On March 1st, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, an independent publisher that markets Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion literature to businesses, hosted a webinar entitled “Racial Justice: The Next Frontier.” The event featured DEI consultants Mareisha N. Reese and Mary-Frances Winters in conversation with Robin DiAngelo, the famous (or perhaps infamous) author of
"Perhaps DiAngelo’s most troubling suggestion was that 'people of color need to get away from white people.' One concrete manifestation of this reasoning that was mentioned favorably by all three of the panelists is 'racial affinity groups.'" Isn't this more or less what Scott Adams got torn apart (and canceled) for saying?
Also, don't these same folks criticize early American (White) leaders for founding Liberia - an African nation created for the sake of Black Americans. Where they can self-rule and "get away from white people"?
Yes! I had a section on this in an earlier draft of this article. DiAngelo's comments are a perfect mirror for Adams'. Adams' comments were indeed racist and hugely disappointing to me, but for the exact same reasons his comments received well deserved outrage, DiAngelo's deserve every bit as much.
Watch his interview with Hotep Jesus, you will likely have an opinion then. His focus is on helping not hurting. He is try to cut through the craziness with craziness.
Yes, Scott Adams just said that White people need to get away from black people and Dilbert got canceled. (He was trying to make a point by how crazy this sounds and how people will stay away from those who don't think favorably of you). Maybe she will get canceled? 😉🤞🙃
The problem is activists, like religious zealots, have no discernible sense of humor. All communication must be done in earnest (often excessive amounts of earnest) - they prefer to speak in scolds! If someone makes a point with sarcasm or via parody they do not comprehend it and immediately accuse them of some sort of evil.
FWIW: If Dilbert were still hugely popular Adams would never have been cancelled - businesses don't do these grand gestures if it hurts their bottom line.
Yes, but the difference is Scott Adams' rationale for saying whites need to get away from blacks is because too many blacks (not all, not most) are OPENLY hating us and saying horrible things about us, and to us, and to our children, and are disproportionately attacking us and physically hurting us; all of which is supported by facts (this anit white rhetoric is now prolific and See DOJ stats and how black on white violent crime exceeds white on black by 25 to 1); Contrast Adam's rationale with the bogus rationale of Robin DiAngelo, and her racist haters.' Their rationale rests on their manufactured theories of "systemic racism" and inherent irredeemable "implicit bias." There is no corresponding open institutional propagandized assault on blacks from whites and there are no corresponding levels of physical attacks from whites against blacks.
And I'm not saying that those realities justified Adam's comments but there is a difference that is somewhat noteworthy. What Adam's said was racist pure and simple but one cannot ignore the issues he cited in bringing him to say what he said and essentially cancel himself. Adams actually had an interview with Larry Elder that was somewhat interesting. That a man who seemingly has generally supported the black cause for years like Adams apparently has and could then say the things that he said is something to be discussed. Hatred begets hatred that's for sure. Rutgers black professor Brittney Cooper recently said the following and, with total impunity: (1) "WP are committed to being villains." (2) "Regarding WP, the thing I wanna say to you is, WE GOTTA TAKE THESE MFers OUT..... but we can't!" (3) WP are eternal, they ain't gonna go on for infinity and I know that doesn't bring you much comfort when you're just havin to deal with white folks and the travesties they create and they want to destroy the planet." MLK one said these two things: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that; and hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." - "Returning hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
Very important article but what they are promoting (i.e., using the “tipping point” theory) is beyond frightening and needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Sunlight by groups like FAIR is THE reason their efforts haven’t been more successful. Please don’t stop broadcasting this information with this article alone. Keep up the important work
Thanks for this. In my experience, the "tipping point" part actually understates the problem. It doesn't have to be done consciously; once a group reaches a tipping point with a sizeable minority of intolerant people, usually left-liberal people who have never heard any other view treated as respectable and don't think it should be, they let it be known by instinct, using all kinds of visceral methods of signaling, that their views are to rule the roost and everyone else must either sing along or else get driven out.
