by James A. Bacon

Finally, we’re getting an open debate about “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion” in Virginia — not an honest debate, mind you, but a debate which, whether honest or not, is long overdue.

Last month, Virginia’s chief diversity officer Martin Brown proclaimed that DEI was “dead” at the Virginia Military Institute. Various parties, from Democratic legislators to Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist Michael Paul Williams, lambasted Brown.

“Make no mistake: Brown did not merely threaten to terminate equity, but the entirety of DEI. And Youngkin has his back in pushing for its destruction,” wrote Williams. “Somewhere, Jim Crow is smiling.”

Ah, I see. Brown, an African-American, is bent upon dragging Virginia back to the era of lynch mobs, eugenics, and state-enforced racial segregation. With insights like that, no wonder Williams won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary.

Since changing the name of the state office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion to the office of Diversity, Opportunity & Inclusion, Youngkin has largely refrained from making public pronouncements on the subject. But earlier this week, in response to a question about Brown’s statement, Youngkin said that, while DEI was admirable five or ten years ago, it has since “gone off the rails.”

Reports WRIC:

“The concept of DEI, and let’s put ESG [environmental, social and governance] in it as well, these ideas five, ten years ago were laudable,” Youngkin told reporters Monday during a ceremonial bill signing outside the Executive Mansion in Richmond. “How do we embrace diversity? How do we make sure opportunity is made available to everyone? How do we foster an inclusive environment where people feel part of as opposed to excluded?”

“And ESG and DEI have gone off the rails candidly and I think they’ve taken on a new mission that is really not consistent with those key principles. And so, we’ve got work to do.”

Youngkin reiterated his opposition to equity initiatives Monday, claiming that DEI has pushed for “equal outcomes” at the expense of equal opportunity.

“We’ve got to get back to the basic principles that we know are right and away from the bombastic language that DEI has become where people all of a sudden are professing that we want equal outcomes for everyone at any costs and where all of a sudden excellence has been subordinated to equity,” Youngkin said. “Let’s put words down and go work on the things that we know are right.”

Diversity and inclusion are not an issue. Most people across the political spectrum embrace the idea that America, the most ethnically diverse society on the planet, should be open, welcoming and inclusive to citizens of all races, cultures, religions and backgrounds. Controversy erupts over the concept of “equity” and how it translates into real-world practice. Does it imply equal treatment (treating everyone the same) or equal results (giving preferential treatment to selected groups)?

Nowhere in Virginia is the goal of “equity” promulgated more assiduously than in Virginia’s colleges and universities. If we want to see what “DEI” and “equity” mean in practice, that’s where we should look. While interpretations of DEI vary from institution to institution, and even within institutions, DEI regimes are commonly associated with the following:

  • Hiring DEI administrators to advance DEI goals in every nook and cranny of college/university life;
  • Achieving racially proportional representation in student bodies and giving preferential admissions to members of “marginalized” groups in order to do so;
  • Providing ideologically loaded DEI “training” to faculty and staff;
  • Requiring student applicants, job applicants, and employees undergoing annual reviews to submit “DEI statements” describing their commitment to DEI goals;
  • Mainstreaming leftist rhetoric including such terms such as “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” and “anti-racism”;
  • Creating cultures of intolerance that enforce ever-mutating speech codes under the guise of suppressing “hate speech”;
  • Encouraging students to “just report it” to the administration when they encounter speech they find offensive;
  • Purging statues, plaques and memorials of long-dead figures, regardless of their accomplishments and contributions to society, on the basis of their association with slaveholding, segregation or expression of racial views now deemed deplorable.

All this has been documented on the Bacon’s Rebellion blog. Other than justifying the cleansing of statues and memorials, Youngkin’s critics mention none of it.

Williams quotes Faye Belgrave, associate dean for Equity and Community Partnerships in the College of Humanities and Sciences at VCU, as providing the college’s definition of equity:

Equity is the process of ensuring that procedures and programs are impartial and provide equal possible outcomes for every individual. It ensures everyone has access to the same opportunities and recognizes we don’t all start from the same place because some groups have more advantages and others face more barriers. Equity corrects for this imbalance.

