What theories underpin DEI ?

[icehorse]

I'm still just as sure as I was. If you wrote anything it's self published, not highly rated, amd not widely read. You get too many basic terms and concepts wrong and ask "what's that mean" like someone who's put too much stock in Frued. That or you just don't know how to pick up and use a dictionary to explain you frequent use of "what does that mean."

put your money where your mouth is, or continue to prove your true nature to everyone.

And btw, i'm not going to snitch on you, but really, you ought to stop calling posters liars or insinuating that they are. I don't think there is any room for such nonsense on this forum.

i've said all i'm going to say to you, sleep well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

put your money where your mouth is, or continue to prove your true nature to everyone.

And btw, i'm not going to snitch on you, but really, you ought to stop calling posters liars or insinuating that they are. I don't think there is any room for such nonsense on this forum.

i've said all i'm going to say to you, sleep well.

And yet you're the one trying get a bet/online gambling going.
I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying if you did write them the quality is very poor and they aren't being widely used or read.

 

[Orbit]

First off, I appreciate your thoughtful response.



As I've mentioned several times, this makes sense in a historyor sociology class. Not so much in a STEM class. With that said, the document we're discussing commits what I might call a "sin of omission", although I would strongly suspect this sin of omission goes way past just this document, and persists in many DEI initiatives. The omission is that - at one time or another - almost every culture has been guilty of colonialism. In your case, Native American nations historically colonized each other back and forth for centuries. Is that also in the curriculum? How about Asian, African, or other Indigenous colonialism that has occured throughout history? If we take the document as face value, the only colonialism the DEI folks are worried about is the European kind.



I understand and agree that these are all issues that we need to address. But in a calculus class?



What do you know about intersectionality theory?

To your comment that "this doesn't make sense in a STEM class", I have two reactions. The first is: of course parts of this don't apply to things like doing calculations etc. The document doesn't specify that they DO apply to STEM, so that's a bit of a red herring. The second reaction is that I am reminded of the reaction of our Physics professor when told he would need to teach something about ethics in his lower division (Gen Ed) physics class. He said "that doesn't apply to a STEM class". He was absolutely wrong. Ethics are very important in science, and for his discipline the ready example of the role of physicists in making the atomic bomb was tailor-made for his class.

To your comment about colonialism, which really surprised me since it sounds more like a suggestion from a politician than from an educator: In a class called "U.S. History I" where students are in a unit called "U.S. Westward Expansion", why on earth would you go off on a tangent talking about Native internecine warfare or the history of colonialism? Pedagogically that makes no sense whatsoever. Now in a class called "History of Colonialism", sure talk about comparative colonialism. Or in a class called "Native American History", sure, talk about internecine warfare. But your call to go off on tangents outside the scope of the course and the unit they're in doesn't make any sense. It's like a form of academic whataboutism.

As for your query about intersectionality: As I have told you before, and have before provided extended examples of how I use it in my teaching, I don't have the patience to do so again here. I will say that I have published on the use of the concept in pedagogy, and that I find it useful in teaching.

 

[icehorse]

The document doesn't specify that they DO apply to STEM, so that's a bit of a red herring.

I am working under the assumption that this document was well thought out and carries a lot of weight in California. Do you agree with that, or is it something just dashed off quickly and not to be taken too seriously - if say - you're a teacher at a community college?

To your comment about colonialism, which really surprised me since it sounds more like a suggestion from a politician than from an educator: In a class called "U.S. History I" where students are in a unit called "U.S. Westward Expansion", why on earth would you go off on a tangent talking about Native internecine warfare or the history of colonialism? Pedagogically that makes no sense whatsoever. Now in a class called "History of Colonialism", sure talk about comparative colonialism. Or in a class called "Native American History", sure, talk about internecine warfare. But your call to go off on tangents outside the scope of the course and the unit they're in doesn't make any sense. It's like a form of academic whataboutism.

I think it's naive to imagine that politics do not heavily influence education. As for your "US western expansion" unit, sure, if you slice it and dice it, there would absolutely be instances for which discussing mostly european colonialism took place. But we have to zoom out a bit. In THIS DOCUMENT, the subject of the OP:

- Europeans are called out several times, either as explicitly bad, or heavily implied as the bad actors of the world.
- Studying multi-culturalism is STRONGLY encouraged, but always in a positive light.