I've noticed this in several groups that I've been a part of. It produces a lot of resentful people who feel they have no choice but to stay in the closet, hide their souls inside themselves, and shout out loud in conformity with everything that's actually dumping on them.
One reason to have faith that the system will correct itself is what happened in education in the 70's and 80's. In the 1970's anti-war messages were pushed on all college campuses (and even at many High Schools) these accompanied anti-capitalist messages, too. By the 1980's Colleges, Universities and High Schools has surges in "Young Republican Clubs." A lot of today's GOP politicians were educated in the 80's and 90's and were part of the pendulum swinging back. Look for more college students embracing the work of scholars like Thomas Sowell. Then look for those college students to file lawsuits against colleges that discriminate against them for their views.
Hi, I used to want to believe that, too. Loads of us wanted to. Then reality kept impinging on our optimism.
The sad reality is that there were only retrenchments from the aggressive repressions, not reversals. Through all the ups and downs, the secular trend has been to the more extreme repression. That's how we got to where we are today. It has fed on itself. It has always been past the tipping point for many decades, so it keeps feeding on itself.
(And while you may take consolation in the decline of belief in state socialism as an economic system, the trend has been a more extreme overall viewpoint. This explains the plurality identification of youth with "socialism" nowadays and hatred of "capitalism", despite doubts about state socialist economics. It's a cultural matter, often one of an underlying totalitarian mentality. Analyzed very well 80 years ago, back before any of these cycles we're talking about, by Max Eastman in his book on Stalin's Russia and the Crisis in Socialism. Making me wonder if there is anything new under the sun.)
So yes, there'll be a retrenchment from Woke, as you say. But it won't save us. Just as the retrenchment under its previous name, Political Correctness didn't save us. And just as there was a retrenchment from its '60s version, Consciousness Raising, didn't save us, although at the time a lot of us had the illusion that it would. Too big a part of the original Movement remained each time, and consolidated itself even during the retrenchment. The terms of discussion were shifted toward the more extreme in each cycle, trough and peak alike. That's going to happen this time too. In its next iteration, when it renames itself something beyond Woke, it will be more extreme than Woke.
And it's no longer just on campuses that this happens, as it mostly was in the '60s and '70s when I was there. That's why we were able to be optimistic that people would grow up from their youthful extremism, and besides, it was an authentic movement against the war, one where my generation was fighting and dying in a losing war, building on an authentic civil rights movement. And back then it was not just a matter of an ideology feeding on itself. We could hope that the retrenchment after the war ended would be a true recovery of societal balance. Many people in the '80s had an illusion that it really was that. But in fact it was not, not even that time.
Today the repression pervades all the institutions and all of society, not just college campus. It always did to some extent, but a lot more now.
Sorry friend, but we need something more than just a few rearguard defensive actions plus optimism about retrenchments. Been there, seen that tried over and over again.
What do we need? A tough problem, one that there's no happy answer to if we want to be serious.
So here's an unhappy but serious answer: Our lawsuits will have to become more than individual defensive-reparative ones (strongly though I support those defensive ones). They will have to aim at achieving enduring collective remedies, ones that change the institutions.
The only promising option I've ever heard for a collective remedy is that lawsuits could demand affirmative action for discriminated-against viewpoints. Jonathan Haidt used to pursue something like this. It was a noble attempt, but he pursued it only as voluntary institutional experiments on a small scale, not court mandates. It would be a real beginning, maybe even a good beginning. if court-ordered on a fully proportionate remedial scale, not just as a token experiment. And if it included discriminated-against attitudes and social identities, such as identifying with "our society" rather than against it, rather than just explicit ideological viewpoints.
But even this would be only a beginning. It's already been found, in the halfhearted experimental attempts for this, that the affirmative action for viewpoint discrimination doesn't work much, because of the pervasive, harsh social discrimination against the conservative viewpoint on campus. It truly creates a hostile work environment. Bari Weiss famously observed this in the related circumstance of the NYT, when she resigned from it because it was becoming impossible to pursue there the viewpoint diversity selection for publication which was the whole purpose of hiring her.