That sounds benign enough… until you get to the phrases, “provide equal possible outcomes for every individual” and “equity corrects for this imbalance.” Ah, there’s the rub. How does equity correct “imbalances” in practice? Perhaps Williams could explore that topic in his next op-ed. He might use the bullet list above as a starting point. Then we can have an honest conversation.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

68 responses to “DEI Has “Gone Off the Rails””

  1. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    You’re right that this debate is mired in dishonesty, but it’s dishonesty on both sides. Equal “possible outcomes” is not equal outcomes. And Youngkin fails to identify who exactly is arguing for equal outcomes, because it’s actually no one in particular.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      The VDoE goals for equity, since rescinded, began with eliminating differences in outcomes based specifically on ability among other distinctions.

      An example of “equity” in action is Charlottesville’s schools defining 86% of its students as “gifted” to achieve “equity” and hoping the percentage will increase.

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      The VDoE goals for equity, since rescinded, began with eliminating differences in outcomes based specifically on ability among other distinctions.

      An example of “equity” in action is Charlottesville’s schools defining 86% of its students as “gifted” to achieve “equity” and hoping the percentage will increase.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I view DE&I as I do, oh say, finding a “cure” for brain tumors (no such thing as benign).

      It’s a worthwhile goal just from the statement, kinda like “a more perfect union”. It’s going to be hard to do, or perhaps just not easy. Its outcome is ill-defined. The approaches are unknown, and half-baked. It will result, if at all, from a certain degree of serendipitous tweaking. Failure is almost certainly an an option, but not trying isn’t.

      Now, watch me pass a law restricting voting!

    4. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Margaret Eads, who was employed by the Landmark Communication newspapers at the same time Jim and I were, had her own guest column in the RTD recently. She made the same point, “not about equal outcomes”, but then listed a series of disparate outcomes as evidence that racism rages still. Can’t have it both ways. If disparate outcomes are proof of discrimination, then equal outcomes must be the goal of corrective efforts.

      Given the admissions record of the past 40-50 years, the college DEI bureaucracies are not focused on that. Admissions has been leaning in on that for a long time. It must be about the grades and graduation, if they are doing anything at all. I don’t think they are running study halls.

      Nothing would do more for educational opportunity for the economically stressed than controlling the ridiculous cost increases. Nothing would do more for the economic opportunity of those never getting to college than stemming the flow of dirt cheap labor crossing our borders illegally.

      Instead they get DEI bureaucrats by the boatload. Helpful.

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        It depends on the nature and severity of the disparate outcome. If the largest single factor for disparate outcomes is race (as opposed to things like parental education levels, income, wealth, etc.), then I think it points to a systemic problem.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          That is the foundational assumption, I agree.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            What do you think the other explanations are? Do you believe that the playing field is level for everyone and we need not worry about disparate outcomes? Is that a policy that’s supportable, productive or politically tenable?

          2. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Indeed, I’m open to RESEARCH that shows factors other than income and race have greater correlation/causation in academic outcomes.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            It’s pretty simple. The VDoE goals for equity, since rescinded, began with eliminating differences in outcomes based specifically on ability among other distinctions.

            There are differences in outcomes we do need to worry about, and do more than worry about. They start with our schools figuring out how to teach all kids to read, write and do math at grade level.

            If we can do that most other differences in outcomes will disappear. Until we do that no institutional emphasis on equity will make outcomes meaningfully equal.

    5. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      The VDoE goals for equity, since rescinded, began with eliminating differences in outcomes based specifically on ability among other distinctions.

      An example of “equity” in action is Charlottesville’s schools defining 86% of its students as “gifted” to achieve “equity” and hoping the percentage will increase.

      My bad, this was actually in response to Dick’s post above. It largely duplicates my response to you below.

    6. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I view DE&I as I do, oh say, finding a “cure” for brain tumors (no such thing as benign).

      It’s a worthwhile goal just from the statement, kinda like “a more perfect union”. It’s going to be hard to do, or perhaps just not easy. Its outcome is ill-defined. The approaches are unknown, and half-baked. It will result, if at all, from a certain degree of serendipitous tweaking. Failure is almost certainly an an option, but not trying isn’t.