To simplify this a bit, the very clear message is: white people are bad, people of color are good.

This is identity politics at its worst. It is dishonest and needlessly divisive. It is pandering and condescending. This sort of skewing of what's important closely aligns with the goals of the woke, "social justice" culturalists. It is the opposite of diversity and inclusivity, it is instead tribal.

As for your query about intersectionality: As I have told you before, and have before provided extended examples of how I use it in my teaching, I don't have the patience to do so again here. I will say that I have published on the use of the concept in pedagogy, and that I find it useful in teaching.

I'm truly sorry, I do not recall that exchange. Do you remember the name (or keywords in the thread title), of any thread(s) where you discussed intersectionality? I will read those examples of yours! That said, I know that in these debates I am asked to repeat myself repeatedly, and I often do so. So would you be willing to summarize your stance on intersectionality?

 

[Quintessence]

To simplify this a bit, the very clear message is: white people are bad, people of color are good.

... and there it is.

If you'd openly stated this was your angle from the get go it is very likely I wouldn't have bothered indulging this thread because this is the exact sort of politicized nonsense that utterly misses the point of DEI.

[/thread]

 

[Orbit]

I am working under the assumption that this document was well thought out and carries a lot of weight in California. Do you agree with that, or is it something just dashed off quickly and not to be taken too seriously - if say - you're a teacher at a community college?



I think it's naive to imagine that politics do not heavily influence education. As for your "US western expansion" unit, sure, if you slice it and dice it, there would absolutely be instances for which discussing mostly european colonialism took place. But we have to zoom out a bit. In THIS DOCUMENT, the subject of the OP:

- Europeans are called out several times, either as explicitly bad, or heavily implied as the bad actors of the world.
- Studying multi-culturalism is STRONGLY encouraged, but always in a positive light.

To simplify this a bit, the very clear message is: white people are bad, people of color are good.

This is identity politics at its worst. It is dishonest and needlessly divisive. It is pandering and condescending. This sort of skewing of what's important closely aligns with the goals of the woke, "social justice" culturalists. It is the opposite of diversity and inclusivity, it is instead tribal.



I'm truly sorry, I do not recall that exchange. Do you remember the name (or keywords in the thread title), of any thread(s) where you discussed intersectionality? I will read those examples of yours! That said, I know that in these debates I am asked to repeat myself repeatedly, and I often do so. So would you be willing to summarize your stance on intersectionality?

Wow. You've gone full ideologue here. All pretense of being concerned with actual education is gone. If you re-read what you've written, it shows *your* biases, prejudices, and fearful misreadings of what is in the document. Your reactions are purely political, and comically straw-mannish: "all white people are bad"--that's your misreading and exaggeration. Then you start ranting about "identity politics", also your fevered misinterpretation of what is actually happening. If you want to repeat misinformation that has the ultimate effect of being anti-education, I'm not really interested in participating.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe that DEI or JEDI initiatives all rely on a set of underlying theories.

I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to share what they think these underlying theories are? It strikes me that if you're a supporter of DEI, you ought to be able to explain why.

It is an obvious fact of life that we live in an increasingly diverse world -- diverse in terms of ethnic origin, native languages, openness of sexual identity and preference, and more. Although humans evolved as a social species within the context of tribe or local group, that is no longer representative of the world in which most people live (with the exception of some very few in deep jungles or protected islands). Almost everywhere in the world you can find, among the native inhabitants, immigrants from other races, cultures, languages, etc. LGBTQ+ people are trying to break out of their closets even in places where they may face harsh punishment or even death.

In light of that, and in recognition of the fact that differences in culture or language of origin or in personal outlooks lead inevitably to different ways of thinking. There are things that are easily expressed in one language that are much harder to express in others, such as schadenfreude in German or dépaysement in French. The person with a flair for art may see a building project much differently than one with a flair for engineering or mathematics. Making these diverse viewpoints available to each other can and often does lead to whole new modes of thought and expression, and therefore to invention. This has immense potential to add strengths to society as a whole.