There already are more conservatives on campus than counted; they’re just in the closet, and affirmative action on personnel doesn't change this. This shows that this is truly a case where there is a strong need to couple affirmative action in personnel selection with "sensitivity training" or "diversity trainnig" in respectful behavior toward the discriminated-against viewpoint and societal identity, and an honest and balanced discussion language with them; just as has been tried and indeed enforced regarding the affirmative action on ethnic and gender minorities.
Ugh. Yeah, "ugh". I can hear everyone saying it. I feel it too. Unpleasant stuff. But necessary.
The reason these methods have been abused so much is that they have been used only by an ideologically hegemonic group, one moreover that is accustomed to behaving abusively toward disagreement. Nevertheless, there were good reasons for using these methods, whether or not they have been good enough reasons in many of the cases where they’ve been used. The only way to stop the abuse of these methods is to use them to overcome that hegemony and achieve something like a balanced group of arbiters of what counts as civil discourse -- and of what counts as 'balance' itself.
And that's just on campus. Then there are the media, and other institutions. But at least it would be a real beginning.
I think humanity is headed toward major war. Part of the cause will be America's internal squabbles will make it ineffective at enforcing the Pax Americana and wars will spread across the globe.
Even without this particular issue, there is so much simmering anger everywhere in American society and everyone is pitting each party against the others (and by everyone, I mean groups inside America as well as groups outside of America who want to destabilize the country and end American Hegemony).
Right now, many violent humans are looking for a cause - not just violent Americans - people around the world are looking for excuses to kill each other. Excuses are building up at an alarming rate: the economy, the war in Ukraine, China's vs Taiwan, Pakistan vs India, India vs China, Iran vs the West, North Korea against ... everyone else. Do not forget all the civil unrest around the globe. A big, ugly, devastating, global war is coming. And it will be bad. This squabble about race in America will be exploited to divide and weaken America - if they can get enough Americans to start killing other Americans that will end the Pax Americana and something truly awful will come. America is the only nation today that can act as the world's policeman - no one else can project power, not China, India, Russia, or a United Europe (all of which have nukes).
Even if we mend racial fences in this nation (something few want to do) there are so many other social issues that can factionalize America.
When I seem optimistic I am lying because the prospect of the human race incinerating itself in a nuclear holocaust might push folks over the edge. I think we deserve it.
Hi, mostly agreed with that. The world is in trouble. And foreign policy is my field of work. And I'm at least as pro-American global predominance as you are (I think).
My response was to the optimism of your previous post. Glad to ,know you aren't unduly optimistic in general.
We largely agree. I do see American Hegemony as - if not good - less bad than imaginable alternatives. Is anyone having conversations about the plight of the Uyghurs (or Tibetans) in China? Are there protests in Russia about using untrained and ill-equipped ethnic minorities as canon fodder? I sometimes think that I am the only one who sees the irony that these Americans who castigate America could not get away with that in most non-Western nations.
And they probably wouldn't even think those thoughts if they were not educated in liberal Western traditions.
My 'optimism' is that they are alienating more and more people and attacking each other for minor differences in opinion and that will be their doom. Consider the potent anti-war movement of the 60's and 70's that had been nearly erased by time America went into Iraq and Afghanistan - sure there were some protests but those were populated mainly by aging protestors (with hippie mullets: that's bald in front and pony tail in back)
This is, of course, a disturbing article — when you read these pull quotes from D’Angelo. The important thing to do, though, is to take a deep breath and remember that fear and anger aren’t the goal. Acceptance and peace are.
The problem is not everyone has the same goal. Some want acceptance and peace but others, being human beings, want wealth and power. If D'Angelo and her crew did not care about wealth and power they probably would be working pro bono, supporting themselves modestly from book sales and donations.
