What theories underpin DEI ?

[Quintessence]

So... I'm just going to say this because it needs to be said. I don't find it beneficial to be poking at @icehorse 's credentials or lack thereof. Regardless of any of that, it's not as if professionals in the same profession all share the same opinion on something. That doesn't happen. It's entirely possible to be in education and uncomfortable with elements of DEI. I was that person until I learned more about it and there are still some aspects of it that give me pause. However, all I see from some politicians are attempts to "dismantle DEI" without really understanding what DEI actually is and what it actually does in practice - they fixate on "but what if this happened" scenarios that don't actually happen to manufacture a bogeyman and rile up their base.

Unfortunately, people buy it.

 

[icehorse]

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.

My offer stands, and i've answered your questions honestly.

I will give you this, you're good at drawing people in. but i really am tired of having you call me a liar, so this really is me signing off.

have yourself a fine day.

 

[icehorse]

So... I'm just going to say this because it needs to be said. I don't find it beneficial to be poking at @icehorse 's credentials or lack thereof. Regardless of any of that, it's not as if professionals in the same profession all share the same opinion on something. That doesn't happen. It's entirely possible to be in education and uncomfortable with elements of DEI. I was that person until I learned more about it and there are still some aspects of it that give me pause. However, all I see from some politicians are attempts to "dismantle DEI" without really understanding what DEI actually is and what it actually does in practice - they fixate on "but what if this happened" scenarios that don't actually happen to manufacture a bogeyman and rile up their base.

Unfortunately, people buy it.

I appreciate this thoughtful response.

One thing I think would help with this sort of topic would be clear definitions of what these initiatives really are. So I could ask - perhaps should have asked - what's a book that really does an accurate job of capturing DEI?

I remember several months back big kerfuffles over CRT. I've moved on, but at the time I really tried to get a sense of what CRT really is. And in the end, no one could really tell me. In that kind of environment, it's easy for opponents to create bogeymen.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Of course. It was written by humans -- we're not perfect. And anything designed by committees of imperfect humans can sometimes incorporate quite odd characteristics.

 

[Unfettered]

I haven't heard DEI being talked about in this way, though it might be in academic (specifically sociological) circles where the concept of "theory" is more relevant. I have heard it talked about in terms of underlying values or principles, though. Those values are pretty self-explanatory and in the words that DEI stands for: valuing diversity, valuing equity, valuing inclusion. Basically, being a good and decent human who welcomes all voices at the table and gives them an opportunity to speak... encouraging and enabling civil dialogue... that sort of thing. Not sure what there is to explain about that. That we live in an era where we have to "explain why" for basic common decency is... really quite sad, frankly.

My observation is that, on one level, DEI is not about merely valuing diversity, equity and inclusion, but about imposing on others a particular metric for those ideals. That is unjust, and therein is found the cause of folks' resistance to DEI initiatives.

On another level, I observe that DEI is justly interested in correcting or reversing the institutionalization of things destructive of those ideals. On this front I agree, but the methods used to accomplish the former contaminate the overall effort, making it difficult, or impossible, for me to lend greater support than simple agreement.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I remember several months back big kerfuffles over CRT. I've moved on, but at the time I really tried to get a sense of what CRT really is. And in the end, no one could really tell me. In that kind of environment, it's easy for opponents to create bogeymen.

The only reason that "no one could really tell" you what CRT really is, is because (as with all things human) it is subtly different to each of us. Okay, sometimes maybe not so subtly. Sorry, but we humans are like that.

The important things to understand are these: first, a "theory" is generally an area for study: examining data and trends to see if there's anything there, and second "critical" simply means and academic approach involving critical thinking (not criticizing anyone).

Armed with those two definitions, you can examine US history and discover, just for example, that black people were often bought and sold as slaves, while white people were not. You can look at incarceration rates and tabulate them based on race -- are more of one race per capita incarcerated than others, and are there reasons that do not necessarily depend on race for that?

So, CRT can be thought of as being used in sociology to explain social, political, and legal structures and power distribution through a "lens" focusing on the concept of race, and experiences of racism.

The data that you can examine include things like:

• are educational results in a given population the same for all races, or better for only one or some, and worse for others -- and then you would have to examine whether there really is some inherit difference in ability to learn in various races?
• are more members of one race killed by law enforcement than other races, and what might be the reasons for that?
• is there a disparity, based on race, in the holding of jobs in the low-paying service sectors, or in the management and executive layers of businesses?
• are more members (per capita) of one race incarcerated than others, and are there reasons that are not race-dependent?

Now, you are not going to find simple answers to any of these questions, but one thing you might discover, by really thinking about them, is whether or not you suspect that your culture, your society, your community -- or even you yourself -- too often make judgements about people based solely on race.

And the real problem is -- and I really hate to say it -- too many of us do not want to confront the answer to that question. It has the potential to tell us more about ourselves than we would really be comfortable knowing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My offer stands, and i've answered your questions honestly.

I will give you this, you're good at drawing people in. but i really am tired of having you call me a liar, so this really is me signing off.

have yourself a fine day.

Online gambling isn't even legal in California.

 

[icehorse]

So, CRT can be thought of as being used in sociology to explain social, political, and legal structures and power distribution through a "lens" focusing on the concept of race, and experiences of racism.

I appreciate your response, and I don't disagree with what you said.

The issue that I see however is that the devil is in the details. So in this we have one group supporting CRT and another group decrying it, and it appears that neither group has enough details to be coherent.