      Now, watch me pass a law restricting voting!

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I always tell myself that I am going to stay from these
    discussions, but then I get provoked.

    First of all, you set a false dichotomy. Then you throw in a
    lot of stuff that you don’t like that is not related to DEI.

    You ask if “equity” means equal treatment or equal
    results. It’s neither. It means “a level playing field”. The VCU associate dean put it well. It means providing “equal possible
    outcomes” and recognizing that not everyone starts at the same place. One analogy is the start of a long-distance
    race. If the runners all started at the same place on the track
    (equal), the runner on the inside lane would have an advantage because he has less ground to cover. So, the starting points
    are staggered, with the runner on the outside lane starting some distance ahead of the runner on the rail. That’s equity. Some people have a natural advantage—they come from intact families that are well-off and they had good schools, private or public, to attend. Because of their status in life, they have connections that others don’t have. Equity can mean looking beyond an applicant’s
    test scores to determine if he/she has the ability and desire to succeed. It doen’t have to be about race, although it often is. White students who grew up in poverty and broken homes and crappy schools deserve equity, as well.

    Youngkin claims that “equity” has come to mean “we want
    equal outcomes for everyone at any costs and where all of a sudden excellence has been subordinated to equity.” What
    is the basis for this bald statement? Where is his evidence?

    In your bullet list, you throw in the opposition to statues,
    “mainstreaming leftist rhetoric”, and speech codes. Those are valid issues but they are not directly related to DEI, other than they have the same proponents. In a “open debate”, those issues can easily be separated out.

  3. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Equal outcomes is impossible.
    Different people are…different!
    And, different people in abilities might use their abilities…differently!
    It is racist to assume that someone of one “race” must comport with all other of his/her “race.”

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Equity is not the equivalent of equality in outcomes or treatment.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Uh huh.
        It is when Lefties change the meaning.
        We already have equal opportunity law. But when it does not produce statistics to your liking, you then agree to break the law to fulfill your fever dreams of Man being God, and you and the rest of you authoritarians creating Utopia (not).

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Wow. Substantive. Really made your point… that I am right.

          2. VaNavVet Avatar
            VaNavVet

            Oh were you trying to make a point or merely daydreaming?

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      If equal outcomes are impossible, drop your efforts espousing equality under the law in education.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        “If equal outcomes are impossible, drop your efforts espousing equality under the law in education.”

        Nice Jim McCarthy silly walk.

        Equality is equality of opportunity and that should never be dropped. What you are mislabeling, as you habitually do, as equality is equity of outcomes regardless of ability. That should never have seen the light of day. It needs to be not just dropped but buried with vigor.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        “If equal outcomes are impossible, drop your efforts espousing equality under the law in education.”

        Nice Jim McCarthy silly walk.

        Equality is equality of opportunity and that should never be dropped. What you are mislabeling, as you habitually do, as equality is equity of outcomes regardless of ability. That should never have seen the light of day. It needs to be not just dropped but buried with vigor.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The concept of DEI, and let’s put ESG [environmental, social and governance] in it as well…”

    “…because you know… Liberals….”

  5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    DEI is Jim Crow rebranded. It leads followers into a psychological oblivion. Glad to see our governor take a stand.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      My experience with Jim Crow was just the opposite. Instead of diversity–it advocated whites only. It not only did not want equity, it did not even want equality or opportunity for non-whites. And it certainly did not advocate inclusion; hence, the Whites Only signs.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        DEI tells the less successful group that a bullet list of factors are why the LCG cannot move ahead. To correct the imbalance the more successful group, things are taken from them and given to the less successful group. DEI tells the less successful group they are nobody without the gifts from equity. DEI tells the more successful group you didn’t deserve what you have, so were going to take it from you and give to the less successful group. It’s absolutely sinister. You are filling both groups with a sense of no influence or no consequence.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          To be an anti-racist you have to accept that “the remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination, and the remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination”.

          Racism is racism, and despicable regardless of color. DEI and the Klan, brothers under the sheets. All in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            I have reread the Autobiography of Malcolm X. I found the chapter about Malcolm’s public education from the 1950s to be eerily similar to modern day critical race theory practices. Insidiously cloaked in altruism and yet it is the same old psychological bird, Jim Crow.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The Crow of Jim Crow was hardly merely psychological. Massive resistance was not merely psychological or a metaphor for a bird.