Application of DEI initiatives exposes fault lines that many adherent academics refused to address in the first place, flaws that I faced on college campuses for 6 years before pandemic closures forced everyone to come in contact with DEI ideas from DiAngelo et al. Widespread exposure across industries beyond academia reduced complicity, decreased its spread, and has built opposition that is beyond their control. It reduced the slow, concealed spread on unwitting k-12 and college students. Term is overused at this point, but rhetorical ‘immunity’ has countered the DEI spread in organizations like FAIR, Counterpoint, Heterodox Academy, and just everyday life experiences that refute DEI conclusions.
"One concrete manifestation of this reasoning that was mentioned favorably by all three of the panelists is 'racial affinity groups.' These groups have already achieved widespread implementation in both schools and businesses and are explicitly segregated by racial identity. "
How can this be lawful? The practice must run afoul of local, state and federal anti-discrimination laws and ordinances. One would think that there would have been investigations by states' attorneys general and/or threats of civil litigation to end what is clearly a discriminatory practice. Isn't it established law that first-amendment right to freedom of association can't be used as a shield to protect racially exclusionary practices?
It all depends on which group is doing the excluding. Just look at some of the fuss that surrounded the creation of Black Student Unions on many campuses and especially the heat that occurred when someone tried to start a White Student Union. Or the thunderous outrage surrounding traditional fraternities but the almost total silence regarding the activities of traditionally Black fraternities (some of whom brand members).
I'm wondering when these DEI people will start issuing colored triangles for people to wear so you can identify their affiliations at a glance? All race essentialism tends to end with National Socialism, after all. The purported ideological roots of some of this may lie in Socialism, but the execution is pure National Socialism. That's why comparisons with the Communist Chinese and Stalin drive me nuts. This is all race-based.
Also, you need someone who's brave enough to complain about the 'racial affinity groups' before an investigation can take place. In this climate, I don't see that happening in many places.
The spread and embrace of this poisonous ideology is a blessing in disguise, shows us the institutions that are hopelessly lost and need to be destroyed - and luckily, DEI will destroy them for us!
Great piece Jake and it was much needed. We need more of these essays. These are race grifters and these are the days in which I wish writer and journalist Tom Wolfe were around to sharply point his pen at these hucksters that feed on division while also believing they are on the moral high ground
So basically, DEI is not working correctly because we’re not doing it right. Despite the exorbitant consultant fees. Y’all need to spend more to get it right.
This is very good news but not surprising. Corporate America figured out how to exploit social causes a long time ago. Remember the campaigns for 'Dolphin Safe Tuna'? We've had decades of corporate greenwashing while businesses engage in more environmentally harmful practices. The whole recycling theater is sleight-of-hand to distract us from seeing that we are overwhelmed with single-use containers. (And most of the contents of recycling bins winds up in landfills because it is not economically nor environmentally sound to actually recycle most of that stuff - the stuff that can be feasibly recycled is picked out of the bins). DEI is already suffering the same fate as recycling ...
Even educators are getting in on the scam: educators are getting funds & time off to write things like "Equity-Based Lab Manuals" and such. Everyone is going to try to get something out of this.
I like the phrase “spit out” those who are “resistant”. They are fascists and think they are social justice warriors. Sad.
Interesting that Putin used the same language - that good Russians will "spit out" those who disagree with his war.
Race grifters. Can’t wait till this crap winds up on the ash heap of history.
I prefer the phrase "Race War Profiteer."
"Perhaps DiAngelo’s most troubling suggestion was that 'people of color need to get away from white people.' One concrete manifestation of this reasoning that was mentioned favorably by all three of the panelists is 'racial affinity groups.'" Isn't this more or less what Scott Adams got torn apart (and canceled) for saying?
Also, don't these same folks criticize early American (White) leaders for founding Liberia - an African nation created for the sake of Black Americans. Where they can self-rule and "get away from white people"?
My thoughts exactly!
And not to defend Scott Adams - I don’t have an opinion on his comments. But this seems pretty similar. But no pushback from anyone?
