DEI
Characteristics
Keith Martin Smith's Integral Critique of DEI
Keith Martin Smith:
Simplistic View of Privilege
"The first sin discussed is the simplistic view of privilege, which reduces complex social dynamics to binary categories of oppressed and oppressor, often based solely on visible identity markers like race and gender. This perspective neglects the multifaceted nature of privilege, which can encompass factors like socioeconomic status, education, and geographic location, leading to an incomplete understanding of how privilege operates in society.
To address this sin, the solution proposed involves broadening the conversation around privilege to include its more nuanced aspects. This means acknowledging the complexity and intersectionality of human experiences, where privilege and disadvantage can coexist within individuals and communities. Encouraging deeper, more empathetic discussions that recognize the full spectrum of privilege can lead to more informed, effective DEI strategies that truly address inequality.
Limited View of Diversity
The second sin highlights a limited view of diversity that focuses predominantly on physical or cultural differences, overlooking the rich diversity of thought, experience, and perspective. This narrow approach can stifle the potential for true inclusivity and innovation, as it prioritizes visible diversity over the diversity of ideas and viewpoints that can drive collective growth and understanding.
Expanding the definition of diversity to include diverse thought and perspective is crucial. Encouraging environments where a multitude of voices, including those that may dissent from the majority, are heard and valued fosters a more vibrant, dynamic community. This approach not only enriches discussions but also contributes to a more inclusive culture that celebrates differences as a source of strength and creativity.
DEI Can Be Intolerant (Ironically)
Intolerance, the third sin, refers to the tendency within some DEI efforts to suppress dissenting opinions or critique, often under the guise of promoting inclusivity. This can create environments where individuals feel unable to express differing viewpoints for fear of being labeled as bigoted or out of touch, which ironically undermines the very diversity and openness DEI initiatives aim to promote.
Creating spaces where differing opinions are welcomed and valued is essential for combating intolerance. This means fostering an atmosphere of open dialogue and mutual respect, where all members feel safe to share their perspectives. Such environments not only enhance understanding and empathy but also drive innovation and problem-solving by leveraging the full range of human experiences and insights.
Overemphasis on Oppression and Power
The fourth sin involves an overemphasis on oppression and power dynamics to the exclusion of other factors that influence human relationships and societal structures. While recognizing the reality of oppression is crucial, an exclusive focus on these elements can lead to a worldview that sees interactions primarily through the lens of victimhood and power imbalances, potentially obscuring pathways to empowerment and collaboration.
Adopting a balanced perspective that acknowledges both systemic issues and individual agency is vital. Recognizing that people have the power to affect change, both within themselves and their communities, alongside understanding systemic barriers, offers a more holistic view of social change. This approach encourages solutions that empower individuals while addressing the structural inequities that limit opportunities.
quality of Outcomes : Racist and Sexist Policies
The fifth sin critiques the goal of equality of outcomes, arguing that it can lead to policies that, while well-intentioned, inadvertently reinforce racial and sexist biases by imposing arbitrary quotas or standards that do not account for individual choice or circumstance. This approach risks valuing numerical representation over genuine equity and disregards the complexity of human aspirations and capabilities.
Shifting focus from equality of outcomes to providing equal opportunities for all is proposed as a remedy. Ensuring that every individual has access to the resources and support they need to achieve their potential creates a truly equitable environment. This approach respects individual choices and acknowledges that success can look different for each person, promoting a culture that values merit and diversity in its truest sense.
Tribal Identities
Tribalism, identified as the sixth sin, refers to the division of society into increasingly fragmented identity groups, each vying for recognition and power. This can exacerbate societal divisions and distract from shared goals and common humanity, leading to a polarized environment where solidarity and understanding are undermined by allegiance to narrow group identities.
Embracing a more holistic view of individuals, which considers a wide range of factors beyond race and gender, is the suggested solution. Acknowledging the full complexity of human beings fosters a more respectful and accurate perception of individual identity. This approach promotes unity and understanding, transcending tribal divisions to highlight shared values and common ground.
DEI Can Be Anti-Liberal
The final sin, anti-liberalism, criticizes the tendency of some DEI initiatives to suppress free expression and enforce conformity to specific ideologies. This approach contradicts liberal values of open debate, freedom of thought, and the importance of diverse viewpoints, potentially stifling dialogue and innovation. Promoting a culture of open debate and the free exchange of ideas, where diverse viewpoints are not only tolerated but encouraged, is vital. Recognizing that robust discussions and the challenging of assumptions are foundational to progress, this solution advocates for a return to principles that value the diversity of thought as a cornerstone of a truly inclusive society."
(https://integrallife.com/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-dei/?)
History
Richard Hanania:
"Under affirmative action guidelines as applied to government contractors, it is no exaggeration to say that businesses are forced to be obsessed with race and sex. Long before people noticed that identity-related issues had consumed American universities, something resembling modern wokeness had already been forced on big business. Affirmative action is required for every employer with fifty employees that does at least $50,000 worth of business a year with the federal government, and every subcontractor with at least $10,000 in business. Government regulations specify that a “central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects.” If a contractor falls short in any particular area, it must take “practical steps” to make up for its deficiency.
