I agree with much of what you've written, and
by FaytlND (2024-01-06 11:17:01)
Edited on 2024-01-06 11:22:01

In reply to: A Few thoughts. Apologies for it being long  posted by wpkirish


to avoid rehashing it, I would just add to your paragraph 1 on an issue that I think is a major part of my problem with the piece.

He invokes Kendi, but generally seems to mischaracgerize Kendi's definitions/arguments. I would agree that in some of his writing he isn't the most clear, but over time I think he's made it more clear that he advocates for a position where only policies/actions are racist or antiracist--not individuals. And because of that, any individual is capable of racist or antiracist actions/beliefs (including himself), but that any one person should not be labeled as one or the other. Also, Kendi (to my knowledge) doesn't support the idea that all White people should be labeled as "oppressors". And I don't think you can read the chapter "Whites" in How to Be Anti-Racist and think that he does.

So if he's starting from a point where the facts aren't accurate, I'm not sure how accurate some of his other conclusions may be as it relates to the value of "DEI" writ large. I think many of his points later in the piece would be agreeable to most people, including those who advocate for DEI initiatives. The issue with the piece specifically is that it may not be as accurate with regards to why DEI can't reach those objectives.

I would agree with him that Kendi veers a bit into the equality of outcome, not opportunity. However Kendi's argument is that if everyone is equal, and all opportunities are equal, then we should necessarily expect equal outcomes. If the outcomes aren't equal, then it either means there is a fundamental flaw in the groups of people which precludes them from achieving the equal outcomes with equal opportunity, or the opportunity isn't actually equal. I'm not sure I buy that totally, but I see his reasoning.

I can't speak broadly, but anecdotally, the DEI initiatives which reformed hiring practices where I'm at are definitely better. And honestly, I do think they benefit everyone (not just underrepresented groups). Instead of three people sitting around and deciding to interview and hire the people they know based on nebulous criteria, there is now a formalized process to select applicants for interview, rank based on committee review using standardized rubrics, etc.