The limits of DEI #2: responses to critics

Last week, we explored how diversity, equity, and inclusion programs often obscure the abuse of power by granting people moral licenses based on their identities.

A critique from the right

Ancient Problemz

took issue with my partial defense of the goals of DEI from the right. I did appreciate being addressed in the same breath as Richard Reeves.

Much of it is the author dunking on the version of me from a decade ago. I’ll ignore that because my skin is thicker now, but I want to underscore that insulting people when they admit they were once wrong is in poor taste. The entire premise of my original post is how I understood the problems with DEI through my contradictory experiences. Here’s the substance:

My critique is not that Radha has no good points to make, it’s that she:

1. Wants to make DEI do what it says it does (an impossibility) instead of realizing that it would be easier to change the name of it to Anti-White People and Straight Men Department than to make it precipitate any form of justice.

2. Thinks the answer to failed liberalism is more liberalism; answer to a failed inclusion system (also exclusion system) is a different inclusion/exclusion system.

3. Overemphasizes how DEI hurts women and BIPOC’s (true) and underemphasizes the people it plainly dislikes and tacitly discriminates against.

The first point I disagree with. I think the workplace has historically been unjust to women of color, in particular, whose personalities don’t conform. Still, admittedly, I now think this has more to do with women’s social policing of each other than men. So, I concede this point even though it is hard to take seriously.

The second point: I also concede Ancient Problemz (who I assume is a man) is correct that DEI, as an official instrument of HR, is more a mechanism of control than a structure to address material problems. Since I read this response, I’ve wondered if I tried to strike a tone that was too conciliatory in my assessment of the ideas and intentions. I don’t know how to square this with my workplace experience as unmeritocratic. But I also know that on some level, women’s intrasexual competition was a significant reason.

I also agree that I underemphasized who DEI implicitly discriminates against: white men. This was partly because I wanted to strike a compromise and not alienate every mainstream liberal who came across my argument. I think DEI as a regime is bankrupt, and addressing injustice in the workplace is a thornier problem than an HR problem can solve.

A critique from the left

I received a substantive argument from those who disagreed with my statement about the left’s lack of introspection. The DNC chair election revealed the following to me. I connected it back to my critique of DEI; it demonstrated how specific racial identity categories can be used to acquire social clout and actual power, as I’ve argued before. I find this odious.

Me in a Note:

Lest we forget, elections are really a contest between the billionaires who control both parties. And the billionaires want us to be obsessed with race and gender so we pay zero attention to material issues. This is what DEI is intended to do, at least in part. Wokeism is most definitely not on the wane; women all around me reflexively recite the catechism with even more fervor than before, and have learned literally nothing. I hear nary a reflection about why people of color defected from their historical party allegiance. It really underscores the arrogance and intellectual dishonesty of the laptop class.

Premises:

1. People of color defected from the Democrats this time in historic numbers because Democrats refuse to consider any factors other than race and gender in their diagnoses and prescriptions. The idea that people of color deserve power based on their race or that standards should be changed based on race is offensive to many people of color, of every race.

2. DEI focuses exclusively on race and gender and pays no attention to character or class origin in its determination of who should have power. This allows people underserving of it to be given it by people who think race confers moral authority.

Implicit argument: We should abandon the effort to elevate people based on their racial identity and instead consider the class dimension of power first and ask if they deserve it all, regardless of their race. Race, gender, or class don’t qualify anyone for power more than their stances or character.

And I don’t subscribe to there being some racial hierarchy of moral authority in which people of color are given differential amounts of power depending on their race by white people: this is what is meant when we are told to defer to someone’s opinion because of their race. The idea is that they’re morally superior, so we should bow to their desires and discard our own needs. I vehemently disagree. If you were discussing such a thing in therapy, the obvious answer would be that your needs from a relationship aren’t of less value than the other person’s. But for some reason, this doesn’t apply in politics.

Jamal X

in response:

The assertion presented appears to overlook significant historical contributions made by civil rights activists, particularly those from the Black community, who played a crucial role in the passage of landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. These legislative achievements were the culmination of a sustained struggle for civil rights, which also influenced immigration policy, ultimately shaping the demographic landscape of the United States.

There is a growing concern about a potential regression in the civil rights protections that were so arduously fought for in previous decades. Disinformation campaigns have affected various communities, particularly Latino and Black populations, who may not have access to critical analyses, such as those offered by resources like the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 Mandate.

As someone who has lived through the era of Jim Crow laws and witnessed firsthand the oppressive measures that prevented my parents from voting, I can attest to the violence and intimidation that were employed to disenfranchise Black citizens. The current discourse surrounding the political landscape raises alarms, especially regarding the alarming speed at which certain political figures are seemingly drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes.

It is imperative to address the troubling trend of appointing individuals with extreme partisan loyalties to key federal positions, which poses a risk to democratic institutions. Engaging in dialogue about these issues requires more than mere online commentary; it necessitates a substantive understanding of the real-world implications and historical context surrounding civil rights and governance.

To address each piece:

1. The charge of ignoring contributions made by the civil rights leaders: I’m not sure that this is an argument refuting the one I make, which is that both parties are beholden to billionaires. DEI is used in part to distract from the fact that people vying for power may not deserve it or be virtuous enough despite their race and class. I am not against the accomplishments of the civil rights movement. I think the implied premise in this argument is that by opposing DEI, I oppose the advancement of black people. No, I want qualified, upstanding people less beholden to the wealthy than what the DNC keeps putting forward as ‘leadership.' No one in Democratic leadership gets a pass for their race; you must deserve the power to get it in a functioning society.

2. “There is a growing concern about a potential regression in the civil rights protections that were so arduously fought for in previous decades.” This is again not related to my argument and makes several assumptions about my premises that I don’t assert. Same for the rest of it. I don’t condone what the Trump administration does simply because I criticize DEI. DEI often serves as window dressing for abuses of power, as I argued last week.

3. “Engaging in dialogue about these issues requires more than mere online commentary; it necessitates a substantive understanding of the real-world implications and historical context surrounding civil rights and governance.” Yes, I do more than comment online. And I’m also not clear on why my commentary is evidence of my having zero substantive understanding of the historical context surrounding civil rights. This statement assumes I’ve never looked further into the issues I comment on when I restack a post.

I pulled this argument out to engage with it in good faith. But I struggle to address it because it is a series of assumptions about my premises that I never assert, even remotely. And granted, perhaps my argument in that one note is underdeveloped because it’s a Note, not an essay.

1. I am responsible for having well-considered arguments in which my premises are valid. When it’s a theory of social behavior, I do my best to clarify my premises.

2. I will consider arguments made in good faith, but many such arguments do not address what I’ve said or make tangential arguments based on premises and arguments I never asserted. It’s rare for me to get a disagreement that addresses what I’ve said without making assumptions about other beliefs I might have.

The above example assumes I am pro-Trump because I am anti-DEI and that my stance against DEI couldn’t possibly have been well considered because I am commenting online with affect. In other words, it makes the same fallacy liberal arguments often suffer from on these topics: that by arguing against the validity or implementation of an idea, you are the enemy of the marginalized and especially of black people. I don’t like this implicit threat of the charge of racism whenever I assert something. It’s why many people don’t like how people on the left argue. Here, raising civil rights implies that I am against a just society.

We will return to some of these topics next week. You are among the most thoughtful people I’ve encountered, and I appreciate you. If you missed it, we discussed spirituality and religion this weekend in the subscriber chat. You can join by subscribing; I never have paywalls, and I do this because getting as close as possible to the truth is a life goal. If there is one thing I can promise, it’s substantive discussions.