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            You are confusing de jure and de facto Jim Crow. De jure is dead. That bird has been gone a good while now. The new Jim Crow de facto or hidden segregation. DEI adds a new layer to de facto. It fixes nothing. Just what we needed.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The VA Constitution still contains a ban on same sex marriage; de jure remains alive. If DEI is an antidote to de facto Jim Crow, then effecting its objectives is a noble goal. If its imperfect, let’s fix it instead of attacking staffing costs to ensure its functioning.

          5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Your team needs to scrap their plans. My team should do the same. There has to be something that appeals to both camps and works. We want the same thing. It can be done.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            No sight or sign of Rs or Cs voicing acceptance of the “ same thing.” BR’s warriors have declared war on DEI and the staffing for it to function. The Gov and a Lt have declared it a dead cow. Perhaps you can convince them where the common ground of the same thing lies.

          7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            We are not listening to each other very well these days. The politicians are not going to help us. Regular everyday Virginians are going to have to find this common ground. When we do that the politicians will be interested.

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            BR can be your platform to encourage common ground. After all, VA has withdrawn from ERIC, discussed and criticized not long ago on this platform.

        2. M. Purdy Avatar
          M. Purdy

          How many DEI trainings have you ever been to, because what you described is nothing like what I’ve ever attended.

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            As soon as the term “White Privilege” is uttered, James Whitehead is right.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The term “white privilege” was never uttered in my DEI training. Race was barely even referenced at all.

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            That phrase is front and center during Loudoun County DEI trainings. Invoking white guilt is a clear goal. There is a difference in corporate DEI and school DEI. You didn’t know that did you? My wife and I compared the corporate stuff with the LCPS brand. Corporate DEI is much easier on the digestive tract.

          4. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            I’ve never heard the term used in the diversity training I have participated in either. However, I’ve heard reports (like James Whitehead’s comment below) that it happens.

          5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Plenty Mr. Purdy. The Loudoun County school board loved to water board teachers in DEI whether they liked it or not. How many black history month assemblies did you sponsor? How many black history field trips did you organize? How many International Day Fashion Shows did you put together? How many letters of reference did you write for black students? How many black students did you recommend for military service? How many hours of after school tutoring did you provide free of charge to immigrant students who just arrived? How many black students did you recruit to take their first Advanced Placement course? I could go on for a while. I suppose that is part of the disdain I have for DEI. It is an affront to the 27 years of honest work I performed in education where DEI was not necessary. Only requirement was to give unselfishly of my time, energy, and love for our youth.

          6. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Understood. But what’s the affront? You dislike African American heritage month? Did they teach history that you hadn’t learned? Did they actually tell you that non-white children would be advantaged over yours? You don’t like exactly? What tells you that the state is imposing equal outcomes?

          7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Dude I was top shelf. I got a box of thank you letters that would take a day to read. I’m gonna give you a pass on a couple of those shots.

            We want the same thing Mr. Purdy. I prefer readiness to DEI. We just have different paths to reach our common goal. Booker T and WEB had the same problem.

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Your 27 years of commendable service are admired and hopefully motivated and inspired your students. DEI is not testimony to to any failure on your part.

        3. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Yeah, when “ things” are taken away from successful “ groups” and given to less successful groups merit is compromised. What things?? Orwell’s some are more equal?

  6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Encouraging students to “just report it” to the administration when they encounter speech they find offensive”

    Not believing this is really a thing, but I am curious, JAB. What would you suggest a student do if they witness, say, a white man berating a black woman on campus with overtly racist and sexist language (that would get me censored here if I were to actually type it out)…?

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The student? Nothing. Why shouldn’t the Black woman make a complaint if she feels harassed?

      Even then, it’s a slippery slope. Do you think any use of the n-word should be reported? Even if one Black person says that to another Black person? That happens all the time. Do we need different rules by race? What about somebody playing rap music with references to the “n-word”? Should that be reported?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        You are correct that the woman being berated should report the offense which is obvious in this case. If she is intimidated to the point of not acting, should we allow such treatment of fellow humans to then go unanswered in our community?