Yes! I had a section on this in an earlier draft of this article. DiAngelo's comments are a perfect mirror for Adams'. Adams' comments were indeed racist and hugely disappointing to me, but for the exact same reasons his comments received well deserved outrage, DiAngelo's deserve every bit as much.
Watch the the Hotep Jesus interview. He is playing 4D chess.
You are not allowed to push back on these people. Haven't you seen their pictures?
Watch his interview with Hotep Jesus, you will likely have an opinion then. His focus is on helping not hurting. He is try to cut through the craziness with craziness.
Yes, Scott Adams just said that White people need to get away from black people and Dilbert got canceled. (He was trying to make a point by how crazy this sounds and how people will stay away from those who don't think favorably of you). Maybe she will get canceled? 😉🤞🙃
The problem is activists, like religious zealots, have no discernible sense of humor. All communication must be done in earnest (often excessive amounts of earnest) - they prefer to speak in scolds! If someone makes a point with sarcasm or via parody they do not comprehend it and immediately accuse them of some sort of evil.
FWIW: If Dilbert were still hugely popular Adams would never have been cancelled - businesses don't do these grand gestures if it hurts their bottom line.
Yes, but the difference is Scott Adams' rationale for saying whites need to get away from blacks is because too many blacks (not all, not most) are OPENLY hating us and saying horrible things about us, and to us, and to our children, and are disproportionately attacking us and physically hurting us; all of which is supported by facts (this anit white rhetoric is now prolific and See DOJ stats and how black on white violent crime exceeds white on black by 25 to 1); Contrast Adam's rationale with the bogus rationale of Robin DiAngelo, and her racist haters.' Their rationale rests on their manufactured theories of "systemic racism" and inherent irredeemable "implicit bias." There is no corresponding open institutional propagandized assault on blacks from whites and there are no corresponding levels of physical attacks from whites against blacks.
And I'm not saying that those realities justified Adam's comments but there is a difference that is somewhat noteworthy. What Adam's said was racist pure and simple but one cannot ignore the issues he cited in bringing him to say what he said and essentially cancel himself. Adams actually had an interview with Larry Elder that was somewhat interesting. That a man who seemingly has generally supported the black cause for years like Adams apparently has and could then say the things that he said is something to be discussed. Hatred begets hatred that's for sure. Rutgers black professor Brittney Cooper recently said the following and, with total impunity: (1) "WP are committed to being villains." (2) "Regarding WP, the thing I wanna say to you is, WE GOTTA TAKE THESE MFers OUT..... but we can't!" (3) WP are eternal, they ain't gonna go on for infinity and I know that doesn't bring you much comfort when you're just havin to deal with white folks and the travesties they create and they want to destroy the planet." MLK one said these two things: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that; and hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." - "Returning hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
Very important article but what they are promoting (i.e., using the “tipping point” theory) is beyond frightening and needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Sunlight by groups like FAIR is THE reason their efforts haven’t been more successful. Please don’t stop broadcasting this information with this article alone. Keep up the important work
Thank you!!!
Thanks for this. In my experience, the "tipping point" part actually understates the problem. It doesn't have to be done consciously; once a group reaches a tipping point with a sizeable minority of intolerant people, usually left-liberal people who have never heard any other view treated as respectable and don't think it should be, they let it be known by instinct, using all kinds of visceral methods of signaling, that their views are to rule the roost and everyone else must either sing along or else get driven out.
I've noticed this in several groups that I've been a part of. It produces a lot of resentful people who feel they have no choice but to stay in the closet, hide their souls inside themselves, and shout out loud in conformity with everything that's actually dumping on them.
I completely agree.
One reason to have faith that the system will correct itself is what happened in education in the 70's and 80's. In the 1970's anti-war messages were pushed on all college campuses (and even at many High Schools) these accompanied anti-capitalist messages, too. By the 1980's Colleges, Universities and High Schools has surges in "Young Republican Clubs." A lot of today's GOP politicians were educated in the 80's and 90's and were part of the pendulum swinging back. Look for more college students embracing the work of scholars like Thomas Sowell. Then look for those college students to file lawsuits against colleges that discriminate against them for their views.