It seems to me that if people want to introduce any new politically charged topic into our schools, they need to be transparent about EXACTLY and IN DETAIL, what they would propose to teach.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I appreciate your response, and I don't disagree with what you said.

The issue that I see however is that the devil is in the details. So in this we have one group supporting CRT and another group decrying it, and it appears that neither group has enough details to be coherent.

It's a theory. Supporting or not supporting a theory involves nothing more complicated than getting off your duff, gathering such evidence as is available, organizing it coherently, forming hypotheses, and testing them. If you find, for example, that:

1. Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at nearly 5 times the rate of white Americans.
2. Nationally, one in 81 Black adults in the U.S. is serving time in state prison. Wisconsin leads the nation in Black imprisonment rates; one of every 36 Black Wisconsinites is in prison.
3. In 12 states, more than half the prison population is Black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. In none of those states do blacks represent even half the population
4. Seven states maintain a Black/white disparity larger than 9 to 1: California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.
5. Latinx individuals are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 1.3 times the incarceration rate of whites. Ethnic disparities are highest in Massachusetts, which reports an ethnic differential of 4.1:1.

These are just data. Next, you have to try and find reasons why the data are what they are. It's too big a topic for me to begin analyzing, and I'm not going to provide any opinion. I just think those data cry out for explanation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Armed with those two definitions, you can examine US history and discover, just for example, that black people were often bought and sold as slaves, while white people were not

Actually early on America did have white slaves.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Actually America did have white slaves.

I probably shouldn't be surprised...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I probably shouldn't be surprised...

Lots of them came from Ireland and Scotland and sold as commodities once they were here.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Lots of them came from Ireland and Scotland and sold as commodities once they were here.

My great-grandfather was what was then known as a "British home child." From the late 1860s right up to 1948 (the year I was born), over 100,000 children of all ages were emigrated right across Canada, from the United Kingdom, to be used as indentured farm workers and domestics. Pretty close to the same thing, really.

 

[icehorse]

These are just data. Next, you have to try and find reasons why the data are what they are. It's too big a topic for me to begin analyzing, and I'm not going to provide any opinion. I just think those data cry out for explanation.

I'm not interested in formulating my own expertise in CRT. My point is that it should be a requirement of anyone who proposes to teach it in our schools to provide detailed descriptions of exactly what they would teach. As I think we're agreeing two people could easily come up with wildly different ideas about how to teach CRT and what specifics to teach.

Put another way, even if you were a leading expert in CRT, you could not predict how a given school district might teach it. Even as an expert, you'd need to know the details before passing judgment.

 

[Orbit]

I appreciate your response, and I don't disagree with what you said.

The issue that I see however is that the devil is in the details. So in this we have one group supporting CRT and another group decrying it, and it appears that neither group has enough details to be coherent.

It seems to me that if people want to introduce any new politically charged topic into our schools, they need to be transparent about EXACTLY and IN DETAIL, what they would propose to teach.

I spent a great deal of time in another thread explaining CRT to you and you just ignored it because it didn’t fit your preconceived notion about it. Don’t try to say no one has explained it to you.

 

[The Hammer]

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

Yup, there's a reason I don't talk to you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My great-grandfather was what was then known as a "British home child." From the late 1860s right up to 1948 (the year I was born), over 100,000 children of all ages were emigrated right across Canada, from the United Kingdom, to be used as indentured farm workers and domestics. Pretty close to the same thing, really.

Basically.
I imagine the experiences of those victims, such as being abducted, was also similar.
Wh9 needs a devil? It's frightening enough what we'll do ti each other.

 

[icehorse]

I spent a great deal of time in another thread explaining CRT to you and you just ignored it because it didn’t fit your preconceived notion about it. Don’t try to say no one has explained it to you.

For the sake of discussion, let's imagine you are the world's leading authority on CRT.

Even in that case, I'm still FAR, FAR, FAR more interested in seeing the teachers notes for the proposed course, than I am having you explain it to me. It doesn't even matter very much to me if you could demonstrate to me how the course is wrong.

All that really matters to me is what the kids are being taught, and your knowledge of CRT, no matter how expansive, probably bears very little resemblance to specifically (not abstractly), what will be taught, and how it's going to be taught.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yup, there's a reason I don't talk to you.

I was about to comment some people have far more patients than I do.
Maybe it's a teacher thing?

 

[Quintessence]

My observation is that, on one level, DEI is not about merely valuing diversity, equity and inclusion, but about imposing on others a particular metric for those ideals. That is unjust, and therein is found the cause of folks' resistance to DEI initiatives.

I don't know about any metrics, but it is true that all initiatives - from DEI initiatives to gun rights advocates - are impositions in some sense or another. Imposition is an inevitability. What makes DEI initiatives in particular an unjust form of imposition? There are those who believe any given human gets precisely what they deserve and that any attempt to equalize the playing field or be inclusive is unwarranted or undermines those who are naturally superior and deserving. Meritocracy, as it were - and holding up those without merit is thus unjust. Is that the sort of thing you are talking about or something else?

One thing I think would help with this sort of topic would be clear definitions of what these initiatives really are. So I could ask - perhaps should have asked - what's a book that really does an accurate job of capturing DEI?

I mean, back in another post - What theories underpin DEI ? - I gave at least a dozen examples of what DEI initiatives look like using examples I've encountered working at the university. I'm not a DEI coordinator so I couldn't point you to a book, but Inside Higher Ed probably has some stuff, as do professional associations like NACADA or AAUP.