In New York City, we began Spectrum Street Epistemology (SSE) by discussing whether colleges should abolish Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.
Some people see it as a complex issue, one that forces us to confront questions about merit and fairness, societal values, the purpose of education, “ideal” levels of racial representation, etc. Are there DEI programs that are actually beneficial? Or have we witnessed more harm than good in their implementation (increased racial division, systemic racism against Asians, totalitarian enforcement mechanisms, punishment for WrongThink, lack of freedom of speech, the forced acceptance of scientific falsehoods, etc.)?
Critics argue that DEI programs, despite their intentions, often undermine merit. These programs emphasize group identity over individual achievement, overshadowing qualities like talent, hard work, persistence, and excellence that are typically associated with merit. But what exactly is merit? Is it simply about grades or degrees? Or maybe it’s a white person’s concept and it’s unfair to expect darker skinned peoples to be held to the same standards as whites. (Or even whites to be held to the same standards as Asians.)
Or is merit something else, perhaps a combination of life experience, resilience, and grit? And yes, merit isn’t always tied to academic success—increasingly we will see the two unchained from each other. In a very short period of time, a degree may actually be a marker of ideological indoctrination. This person graduated from this university, we know exactly what she believes.
Our SSE discussion took a sharp turn when we discussed whether it’s possible to be friends with someone who harbors extreme views—such as disliking entire groups of people based on race, religion, or size, such as those people who hate midgets. Can we, as individuals, reconcile our values with people who hold beliefs that we find odious? This led to another question: Is it possible, or even necessary, to love our enemies? Should we seek to kill them, as some may argue in the name of self-preservation or justice, or should we embrace compassion and spare their lives?
This is an age-old dilemma about human nature, morality, and the complexities of forgiveness. Ultimately, this conversation isn’t just about DEI programs or merit. It’s about challenging our beliefs, confronting uncomfortable truths, and grappling with the nuances of human interaction and societal norms. These conversations are crucial not only for the health of our institutions but also for the broader health of society.
I do not understand the acquiescence of Black and Hispanic (and other minorities) stake holders to "trans" identity patients, who are often promoted as if they were not middle aged men with a sexual fetish. My ex-husband catapulted (all the while claiming he was just a data entry clerk) to the Guggenheim Museum, then to COO of Gallery Systems, where, due to his "female status" and equity contract, Gallery Systems had General Services Agency "minority or female owned" status. All of their executives were white males. When I tried to get information in a FOIA request because he committed financial fraud in court to get out of paying child support (while in contract to own 51% of Gallery Systems) and I was denied. He retired last year, their website scrubbed his very existence, as well as the "pronouns page" they used to have on their website. This company serves world class museums around the world, and for 8 years, they were teaching museum educators to brainwash visiting classes. Something like "well, we don't really know if Rembrandt was a man . . ."
Loved this video as a representation of someone who advocates for DEI that does a more people-driven approach. I rarely see others in this field that share the same approaches. I would even add that some practices I think are harmful that I have excluded from my work is the over-emphasis on biases as part of the education. Instead I’ve found the most impactful topics that help people in my sphere include cultural empathy and perspective shifting. Also, merit should always be the basis of DEI practices and I believe that AA shouldn’t form the basis to why people get certain roles or opportunities. I think that’s a harmful practice to DEI. Just overall a very amazing video as always highlight some alternate perspectives, we need more examples of some of the positive outcomes and perspectives that can occupy DEI methodology. It shouldn’t be a church or ideological warehouse. I believe it should be a tool to help us navigate these polarizing times if done properly and not in such a divisive manner.