Again, Freddie DeBoer is a self-described Marxist, which is, again, not a mainstream iteration of progressivism. Secondly, does needing to scroll so far down, to some degree, indicate that the definition of equity you're basing your argument on is not, in fact, the definition most widely used by those who seek to provide equitable access…
Again, Freddie DeBoer is a self-described Marxist, which is, again, not a mainstream iteration of progressivism. Secondly, does needing to scroll so far down, to some degree, indicate that the definition of equity you're basing your argument on is not, in fact, the definition most widely used by those who seek to provide equitable access and opportunity?
I am not switching between my definition of equity, equal access, and your definition of equity, equal outcomes, so I'm not sure the term Motte and Bailey Fallacy is appropriate here.
With regard to your reference to Ibram X. Kendi, he does, at the end of the paragraph you quote, state that there is an end to equity, essentially once underrepresented groups have relative wealth and power to other groups. You can support or disagree with that sentiment, but your argument that there's no end is not accurate, at least according to Kendi's description.
In your article, you state, "Using equity-equitist-equitism limits the conversation to the notion of allocating rights, privileges, resources, and wealth across groups rather than across individuals. It leaves cultural tics and attitudes to other days."
While I also wrangle with the challenges that are inherent in identity politics, I struggle with how to completely divorce myself of it because our treatment, both governmental and private industry, created the widespread inequality we see today--along the lines of those group identities. Do you agree with that statement? Obviously, there is something to say for individual agency; however, it would be hard to deny the impact on the Black community, for example, of segregationist policies that lasted well into the 1970s and 80s at various levels of government. And while I also don't believe it's helpful to land forever in grievance politics or in casting Black people as the perpetual victim, I also see the greater good in finding ways to make home ownership and access to good neighborhoods more accessible to Black people, whether that means passing source of income non-discrimination, providing favorable loans to first-time home buyers, etc. Much of the current state is a result of things outside of their control because policy and practice in the past discriminated against them as an identity group. The decision to create division along lines of identity groups was handed to us, not something we have created. To me, equity means either removing barriers that persist (such as ending racially based appraisal bias) or providing assistance to mitigate the imbalance caused by those relatively recent policies. Then, if they have access to favorable loans and we have removed barriers to rental units in high-opportunity areas, the rest is up to people to take advantage of those opportunities. While equity would not mean that we must ensure every person of an identity group does take advantage and does find a favorable outcome, I would imagine that in general, these efforts would bring groups into greater parity with one another. And when you look at what would improve GDP and reduce our country's reliance on social safety nets, that is likely the best, most economical approach. In other words, it costs less for our country to make opportunity more accessible than it is to take care of those who were historically denied access to opportunity who still face a greater incline and greater barriers. Homelessness costs our country a lot.
In the piece you referenced, Kendi also positively references President Lyndon B. Johnson who said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” Do you agree with that statement? And, if so, what is your solution? If not, why not?
I know your article is about the nomenclature or etymology needed to capture the essence of what you find wrong across those twenty or so terms/theories/philosophies; however, I am curious as to why you think that if given what is needed in order to fully access opportunity, those individuals and identity groups would not generally prosper. The outcomes would inherently become more equal because access to opportunity was made available to everyone. Again, that isn't because equity requires equal outcomes but that equal access to opportunity inherently improve outcomes.
Where I think the work of DEI has become unproductive is where we lose the ability to challenge ideas (freedom of speech), hold people accountable, and envision a future where we have moved past identity politics instead of deciding that we can never understand or be in community with one another.
Here also is some work by Brighter Beam that showcases racial educational gaps in conservative vs. liberal cities. Brighter Beam is not a conservative source, so I think it might be one you are more inclined to view favorably. Arne Duncan was (is?) on its board.
That's from the NYS Education on Culturally Responsive Sustaining Education definitions, p. 60, also repeats the goal of equality of outcomes on the definition for "Systematic Equity", p.61.
And therein lies the “motte-and-bailey” tactic. One word with two meanings—one highly controversial and the other plain-vanilla-mom-and-apple-pie. They advocate for the former and, when called on it, say they were only talking about the latter.
The multiple and vague meanings of these terms is their achilles heel. Right now, many professors (like me) justify all sorts of things, like combating cheating, with DEI - stretching the definitions bit by bit. Once we stretch the definitions far enough out of shape, like a borrowed sweater, it will fit everyone.