Hi, I used to want to believe that, too. Loads of us wanted to. Then reality kept impinging on our optimism.
The sad reality is that there were only retrenchments from the aggressive repressions, not reversals. Through all the ups and downs, the secular trend has been to the more extreme repression. That's how we got to where we are today. It has fed on itself. It has always been past the tipping point for many decades, so it keeps feeding on itself.
(And while you may take consolation in the decline of belief in state socialism as an economic system, the trend has been a more extreme overall viewpoint. This explains the plurality identification of youth with "socialism" nowadays and hatred of "capitalism", despite doubts about state socialist economics. It's a cultural matter, often one of an underlying totalitarian mentality. Analyzed very well 80 years ago, back before any of these cycles we're talking about, by Max Eastman in his book on Stalin's Russia and the Crisis in Socialism. Making me wonder if there is anything new under the sun.)
So yes, there'll be a retrenchment from Woke, as you say. But it won't save us. Just as the retrenchment under its previous name, Political Correctness didn't save us. And just as there was a retrenchment from its '60s version, Consciousness Raising, didn't save us, although at the time a lot of us had the illusion that it would. Too big a part of the original Movement remained each time, and consolidated itself even during the retrenchment. The terms of discussion were shifted toward the more extreme in each cycle, trough and peak alike. That's going to happen this time too. In its next iteration, when it renames itself something beyond Woke, it will be more extreme than Woke.
And it's no longer just on campuses that this happens, as it mostly was in the '60s and '70s when I was there. That's why we were able to be optimistic that people would grow up from their youthful extremism, and besides, it was an authentic movement against the war, one where my generation was fighting and dying in a losing war, building on an authentic civil rights movement. And back then it was not just a matter of an ideology feeding on itself. We could hope that the retrenchment after the war ended would be a true recovery of societal balance. Many people in the '80s had an illusion that it really was that. But in fact it was not, not even that time.
Today the repression pervades all the institutions and all of society, not just college campus. It always did to some extent, but a lot more now.
Sorry friend, but we need something more than just a few rearguard defensive actions plus optimism about retrenchments. Been there, seen that tried over and over again.
What do we need? A tough problem, one that there's no happy answer to if we want to be serious.
So here's an unhappy but serious answer: Our lawsuits will have to become more than individual defensive-reparative ones (strongly though I support those defensive ones). They will have to aim at achieving enduring collective remedies, ones that change the institutions.
The only promising option I've ever heard for a collective remedy is that lawsuits could demand affirmative action for discriminated-against viewpoints. Jonathan Haidt used to pursue something like this. It was a noble attempt, but he pursued it only as voluntary institutional experiments on a small scale, not court mandates. It would be a real beginning, maybe even a good beginning. if court-ordered on a fully proportionate remedial scale, not just as a token experiment. And if it included discriminated-against attitudes and social identities, such as identifying with "our society" rather than against it, rather than just explicit ideological viewpoints.
But even this would be only a beginning. It's already been found, in the halfhearted experimental attempts for this, that the affirmative action for viewpoint discrimination doesn't work much, because of the pervasive, harsh social discrimination against the conservative viewpoint on campus. It truly creates a hostile work environment. Bari Weiss famously observed this in the related circumstance of the NYT, when she resigned from it because it was becoming impossible to pursue there the viewpoint diversity selection for publication which was the whole purpose of hiring her.
There already are more conservatives on campus than counted; they’re just in the closet, and affirmative action on personnel doesn't change this. This shows that this is truly a case where there is a strong need to couple affirmative action in personnel selection with "sensitivity training" or "diversity trainnig" in respectful behavior toward the discriminated-against viewpoint and societal identity, and an honest and balanced discussion language with them; just as has been tried and indeed enforced regarding the affirmative action on ethnic and gender minorities.