DEI attempts to break down the silos that tend to be naturally erected between people, at least in educational and other formal situations. Go to any city and you will find "chinatown" or "little Italy" or "Greektown." But when the denizens of these enclaves get to school, or to university, they find themselves clumped together, and will often have to work together. This is made more difficult when course materials are culturally monolithic. Older folks like myself can remember the "Dick and Jane" or "Hardy Boys" books that we all read. Too often, even texts in history or other subjects are expressed in terms of the dominant culture in which the school was founded. Making these materials more culturally diverse can help help break down those silos in a classroom or office setting.

DEI really is about accepting that our world is much more diverse than it ever was, and that this has traditionally led to various forms and degrees of apartheid, in which dominant cultures often degrade and undervalue others. And making laws about "discrimination" are often not helpful, because such laws don't typically figure in family and social situations. Equity doesn't mean making people "equal," which is impossible, but rather to breaking down the barriers to striving for equal opportunity. And Inclusivity strives to break down the social barriers that prevent some humans from seeing others as equally valued members of their own communities.

 

[icehorse]

... and there it is.

If you'd openly stated this was your angle from the get go it is very likely I wouldn't have bothered indulging this thread because this is the exact sort of politicized nonsense that utterly misses the point of DEI.

[/thread]

Wow. You've gone full ideologue here. All pretense of being concerned with actual education is gone. If you re-read what you've written, it shows *your* biases, prejudices, and fearful misreadings of what is in the document. Your reactions are purely political, and comically straw-mannish: "all white people are bad"--that's your misreading and exaggeration. Then you start ranting about "identity politics", also your fevered misinterpretation of what is actually happening. If you want to repeat misinformation that has the ultimate effect of being anti-education, I'm not really interested in participating.

How about we stick to discussing the ideas and refrain from making this personal?

I'm going to proceed in this post assuming you can do that...

First off, I have been totally transparent about my concerns with the document in question. You both have had ample opportunity to initiate something along the lines of:

"I don't believe this document accurately conveys the intentions or practices of good DEI."

Neither of you did that. Instead, you refused to answer my questions, and you took the stance that there is "nothing to see here" in terms of this document. You repeatedly defended DEI in general despite my repeated clarification that I was addressing the document.

To be clear, I've mostly agreed with you both when you've described DEI. I suspect that I mostly agree with the intentions that most DEI supporters have. But we MUST be able to separate intention from implementation! I am playing devil's advocate here, because the people who would really fight against DEI are not idiots. We must not underestimate them. IMO, a document like this makes for easy cannon fodder for actual bad actors. If you TRULY support DEI, I think you have to step back and look at a document like this and admit it's seriously flawed. This document hurts DEI, it does not help it. This document is ham-handed at best.

You MUST be able to separate intention from implementation. To be charitable I will say I can hope that the authors were well intended (as I know you two to be), but that the execution (implementation), of this document is seriously flawed.

 

[icehorse]

@Evangelicalhumanist - Can you allow for the possibility that I agree with what you just said, but find the document in question to be flawed?

 

[Orbit]

How about we stick to discussing the ideas and refrain from making this personal?

I'm going to proceed in this post assuming you can do that...

First off, I have been totally transparent about my concerns with the document in question. You both have had ample opportunity to initiate something along the lines of:

"I don't believe this document accurately conveys the intentions or practices of good DEI."

Neither of you did that. Instead, you refused to answer my questions, and you took the stance that there is "nothing to see here" in terms of this document. You repeatedly defended DEI in general despite my repeated clarification that I was addressing the document.

To be clear, I've mostly agreed with you both when you've described DEI. I suspect that I mostly agree with the intentions that most DEI supporters have. But we MUST be able to separate intention from implementation! I am playing devil's advocate here, because the people who would really fight against DEI are not idiots. We must not underestimate them. IMO, a document like this makes for easy cannon fodder for actual bad actors. If you TRULY support DEI, I think you have to step back and look at a document like this and admit it's seriously flawed. This document hurts DEI, it does not help it. This document is ham-handed at best.