One day some clever White Supremicist will apply powers of sophistry to include DEI terms in White Supremest statements. ("Our diversity is more than skin deep!")
Once swastika wearing thugs are trumpeting DEI it is officially dead.
--You may not be playing motte-and-bailey, but equitism in general thrives on it. (I said before I thought you sounded sincere.)
--Yes, Kendi at times suggests some end-point exists in the way, far, distant future. But elsewhere, his wording and proposals suggest to me that the end-point is mentioned for deniability and nothing more. Kendi's end-point is like waiting for The Rapture or End-Times or some such.
--Indeed, as by adjacent Jim Crow quote suggests, I know with my eyes and my heart that horrid discrimination took place and left lingering problems. The question is not whether legitimate grievances exist, but rather whether the proposed solutions make things better or worse. Equitism's "solutions" exacerbate the existing problems--often by reconstructing the very institutions of discrimination that created the problems in the first place and hoping that they'll work better this time around.
--As for solutions, look at the past century of history of America's Jews, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc. All experienced terrible discrimination. All rose to the top through hard work and by not being infantilized by paternalistic do-gooders. Who is the single most highly educated demographic group in America today? It's Nigerian-Americans.
"I grew up in small-town, Jim Crow-era Virginia. For my first 15 years, Virginia’s government was monomaniacally focused on “massive resistance” to racial integration and on denying full rights of citizenship to African Americans. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court had okayed the notion of “separate, but equal” in its infamous Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. In response, Virginia adopted a new constitution in 1902, designed specifically to disenfranchise and marginalize African Americans. The state government relentlessly pursued those goals until that constitution was replaced in 1971. It would be surprising if those discriminatory incentives had evaporated entirely, even half a century after purposeful racism dissipated. Conditions in my hometown today suggest to me that the damage done in those years has far from vanished."
Again, Freddie DeBoer is a self-described Marxist, which is, again, not a mainstream iteration of progressivism. Secondly, does needing to scroll so far down, to some degree, indicate that the definition of equity you're basing your argument on is not, in fact, the definition most widely used by those who seek to provide equitable access and opportunity?
I am not switching between my definition of equity, equal access, and your definition of equity, equal outcomes, so I'm not sure the term Motte and Bailey Fallacy is appropriate here.
With regard to your reference to Ibram X. Kendi, he does, at the end of the paragraph you quote, state that there is an end to equity, essentially once underrepresented groups have relative wealth and power to other groups. You can support or disagree with that sentiment, but your argument that there's no end is not accurate, at least according to Kendi's description.
In your article, you state, "Using equity-equitist-equitism limits the conversation to the notion of allocating rights, privileges, resources, and wealth across groups rather than across individuals. It leaves cultural tics and attitudes to other days."
While I also wrangle with the challenges that are inherent in identity politics, I struggle with how to completely divorce myself of it because our treatment, both governmental and private industry, created the widespread inequality we see today--along the lines of those group identities. Do you agree with that statement? Obviously, there is something to say for individual agency; however, it would be hard to deny the impact on the Black community, for example, of segregationist policies that lasted well into the 1970s and 80s at various levels of government. And while I also don't believe it's helpful to land forever in grievance politics or in casting Black people as the perpetual victim, I also see the greater good in finding ways to make home ownership and access to good neighborhoods more accessible to Black people, whether that means passing source of income non-discrimination, providing favorable loans to first-time home buyers, etc. Much of the current state is a result of things outside of their control because policy and practice in the past discriminated against them as an identity group. The decision to create division along lines of identity groups was handed to us, not something we have created. To me, equity means either removing barriers that persist (such as ending racially based appraisal bias) or providing assistance to mitigate the imbalance caused by those relatively recent policies. Then, if they have access to favorable loans and we have removed barriers to rental units in high-opportunity areas, the rest is up to people to take advantage of those opportunities. While equity would not mean that we must ensure every person of an identity group does take advantage and does find a favorable outcome, I would imagine that in general, these efforts would bring groups into greater parity with one another. And when you look at what would improve GDP and reduce our country's reliance on social safety nets, that is likely the best, most economical approach. In other words, it costs less for our country to make opportunity more accessible than it is to take care of those who were historically denied access to opportunity who still face a greater incline and greater barriers. Homelessness costs our country a lot.