        The use of traditionally racist words by past targets of those insults is empowering. I don’t have an issue with it… perhaps you do… I don’t find it a tough call though.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          You should try refereeing a youth football game sometime. The n-word is used continuously by players on the field during the game.

          I assume you would want me to flag a White kid for using that word but not a Black kid.

          “Hey, number 27 – take off your helmet so I can decide if you are Black enough to use that word. Wait a minute, how Black are you? How many of your grandparents were Black?”

          Kind of a modern day Jim Crow to have two standards of language based on race, no?

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            No…

  7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I always tell myself that I am going to stay from these
    discussions, but then I get provoked.

    First of all, you set a false dichotomy. Then you throw in a
    lot of stuff that you don’t like that is not related to DEI.

    You ask if “equity” means equal treatment or equal
    results. It’s neither. It means “a level playing field”. The VCU associate dean put it well. It means providing “equal possible
    outcomes” and recognizing that not everyone starts at the same place. One analogy is the start of a long-distance
    race. If the runners all started at the same place on the track
    (equal), the runner on the inside lane would have an advantage because he has less ground to cover. So, the starting points
    are staggered, with the runner on the outside lane starting some distance ahead of the runner on the rail. That’s equity. Some people have a natural advantage—they come from intact families that are well-off and they had good schools, private or public, to attend. Because of their status in life, they have connections that others don’t have. Equity can mean looking beyond an applicant’s
    test scores to determine if he/she has the ability and desire to succeed. It doen’t have to be about race, although it often is. White students who grew up in poverty and broken homes and crappy schools deserve equity, as well.

    Youngkin claims that “equity” has come to mean “we want
    equal outcomes for everyone at any costs and where all of a sudden excellence has been subordinated to equity.” What
    is the basis for this bald statement? Where is his evidence?

    In your bullet list, you throw in the opposition to statues,
    “mainstreaming leftist rhetoric”, and speech codes. Those are valid issues but they are not directly related to DEI, other than they have the same proponents. In a “open debate”, those issues can easily be separated out.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Excellent! Thank you! I’ve been looking to fix my analogy.
      Diversity is being asked to the dance,
      Inclusion is being asked to dance, and
      E-word, whatever that is, is being able to dance like nobody’s looking!

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        and for some of us that’s hoping that nobody is looking. There’s a difference between dancing with abandon and dancing well:)

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Long distance races do not use staggered starts. Short distance races use staggered starts. The staggered start is nothing more than a way to ensure that all runners cover the same distance on an oval track. It’s just math. No runner is advantaged. No runner is disadvantaged.

      “Equity can mean looking beyond an applicant’s
      test scores to determine if he/she has the ability and desire to succeed.”

      Great. How would one do that? How does one look at a college application, discount the test scores and GPA then find “the ability and desire to succeed”? And when does it end? If an inferior student is accepted over a superior student at the undergraduate level (by discounting quantitative measures like SATs and GPAs in favor of the admissions offices “hunches”) does that same student get another “pass” when he or she applies to graduate school? Then, again, when they apply for a job?

      Let’s be honest – equity means equal outcomes by throwing away as much quantitative evaluation as necessary to reward those who are less qualified.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Let’s be honest, universities have used many other measures than GPA and SATs to make admission decisions for many decades. One such… is a parent or family member an alumni? Or did you get a letter of recommendation from say a Senator? At least the decision metrics you cite seek to level the field rather than further skew it.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          I’d guess that’s 5-10% of the cases but, even then, it’s wrong. Universities ought to admit the best qualified applicants without regard to race, religion, sexual orientation or any other factor that is irrelevant to academic success.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Just having a parent alumni at W&M, for instance, can easily double your chance of admission. So, it may not be right but it is routine and it is (and long has been) the admission process. This is an attempt to level that field just a little.

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            It’s wrong. The BoV should shut down the legacy advantage, especially at a public college / university.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        You are correct. I got my track and field events switched. Obviously, it has been a while since I have been to a track meet.

      3. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        Actually, watch the start of any distance race on the track and it’s a curved start with those further outside getting a little bit ahead to compensate for having to run to the inside.

