The Switchel Philosopher

This post is part of a series of posts on Questioning DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Please see the link for an introduction, a disclaimer, and a list of the initial posts in this series.

The previous post discussed Problems with DEI. Is there a better way? Yes! I believe we can find a better way for our country by recalling our founding principles.

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…

This noble vision has been with us since 1776. We know that our country was imperfect at its founding because slavery existed in the southern states. Our country is still far from perfect, as evidenced by our current state of unrest. Nothing human will ever be perfect, but we can and should strive for continuous improvement. Indeed, there has been significant progress toward reaching the goal of equality.

It is useful to think of the development of our country in terms of “three foundings”:

• The first founding was the American Revolution. This founding is encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the Constitution of 1787-88.

• The second founding was the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution. The spirit of this founding is captured in the Gettysburg Address.

• The third founding was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous speech “I Have a Dream” is the essence of this founding.

(For more discussion of the concept of these “three foundings” see Our Common Purpose: Reinventing American Democracy for the 21st Century by the Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship, a project of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.)

Hamilton: An American Musical (2015) tells the story of the first founding of our country through the eyes of Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers:

The widely acclaimed musical that draws from the breadth of America’s culture and shows its audience what we share doesn’t just dramatize Hamilton’s revolution: It continues it.

“What we share” are the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the practical government created by the Constitution, the first of its kind in human history.

“The widely acclaimed musical” continues the spirit of “Hamilton’s revolution” because it demonstrates through its mostly non-white cast that:

American history can be told and retold, claimed and reclaimed, even by people who don’t look like George Washington and Betsy Ross.

The two quotes above are from the book Hamilton: The Revolution by Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, published in 2016 to tell the story of making the musical.

Each of the three foundings described above represents a move to a better society. How can we continue to move forward? How can we make further progress on realizing Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream?

(Martin Luther King, Jr. had two daughters and two sons, so he is implicitly acknowledging that the original ideal of “all men are created equal” has been expanded to include both sexes. At the time of the “I Have a Dream” speech, the 19th Amendment had been in effect for more than 40 years. That was another step in the progress of our country.)

One step we could take to make further progress would be to remove all preferences based on group identity from the domains of government contracting, public education, and employment. The State of California did exactly that, with respect to state government, with Proposition 209 of 1996 and Proposition 16 of 2020. See the link for further information and discussion. The country would do well to follow California’s example in this regard.

There are many organizations that can help our country make further progress toward the goal of equality. One organization that I recommend for consideration is the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR): “a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity.” In the previous post, I mentioned John McWhorter and Zaid Jilani. Both are on FAIR’s Board of Advisors.

To sum up this post: I believe that a better alternative to DEI is to continue striving to reach the ideals expressed in our founding principles. A good summary of those principles is the traditional motto of the United States – E pluribus unum – Latin for “Out of many, one.”

This post is part of a series of posts on Questioning DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Please see the link for an introduction, a disclaimer, and a list of the initial posts in this series.

One problem with DEI is that it categorizes people into groups. This is evident from the definition of diversity with its emphasis on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. (See What is DEI?) I believe that government should treat people as individuals as much as possible. In slavery, government categorized people into groups with one group being enslaved by another group. In the Jim Crow era, government categorized people into groups and enforced racial segregation. DEI repeats this fundamental error of emphasizing group identity.

The purpose of group identity in DEI is to categorize people as oppressed or oppressor. This is evident from the references to “systemic oppression” in the definition of equity and “power differences” in the definition of inclusion. (See What is DEI?)

Categorizing people as oppressed or oppressor is problematic because we all have in us a bit of the oppressor and a bit of the oppressed. Neither is desirable. Each of us should strive to minimize both aspects in our individual personas, as well as in society.

Categorizing people as oppressed or oppressor is especially problematic when it is based on immutable characteristics such as race and not on individual behavior. There is not enough room in the concept of DEI for personal agency.

Another problem with DEI is that it is about equality of outcomes. This is evident from the graphic about equality vs. equity from the National League of Cities. (See What is DEI?) “Equity” as used in the DEI movement means equality of outcomes.

“Antiracism” is a term that refers to similar themes as DEI. Ibram X. Kendi, author of the 2019 book How to Be an Antiracist, proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to enforce equality of outcomes (source).

I don’t believe in equality of outcomes. I believe in equality of opportunity and equality before the law, neither of which will result in equality of outcomes. Some people will be more successful than others. Some people will stay out of jail while others will not. Personal agency is important in life, and it is largely lacking from DEI.

Another problem with DEI is that it has effectively become a religion. I don’t mean this in the sense of a religious denomination, or that it is concerned with the afterlife, or that it proposes a deity or deities to worship (although the letters DEI remind one of the Latin root of deity). I mean this in the sense of a broad social movement that feels like a religious movement. A close analogy is the Second Great Awakening in U.S. history from roughly 1790 to 1840. Others have also made this point, as I discussed in an earlier post: Great Awakenings.

