in stating just how the D and the E and the I should be defined. I am much more in tune with affirmative action at its origins than with what it has become. The EO Lyndon Johnson issued (11246) said the intent was “to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity”. That policy applied to government employment, including by contractors. Just how to promote that full realization becomes contentious when it leads to discrimination and quotas, something that led to its revocation the day after Trump’s second inauguration.
More recently, I came across more complete definitions of DEI by the (former) President of the University of Virginia. I have edited his comments for brevity, but the full statement makes for good reading and can be found in the Chronicle of Higher Education, May 25, 2023.
He says, “To begin, it would help to have a working definition of the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion, if only to avoid people talking past one another. I would define diversity broadly to include not just race, ethnicity, and gender, but a wide range of other factors and characteristics, including geography, socioeconomic status, first-generation status, disability status, religion, age, sexual orientation, viewpoint, ideology, and special talents.”
He continues, “A more accurate and appropriate definition of equity is an effort to ensure equal opportunity, not equal results.” As examples, he suggests sign-language interpreters for those who are deaf, ramps for those in wheelchairs, and financial aid based on need.
And he says, “Inclusion … is about: an effort to make everyone feel like they belong and are full and welcome members of the community.”
In that essay, Jim Ryan noted in a bit of an understatement that there can and will be “debates about what measures make sense, whether some are misguided or counter-productive … .”.
To me, Ryan makes perfect sense in that essay. Regardless, he has now resigned, under duress.
I am much more in tune with affirmative action at its origins than with what it has become.
And I as well. The problem is that human nature does not accept a temporary benefit.
“The problem is that human nature does not accept a temporary benefit.”
That saying needs to be taken captive and filed away with your maxims, sayings, observations, etc.
It’s a keeper!
Doubtless it’s been said before, but when and by whom I can’t say offhand.
charles w abbott
rochester NY
I don’t know where to begin when it comes to discussing “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”
I’m so old that my parents (no longer with us) went to Duke University at a time when Blacks (back then referred to as “Negros”) were not permitted to attend Duke. Mom and Dad were there in the early to mid 1950s. When did Black Americans first gain admittance to Duke? 1961, probably. A page at the university’s web site states it was 1961.
That’s something I can point to as genuine “White Privilege.”
= – = – = – =
Currently I live in great Rochester NY, on the edge of the Finger Lakes region, far from New York City, but still in New York State. Everyone ‘knows’ or strongly suspects that (1) white kids in (2) the suburbs of Rochester who (3) have two (4) married parents that are (5) halfway functional, are likely to get a better education than (1) Black kids in the (2) RCSD with a (3) single parent or a grandmother who has taken over, and are going to school within the Rochester City School District.
It’s hard to tease out the various factors that contribute to the unequal outcomes. The Rochester City Schools are not underfunded. If anything, politicians pour money into RCSD and various interest groups specialize in taking it out again.
The results show up by the time students are looking at colleges. Reading and math scores vary a lot. No need to bore everyone with details.
The diverging outcomes show up very early. Gaps in reading proficiency, and failure to really master literacy at grade level, shows up in 2d graders. Children who are not reading at grade level by the end of 2d grade tend to fall further behind as they move through the older grades, rather than catching up. This is an empirical finding at the national level.
= – = – = – =
Long ago James Coleman headed a team that analyzed k-12 educational statistics at the national level, and produced something that has ended up being referred to as “The Coleman Report” (1966). It concluded that educational outcomes could not be explained primarily by the amount of funding schools received. The gloss was “educational outcomes have more to do with what students take to school from home” rather than “what is in the school.”
= – = – = – =
The forces that push for DEI are multiple, and perhaps heterogeneous. Some people just push because they are told that it is the right thing to do. I think the economist / blogger Bryan Caplan has discussed this in terms of “Social Desirability Bias.”
tl/dr on Bryan Caplan’s observation. To paraphrase from memory. “The average person wants to think well of himself and be thought of well by others. The truth is a secondary consideration.” In fact, some people just worry about the socially desirable thing to believe, and let the truth take care of itself.
Others note that “the system” is unfair somehow, as I described above, and they want to do something, so they figure DEI might help “even the playing field,” even though that’s an assumption that might not hold up to careful scrutiny.
= – = – = – =
To get back to Affirmative Action, one of the best brief essays against it was written by Russell K. Nieli more than ten years ago. The link follows.
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/03/29/25-years-on-the-affirmative-action-firing-line/
more later, perhaps. I proofread this but it probably still contains errors.
One of the best sentences from Russell K. Nieli’s essay is the following:
“The Vienna in which Adolf Hitler came of age and in which he learned his hatred of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs was one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world — and it was a seething cauldron of mutual animosities between a kaleidoscope of eastern and central European ethnic groups. The social psychology consensus contends that only under very special circumstances do enhanced contact and diversity lead to lessened prejudice and other beneficial results.” –Russell K. Nieli.
Kudos, CA; in the park Home Run!
PWS
We should form a mutual appreciation society!
= – = – =
BTW, a book (which I forgot to mention) that wrestles with the forces that produce such inequality, and what to do about it, is _The dream hoarders_ by Richard Reeves, published by Brookings. It’s a bit dry, but hits some good points. The book is about 8 years old now, wonkish.
Reeves is a Brit. He views the “dream hoarders” as people in the top quintile of the income distribution who have carved out a nice niche for themselves through the professions, occupational licensing restrictions, school districts that most people can’t afford to live in (Brighton in suburban Rochester where I spent much of my childhood is a good example–the public schools are excellent, but most people can’t afford to live there.)
https://www.brookings.edu/books/dream-hoarders/
I really don’t know what the answer is. It’s not just one thing. It’s dozens of little things. Reeves mentions many of them.
One thing Reeves suggests is the “home visit” by a nurse who monitors children’s progress through developmental landmarks. Every live birth in the nation opens a file–the government pays for periodic home visits by a nurse. He explains it better than I can. He says it’s a policy in England or UK. It sounds a bit Bismarckian.
One telling anecdote I recall from the book is a real life couple, nameless, that Reeve knows. They had one child, successfully figured out how to get her admitted to and graduated from Princeton after she graduated from high school. The whole thing the couple referred to, if I recall correctly, as “Project Melissa.”