Ugh. Yeah, "ugh". I can hear everyone saying it. I feel it too. Unpleasant stuff. But necessary.
The reason these methods have been abused so much is that they have been used only by an ideologically hegemonic group, one moreover that is accustomed to behaving abusively toward disagreement. Nevertheless, there were good reasons for using these methods, whether or not they have been good enough reasons in many of the cases where they’ve been used. The only way to stop the abuse of these methods is to use them to overcome that hegemony and achieve something like a balanced group of arbiters of what counts as civil discourse -- and of what counts as 'balance' itself.
And that's just on campus. Then there are the media, and other institutions. But at least it would be a real beginning.
best wishes my friend
Dear "Make Orwell Fiction Again":
I'd like to be in communication with you about the problem of how can we actually make Orwell fiction again. Please give me a contact address. Thanks!
Ira Straus
Optimist? me? ROTFLMAO.
I think humanity is headed toward major war. Part of the cause will be America's internal squabbles will make it ineffective at enforcing the Pax Americana and wars will spread across the globe.
Even without this particular issue, there is so much simmering anger everywhere in American society and everyone is pitting each party against the others (and by everyone, I mean groups inside America as well as groups outside of America who want to destabilize the country and end American Hegemony).
Right now, many violent humans are looking for a cause - not just violent Americans - people around the world are looking for excuses to kill each other. Excuses are building up at an alarming rate: the economy, the war in Ukraine, China's vs Taiwan, Pakistan vs India, India vs China, Iran vs the West, North Korea against ... everyone else. Do not forget all the civil unrest around the globe. A big, ugly, devastating, global war is coming. And it will be bad. This squabble about race in America will be exploited to divide and weaken America - if they can get enough Americans to start killing other Americans that will end the Pax Americana and something truly awful will come. America is the only nation today that can act as the world's policeman - no one else can project power, not China, India, Russia, or a United Europe (all of which have nukes).
Even if we mend racial fences in this nation (something few want to do) there are so many other social issues that can factionalize America.
When I seem optimistic I am lying because the prospect of the human race incinerating itself in a nuclear holocaust might push folks over the edge. I think we deserve it.
Hi, mostly agreed with that. The world is in trouble. And foreign policy is my field of work. And I'm at least as pro-American global predominance as you are (I think).
My response was to the optimism of your previous post. Glad to ,know you aren't unduly optimistic in general.
We largely agree. I do see American Hegemony as - if not good - less bad than imaginable alternatives. Is anyone having conversations about the plight of the Uyghurs (or Tibetans) in China? Are there protests in Russia about using untrained and ill-equipped ethnic minorities as canon fodder? I sometimes think that I am the only one who sees the irony that these Americans who castigate America could not get away with that in most non-Western nations.
And they probably wouldn't even think those thoughts if they were not educated in liberal Western traditions.
My 'optimism' is that they are alienating more and more people and attacking each other for minor differences in opinion and that will be their doom. Consider the potent anti-war movement of the 60's and 70's that had been nearly erased by time America went into Iraq and Afghanistan - sure there were some protests but those were populated mainly by aging protestors (with hippie mullets: that's bald in front and pony tail in back)
This is, of course, a disturbing article — when you read these pull quotes from D’Angelo. The important thing to do, though, is to take a deep breath and remember that fear and anger aren’t the goal. Acceptance and peace are.
The problem is not everyone has the same goal. Some want acceptance and peace but others, being human beings, want wealth and power. If D'Angelo and her crew did not care about wealth and power they probably would be working pro bono, supporting themselves modestly from book sales and donations.
Acceptance and peace are not their goal otherwise they would use uniting language of humanism...
My thought exactly as I was reading this!
Oops I meant for this reply to the following comment about Scott Adams. Sorry about that!