In the piece you referenced, Kendi also positively references President Lyndon B. Johnson who said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” Do you agree with that statement? And, if so, what is your solution? If not, why not?
I know your article is about the nomenclature or etymology needed to capture the essence of what you find wrong across those twenty or so terms/theories/philosophies; however, I am curious as to why you think that if given what is needed in order to fully access opportunity, those individuals and identity groups would not generally prosper. The outcomes would inherently become more equal because access to opportunity was made available to everyone. Again, that isn't because equity requires equal outcomes but that equal access to opportunity inherently improve outcomes.
Where I think the work of DEI has become unproductive is where we lose the ability to challenge ideas (freedom of speech), hold people accountable, and envision a future where we have moved past identity politics instead of deciding that we can never understand or be in community with one another.
Here also is some work by Brighter Beam that showcases racial educational gaps in conservative vs. liberal cities. Brighter Beam is not a conservative source, so I think it might be one you are more inclined to view favorably. Arne Duncan was (is?) on its board.
https://brightbeamnetwork.org/cities/
All that to say that just because something is well-intentioned doesn't mean it works well.
EQUITY is the state, quality, or ideal
of being just, impartial, and fair. The
concept of equity is synonymous with
fairness and justice. To be achieved and
sustained, equity needs to be thought of
as a structural and systemic concept, and
not as idealistic. Equity is a robust system
and dynamic process that reinforces
and replicates equitable ideas, power,
resources, strategies, conditions, habits,
and outcomes.
That's from the NYS Education on Culturally Responsive Sustaining Education definitions, p. 60, also repeats the goal of equality of outcomes on the definition for "Systematic Equity", p.61.
https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/crs/culturally-responsive-sustaining-education-framework.pdf
And therein lies the “motte-and-bailey” tactic. One word with two meanings—one highly controversial and the other plain-vanilla-mom-and-apple-pie. They advocate for the former and, when called on it, say they were only talking about the latter.
The multiple and vague meanings of these terms is their achilles heel. Right now, many professors (like me) justify all sorts of things, like combating cheating, with DEI - stretching the definitions bit by bit. Once we stretch the definitions far enough out of shape, like a borrowed sweater, it will fit everyone.
One day some clever White Supremicist will apply powers of sophistry to include DEI terms in White Supremest statements. ("Our diversity is more than skin deep!")
Once swastika wearing thugs are trumpeting DEI it is officially dead.
--You may not be playing motte-and-bailey, but equitism in general thrives on it. (I said before I thought you sounded sincere.)
--Yes, Kendi at times suggests some end-point exists in the way, far, distant future. But elsewhere, his wording and proposals suggest to me that the end-point is mentioned for deniability and nothing more. Kendi's end-point is like waiting for The Rapture or End-Times or some such.
--Indeed, as by adjacent Jim Crow quote suggests, I know with my eyes and my heart that horrid discrimination took place and left lingering problems. The question is not whether legitimate grievances exist, but rather whether the proposed solutions make things better or worse. Equitism's "solutions" exacerbate the existing problems--often by reconstructing the very institutions of discrimination that created the problems in the first place and hoping that they'll work better this time around.
--As for solutions, look at the past century of history of America's Jews, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc. All experienced terrible discrimination. All rose to the top through hard work and by not being infantilized by paternalistic do-gooders. Who is the single most highly educated demographic group in America today? It's Nigerian-Americans.
Nigerian immigrants to USA were already in the top percentile across several markers in their country of origin. Same with Indian immigrants.
An earlier piece of mine. https://graboyes.substack.com/p/does-plessy-linger-still
"I grew up in small-town, Jim Crow-era Virginia. For my first 15 years, Virginia’s government was monomaniacally focused on “massive resistance” to racial integration and on denying full rights of citizenship to African Americans. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court had okayed the notion of “separate, but equal” in its infamous Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. In response, Virginia adopted a new constitution in 1902, designed specifically to disenfranchise and marginalize African Americans. The state government relentlessly pursued those goals until that constitution was replaced in 1971. It would be surprising if those discriminatory incentives had evaporated entirely, even half a century after purposeful racism dissipated. Conditions in my hometown today suggest to me that the damage done in those years has far from vanished."