        But the point is correct, it’s to provide equal opportunity for all runners. It is incorrect to call this equity. Equity would be like giving certain runners a head start because of the shoes they wear, who they trained with, where they trained, their weight, or age, etc.

    3. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “Youngkin claims that “equity” has come to mean “we want
      equal outcomes for everyone at any costs and where all of a sudden excellence has been subordinated to equity.” What
      is the basis for this bald statement? Where is his evidence?”

      VP Harris made that exact statement in 2020.

      https://thehill.com/opinion/education/529262-the-damaging-effects-of-shifting-from-equal-opportunity-to-equal-outcomes/

    4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      What do you see as the sudden need for DEI bureaucracies in overwhelmingly progressive universities?

  8. keydet16 Avatar
    keydet16

    As someone who supports DEI, it really doesn’t help that some Democrats (read: fringe Progressives) promote some asinine policies in the name of ‘equity’, especially in the realm of education. In Virginia, you have TJHSST but this is an unfortunate phenomenon taking place elsewhere in the country (see ‘union leader’ below) granted this isn’t the existential threat to society that some (like on this blog) make it out to be, but it’s also morally and ethically wrong…..and this doesn’t even touch upon the lunacy of Chesa Boudin et al in San Francisco.

    https://www.unionleader.com/george-will-another-revered-high-school-sacrifices-excellence-on-the-altar-of-dei/article_ff277401-806e-544c-8f51-9915f5cb12c5.html

    1. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      This framing does not represent DEI efforts near me in Hampton Roads. What do you actually know about your local area/efforts?

    2. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      This framing does not represent DEI efforts near me in Hampton Roads. What do you actually know about your local area/efforts? It seems to me that should be more indicative/representative of concerns than fringe initiatives from out of state. I recognize that’s contra-indicated given what ‘republicans’ have done with reproductive rights, maternal healthcare, and women’s health care access nationwide (and are trying to spread) but it’s a legit question.

  9. Donald Smith Avatar
    Donald Smith

    Perhaps Governor Youngkin has been reading Ruy Teixeria, author of the landmark The Emerging Democratic Majority.

    “The Democrats have a merit problem. The traditional Democratic theory of the case ran like this: discrimination should be opposed and dismantled and resources provided to the disadvantaged so that everyone can fairly compete and achieve. Rewards—job opportunities, promotions, commissions, appointments, publications, school slots, and much else—would then be allocated on the basis of which person or persons deserved these rewards on the basis of merit. Those who were meritorious would be rewarded; those who weren’t would not be.”

    “But Democrats have lost interest in the last part of their case, which undermines their whole theory. Merit and objective measures of achievement are now viewed with suspicion as the outcomes of a hopelessly corrupt system, so rewards should instead be allocated on the basis of various criteria allegedly related to “social justice.” Instead of dismantling discrimination and providing assistance so that more people have the opportunity to acquire merit, the real solution is to worry less about merit and more about equal outcomes—“equity” in parlance of our times.”

    https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-democrats-merit-problem

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Mr. Teixeria is exactly right. DEI and CRT are the latest efforts by the left to excuse the utter failure of government to create equal outcomes. The left may have realized that throwing money at a problem won’t fix the problem. Spending per student in US public schools has increased 280% in real terms since 1960. In Fairfax County, more teachers are assigned to the poorer schools so the teacher:student ratio is lower for schools with more free lunches, etc. But that didn’t fix the problem. Too few students from those schools were sufficiently well educated to pass the exam for Thomas Jefferson. So, what did the liberals do? Degrade the quality of what was rated as the best public high school in America by instituting a lottery for a sizable percentage of the admissions. When the outcomes weren’t what the left wanted they diluted merit in an effort to achieve more equal outcomes.

      DEI and CRT are the liberals’ silent admission that decades of big government spending and various affirmative action programs have failed. Rather than ask why these programs have failed, the left now tosses up their hands, blames “systemic racism” and tries to dramatically reduce merit-based decisions in order to achieve equality of outcomes.

      Of course, the left has no interest in reversing the ocean of government spending that failed to create equal opportunity.

      Reagan was right … “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Leave a Reply