Application of DEI initiatives exposes fault lines that many adherent academics refused to address in the first place, flaws that I faced on college campuses for 6 years before pandemic closures forced everyone to come in contact with DEI ideas from DiAngelo et al. Widespread exposure across industries beyond academia reduced complicity, decreased its spread, and has built opposition that is beyond their control. It reduced the slow, concealed spread on unwitting k-12 and college students. Term is overused at this point, but rhetorical ‘immunity’ has countered the DEI spread in organizations like FAIR, Counterpoint, Heterodox Academy, and just everyday life experiences that refute DEI conclusions.
"One concrete manifestation of this reasoning that was mentioned favorably by all three of the panelists is 'racial affinity groups.' These groups have already achieved widespread implementation in both schools and businesses and are explicitly segregated by racial identity. "
How can this be lawful? The practice must run afoul of local, state and federal anti-discrimination laws and ordinances. One would think that there would have been investigations by states' attorneys general and/or threats of civil litigation to end what is clearly a discriminatory practice. Isn't it established law that first-amendment right to freedom of association can't be used as a shield to protect racially exclusionary practices?
It all depends on which group is doing the excluding. Just look at some of the fuss that surrounded the creation of Black Student Unions on many campuses and especially the heat that occurred when someone tried to start a White Student Union. Or the thunderous outrage surrounding traditional fraternities but the almost total silence regarding the activities of traditionally Black fraternities (some of whom brand members).
I'm wondering when these DEI people will start issuing colored triangles for people to wear so you can identify their affiliations at a glance? All race essentialism tends to end with National Socialism, after all. The purported ideological roots of some of this may lie in Socialism, but the execution is pure National Socialism. That's why comparisons with the Communist Chinese and Stalin drive me nuts. This is all race-based.
Also, you need someone who's brave enough to complain about the 'racial affinity groups' before an investigation can take place. In this climate, I don't see that happening in many places.
Counterpoint, in praise of DEI, found here:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/the-case-for-crt-dei-and-whatever
The spread and embrace of this poisonous ideology is a blessing in disguise, shows us the institutions that are hopelessly lost and need to be destroyed - and luckily, DEI will destroy them for us!
Let’s hope it gets done quickly so sick of this garbage
Great piece Jake and it was much needed. We need more of these essays. These are race grifters and these are the days in which I wish writer and journalist Tom Wolfe were around to sharply point his pen at these hucksters that feed on division while also believing they are on the moral high ground
Thanks Michelle!!!
So basically, DEI is not working correctly because we’re not doing it right. Despite the exorbitant consultant fees. Y’all need to spend more to get it right.
This is very good news but not surprising. Corporate America figured out how to exploit social causes a long time ago. Remember the campaigns for 'Dolphin Safe Tuna'? We've had decades of corporate greenwashing while businesses engage in more environmentally harmful practices. The whole recycling theater is sleight-of-hand to distract us from seeing that we are overwhelmed with single-use containers. (And most of the contents of recycling bins winds up in landfills because it is not economically nor environmentally sound to actually recycle most of that stuff - the stuff that can be feasibly recycled is picked out of the bins). DEI is already suffering the same fate as recycling ...
Even educators are getting in on the scam: educators are getting funds & time off to write things like "Equity-Based Lab Manuals" and such. Everyone is going to try to get something out of this.
A pushback? Thank the Lord. I predict the decline of the ideology in the near future. And the pushback will be broad.
JFC, this is terrifying.
How much does Robin charge for her garbage spewing sessions? She’s the ultimate capitalist.
On average $14,000 per event as of 2020, though I'm sure the fees she can command have dropped as demand has lessened since its post-Floyd heights.
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9749517/An-anti-racist-author-Robin-DiAngelo-makes-728K-year-speaking-engagements.html
Surprise! A shakedown racket.
I hope she has to take a day job soon.
They all are
“On March 1st, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, an independent publisher that markets Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion literature...”
Already lost me 😂😂. The only word ‘literature’ and the acronym ‘DEI’ do NOT belong together.
Of interest/relevance: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/chris-rock