“Woke” is a term that refers to similar themes as DEI and antiracism. John McWhorter, a professor of linguistics at Columbia University, says that the DEI movement is not like a religion, it is a religion. Dr. McWhorter is a New York Times columnist. He is black. Last month he published Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. Zaid Jilani reviewed this book in the New York Times on 10/26/2021: John McWhorter Argues That Antiracism Has Become a Religion of the Left.

An aspect of DEI that is especially problematic is that it leads to orthodoxy that does not tolerate dissent. DEI claims that it “fosters a diversity of thought, ideas, perspectives, and values” (see What is DEI?), but this is often not true. DEI leads to call-out culture and cancel culture. (The links are about two diverse black women.) As in a religion, heterodox thinkers and heretics are excommunicated. People lose their jobs. This aspect of DEI is particularly troubling if we allow DEI dogma to infuse government.

Finally, I question if DEI works. DEI may, in fact, be counterproductive to the goal of living together more cooperatively. Instead of bringing us together, DEI may be driving us apart.

See this podcast by Jane Coaston at the New York Times on 8/11/2021: Are Workplace Diversity Programs Doing More Harm Than Good?

Employers everywhere are deploying D.E.I. programs to be less racist. But do they even work?

There is a transcript at the link.

This podcast is noteworthy for asking those questions. It is noteworthy because of who Jane Coaston is. I am an old, white, straight man who lives in rural America far from the centers of power. She is in many ways my opposite: a young, black, queer person who lives in urban America near the centers of power. She lives in Washington, D.C., and hosts a major podcast (The Argument) for the New York Times.

Jane Coaston and I do have a few things in common according to this article in the Washington Post on 4/12/2021: D.C.’s rising libertarian star, with her ‘healthy skepticism of state power,’ secures an influential podcast. We are both happily married. We both tend libertarian. We are both inclined to think about people, including ourselves, primarily as individuals rather than according to their group identities. And we both question if DEI works. In her podcast, Ms. Coaston concludes: maybe, maybe not. I conclude: not.

There are profound problems with DEI. Is there a better way? Yes! See the next post: Alternative to DEI.

This post is part of a series of posts on Questioning DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Please see the link for an introduction, a disclaimer, and a list of the initial posts in this series.

What is DEI? The Equity Committee of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) uses the following definitions (source):

Diversity: The full range of human and/or organizational differences and similarities, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, (dis)ability, physical and mental attributes, religion, values systems, national origin, political beliefs, parental/family status, and cultures.

Equity: Equity is ensuring fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all people, while at the same time striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of communities most affected by systemic oppression.

Inclusion: Inclusive environments are places in which any individual or group is and feels welcomed, respected, supported, valued, and able to fully participate as their authentic selves. An inclusive and welcoming culture embraces differences, offers respect in words and actions for all people, fosters a diversity of thought, ideas, perspectives, and values, strives to create balance in the face of power differences.

I had experience with “diversity and inclusion” when I was working. Most of my career was with the Farm Credit System. The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) is the federal agency that regulates the Farm Credit System. FCA published a rule in 2012 that required all Farm Credit System institutions to incorporate diversity and inclusion into their annual operational and strategic business plans. The definitions in that rule (77 FR 25577) are not inconsistent with the above definitions.

The concept of “equity” as it is used in the DEI movement was new to me. The following graphic from the National League of Cities explains their definition of “equity” by contrasting it with their definition of “equality” (source: REAL 100 Webinar slide 28):

The text says:

Equality = Sameness. Equality provides the same thing for everyone. This only works when people start from the same place, history and set of circumstances.

Equity = Justice. Equity is about fairness, and providing people with the resources and opportunities they need, given their history and set of circumstances.

The current movement for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) is big. In my world, it is a focus area for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) where I serve on the board of directors. This post begins a series of posts of my thoughts about DEI. Posts in this series have the DEI tag. As always, my posts on this blog are my own views. They are not the views of the VLCT or any other entity or person.

The VLCT created an Equity Committee in November 2020. This committee recently adopted a charter which states that a core value of the committee is that:

Diversity, equity and inclusion should be embedded in all aspects of local government.

The charter instructs committee members to:

Use a DEI lens when making all decisions related to the work of the Equity Committee.

Information about the VLCT’s Equity Committee and DEI initiatives can be found on the VLCT’s website: Equity Resources.

I discuss my reservations about the statements quoted above and other aspects of the DEI movement in the next four posts:

• What is DEI?
• Problems with DEI
• Alternative to DEI
• Alternative for VLCT – I propose a different approach for the VLCT

Throughout this series of posts, I link to news items and opinion pieces in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. Subscriptions are probably required to access those links, and I apologize for that. There are also many links that do not require a subscription.