The DEI hucksters and hypocrites are in the process of giving diversity a bad name (also equity and inclusion, but those are for another day.) Like so many other features of life and human existence, diversity can be a very good thing, and it can be a detriment to legitimate goals and objectives in different contexts, or even at the same time.
Stipulated: what is unethical about the current DEI fad/obsession/scam/hustle/mania is that its goal isn’t to achieve diversity in settings where it may be beneficial to society, but rather to use the deceitful rhetoric of diversity to excuse engaging in otherwise illegal discrimination and prejudice for the benefit of particular minority groups, usually the groups that the DEI warriors belong to themselves.
I had an eye-opening experience recently. I was teaching the ethics component of a three day training program for program for paralegals and legal professionals who work in large firms. When I got in front of the class, I was immediately struck by the demographics of group, which was about 80 in number. More than 90% of the attendees were black women between the ages of 25 and 45, with just a few men and about the same number of white women, less than five. I haven’t tried to analyze why the paralegal field has shaken out that way in this legal community, but here was what struck me: the group’s dynamic was completely different from and better than the usual professional groups I speak to, which are typically more male than female and overwhelmingly white.
The women were vocal, unrestrained, energized and aggressively interactive. I usually have to push my attendees to ask questions and debate. This group vocalized approval and dissent while I was talking—which I like and need—echoed the opinions of those who spoke out—“Right!” “Uh-huh!” “Yes!”—laughed frequently and were spectacularly expressive with their facial expressions and body language. They were relaxed and acted without inhibitions, as if they were all friends. (They were not: those I spoke to told me they only knew one or two other attendees at most.) With one exception during the session, the men and white women in the group were silent and restrained.
I loved that group! I have seldom felt more comfortable and appreciated in a training appearance. Because I was feeding off their energy and positive vibes, my performance was better, and the participants benefited. Their energy, moreover, was clearly a consequence of the lack of diversity in the class.
The experience caused me to consider in a different light an episode highlighted in William Jacobson’s conservative blog, Legal Insurrection. His Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org) had confronted the Ithaca City School District Superintendent, Dr. Luvelle Brown, and Board of Education President, Dr. Sean Eversley Bradwell, regarding the Student of Color United Summit 2024, which took place on May 31. In its letter, the Project noted that in 2021-2023, the SOCU Summits were restricted to to students and staff “of color” and that the then upcoming 2024 Summit had been promoted in the same manner, excluding participants by race. Prof. Jacobson had flagged the discriminaton in the post, Ithaca (NY) Public Schools Must Desegregate “Students of Color” Summit, Demands Equal Protection Project. After the news media got wind of the Projects protest and demand that the event be opened to all, the school district responded, a mere day before the event with this announcement:
Greetings Students and Staff,
The Students of Color United (SOCU) Summit will be held this Friday, May 31, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. at Ithaca High School.
Please know that SOCU is open to all of our secondary students. We apologize for any previous communication that included exclusionary language about the event. Anyone who wishes to attend on Friday is welcome!
Let the front office at your school know if you want to attend by the end of the day today, Thursday, May 30, and transportation will be provided as necessary.
Jacobson, Legal Insurrection and the Equal Protection Project treated this as a victory, and they should have. However, I have several problems with the episode.
Is an event called the Students of Color United Summit suddenly no longer exclusionary because it says everyone is welcome? Doesn’t the title of the event as well as its stated purpose that it was “for students of color to interact with each other….” automatically discourage whites from attending? Doesn’t the grudging “You can come if you want to, but this event isn’t for you white people” nature of the last minute invitation make it inherently dishonest?
If that allowing “ students of color to interact with each other” was the purpose of the event, doesn’t opening it up to what the school district called “allies”–isn’t that a nice cover-word for “honkies”!—undermine the event’s goal? If the goal is a legitimate and ethical one, and I think it surely is, how can any school event achieve it without engaging in illegal and hypocritical discrimination?
Ethics Alarms has previously championed all-female colleges. The absence of diversity in a group can be as beneficial as diversity, or more so. Can society only derive the benefits of those circ*mstances and environments where hom*ogeneity confers tangible advantages when the lack of diversity occurs by happenstance rather than design?