One of the most sinister aspects of all this is that it forced managers at businesses who might want nothing to do with leftist ideas to become foot soldiers in the project of identity-based governance.
The employer is required to participate in a detailed process of identity-based classification and analysis. Middle managers for construction companies and retail store owners become social scientists. First, employers are forced to create an “organizational profile,” defined as “a detailed graphical or tabular chart, text, spreadsheet or similar presentation of the contractor’s organizational structure.” The contractor must break his business down into “organizational units,” and record the race, gender, and ethnicity of the supervisor of each one. Within each unit, the business must record the number of males and females of each of the following groups: blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives. Race and sex are to be determined by self-identification, with the employer prohibited from overruling an individual’s selection, although visual classification is acceptable under certain conditions. The next step is engaging in a “workforce analysis,” which divides the employees of a company by job title. Those with titles that are similar in terms of work and pay are combined into “job groups.”
This initial work is required to get to the “job group analysis.” This means comparing the number of women and minorities in each job group to their estimated availability in the population. And how does one determine availability? By coming up with a number for the “percentage of minorities or women with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area.” When a particular demographic is underrepresented in a job group, the employer must create “placement goals” to correct its deficiency…
Every aspect of employers’ analysis is reviewable by government bureaucrats. For the same reason that a contractor can always get around affirmative action requirements, the government can always find grounds to apply pressure on a business. From the contractor’s perspective, all they can know for certain is that they must go through the motions, and that hiring and promoting more minorities and women will be less likely to get them in trouble."
(https://www.richardhanania.com/p/thoughts-on-trump-ending-affirmative)
Discussion
Steven Lawrence on Organic DEI
Steven Lawrence:
"In the year 2023 alone, a growing number of institutions, state legislatures, and local governments throughout the United States and other English-speaking countries are dropping DEI frameworks altogether, adopting instead a more merit-based approach that focuses on building equality of opportunity for all people, rather than equality of outcomes that are often enforced by policies of positive discrimination in which groups that are deemed marginalized are provided opportunities ahead of demographic groups that are deemed privileged by followers of identity-based Critical Social Justice (CSJ) theories.
But, I think we need to be careful not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
We can and should critique and even remove DEI programs that rest exclusively on the principles and practices of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) theories of race, gender, class and other sociocultural identities, as they often lead to inter-group resentments and potential legal entanglements due to the unfairness of such principles and practices. But, while we may need to roll back some of these practices, we should continue to strive for inclusiveness to the best of our ability in our public and private policies, practices, laws, institutions, and societal norms.
As a longtime educator in both the private and public sectors—and as a person who has served in what the Department of Interior’s Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Civil Rights has designated as Minority Serving Institutions (MSI)—I can confidently attest to the need for our educational institutions to attend to the specific needs and rights of students from all backgrounds, including students of color, LGBTQ students, women, men, and all others.
We can do this by adopting more organic approaches to DEI. To do this effectively, we need to work consciously at avoiding the dogmatic ideological approaches that justify punitive and retributive interpersonal abuse against disfavored demographic groups, the double standards for hiring and job performance that has been adopted by an increasingly large number of institutions and companies, and the commitment insisted upon by some of the most vocal advocates of CSJ to applying interpretive absolutism in the analysis of all interactions between people categorized as belonging to marginalized and privileged identity groups.
By rigidly clinging to the pre-formed belief that bigotry and bias are the only explanatory factors in the outcomes of these interactions or in the life prospects of different communities, we close ourselves off from more accurate, or at least more complete, interpretations of scenarios and the possibility of finding optimal solutions to the problems we want to solve.
And, as many on all sides of the social and political spectrum will agree, the classroom from Kindergarten to college is the place where all of these questions and issues have the most potential for having a large impact on the direction of our society. There is no question that in the 2020s, the classroom on all levels of the educational arc has become the one of the main battlefields for the fights around cultural, social, economic, political, and even spiritual issues.
Because of this, we need to find a more unifying path that can protect the rights and dignity of all people. And that path must be organic."
(https://groundexperience.substack.com/p/organic-dei-empathy-beyond-ideological)
Status
Legal status of U.S. federal DEI legislation after Trump's second mandate
Christopher Rufo:
"President Trump signed an executive order abolishing the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” bureaucracy in the federal government.
The move marks a stunning reversal of fortune from just four years ago, when Black Lives Matter, critical race theory, and DEI seemed unstoppable. Following the death of George Floyd, left-wing race activists made a blitz through America’s institutions, rewriting school curricula, altering government policy, and establishing DEI offices in major universities, big-city school districts, and Fortune 100 companies. The Biden administration immediately followed suit, mandating a “whole-of-government equity agenda” that entrenched DEI in the federal government.
No more. President Trump has rescinded the Biden executive order and instructed his Cabinet to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions,” and “all ‘equity action plans,’ ‘equity’ actions, initiatives, or programs.” In other words, President Trump has signed the death warrant for DEI within the federal government."
(https://christopherrufo.com/p/trump-abolishes-dei-for-the-feds)