You MUST be able to separate intention from implementation. To be charitable I will say I can hope that the authors were well intended (as I know you two to be), but that the execution (implementation), of this document is seriously flawed.

Personal? Not at all, just a clear-headed exposition of your political agenda, which is ultimately anti-education, no matter how hard you try to spin it. Your questions have been answered in great detail, but as usual, you ignore the answers and then say that no one answered you. I'm not playing this game any more. Have a nice day.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@Evangelicalhumanist - Can you allow for the possibility that I agree with what you just said, but find the document in question to be flawed?

Why do you do this? This isn't the first or even the second time I've noticed you trying to say that disagreement between you and another is really an agreement.

 

[icehorse]

Personal? Not at all, just a clear-headed exposition of your political agenda, which is ultimately anti-education, no matter how hard you try to spin it. Your questions have been answered in great detail, but as usual, you ignore the answers and then say that no one answered you. I'm not playing this game any more. Have a nice day.

Wow! Anti-education????????? It's as if you didn't read what I just wrote.

For the record, as we sign off here: I'm the biggest advocate for good education that you can imagine. I have done more to promote good education than any of my detractors on this thread.

Apparently my big crime here is to criticize one friggin document.

By all means, continue to dig in, double down, and abandon your integrity.

 

[anna.]

How it started

How about we stick to discussing the ideas and refrain from making this personal?

How it’s going

By all means, continue to dig in, double down, and abandon your integrity.

 

[icehorse]

How it started


How it’s going

I'm far from perfect, but my policy is not to initiate personal attacks.

That said, I'm not a fan of turning the other cheek when a personal attack is unleashed in my general direction.

And I notice the contextual editing you did here

 

[Orbit]

I'm far from perfect, but my policy is not to initiate personal attacks.

That said, I'm not a fan of turning the other cheek when a personal attack is unleashed in my general direction.

And I notice the contextual editing you did here

You mean like when you said I was on drugs a few posts back? What was that?

 

[The Hammer]

You mean like when you said I was on drugs a few posts back? What was that?

@icehorse isn't worth engaging with anymore it's why I don't. Run and block while you can. They are way insincere.

 

[icehorse]

You mean like when you said I was on drugs a few posts back? What was that?

As I've said, I seldom INITIATE a personal attack. I'm fail at that sometimes, but I've stated this goal many times. Can you say the same?

However, I will respond to personal attacks in kind, because I believe "turning the other cheek" is unhealthy.

 

[icehorse]

@icehorse isn't worth engaging with anymore it's why I don't. Run and block while you can. They are way insincere.

And.... here we go - out of the woodwork a personal attack. Not an indication of a good argument I'd say

 

[icehorse]

And yet you're the one trying get a bet/online gambling going.
I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying if you did write them the quality is very poor and they aren't being widely used or read.

Well as for my books, quite the contrary is true. What you have to understand is that in outside-of-school settings, learners have a wide variety of learning materials they can choose from. In a school setting, students are typically a captive audience - they must use the text book provided. So in the highly competitive world of technical book publishing, most books sell a few thousand copies. My books sell hundreds of thousands of copies. This happens mostly through word of mouth.

I suppose it could be some sort of mass delusion, but I think it's far more likely that my books succeed wildly because students actually learn from them

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well as for my books, quite the contrary is true. What you have to understand is that in outside-of-school settings, learners have a wide variety of learning materials they can choose from. In a school setting, students are typically a captive audience - they must use the text book provided. So in the highly competitive world of technical book publishing, most books sell a few thousand copies. My books sell hundreds of thousands of copies. This happens mostly through word of mouth.

I suppose it could be some sort of mass delusion, but I think it's far more likely that my books succeed wildly because students actually learn from them

I'm still calling it a bluff. You get way too many basic things wrong, you call disagreement an agreement, and you keep ignoring amswers so you can keep saying your questions go unanswered, or you keeo asking what does that mean as though there is some underlying motive behind the meaning of things we're saying that are deliberately kept secret.
You're claims are vague, nothing specific (educating adults could mean you teach GED classes). But I don't think you even do that much as you give nithing to support your claims, unlike members who are educators and have told you where they've been.