What theories underpin DEI ?

[Augustus]

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

Indentured servitude is generally considered distinct from chattel slavery as are numerous other kinds of “unfree labour” like serfdom or impressment.

Most indentured workers voluntarily signed up for it, although often in the face of extreme hardship.

It’s the same reason Scot’s and Irish were disproportionately involved in the military establishment and administration of the British Empire, it was an opportunity better than what they had at home.

Most of the involuntary were transported criminals although some were forcibly sent, but for limited terms.

Indentured labour was bad, but African chattel slavery was exponentially worse.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Indentured servitude is generally considered distinct from chattel slavery as are numerous other kinds of “unfree labour” like serfdom or impressment.

Most indentured workers voluntarily signed up for it, although often in the face of extreme hardship.

It’s the same reason Scot’s and Irish were disproportionately involved in the military establishment and administration of the British Empire, it was an opportunity better than what they had at home.

Most of the involuntary were transported criminals although some were forcibly sent, but for limited terms.

Indentured labour was bad, but African chattel slavery was exponentially worse.

Irish and Scottish children were abducted and enslaved amd sent to America. It happened. Changing the words doesn't change what happened. Yes, there where indentured servants, but that wasn't all of them. Prisoners of war and political prisoners were sold off as slaves.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves | Rasta Livewire

 

[Unfettered]

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?

I'm referring to the imposition of a metric, not the metric itself. Though, where DEI is concerned, the metrics always seem to be held and kept in the mind of the persons waving the DEI flag; I don't know that they ever surrender them (the metrics). Just measure others against them, and make impositions on their bases. At least, that has been my observation. Either that or they are imposed regardless of accord on the part of those affected, once informed.

 

[icehorse]

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.

I appreciate the effort you have put into these recent posts!

As I just said to Orbit, what I really care about is what's being taught to our kids, be it CRT or DEI. IMO, when a politically charged topic like this is being considered to be added to curriculum or curriculum development, the details of the course ought to be provided transparently and as a matter of course.

It doesn't matter very much what we on RF think is true about DEI or CRT or whatever - what matters is what's being taught.

 

[Unfettered]

I appreciate the effort you have put into these recent posts!

As I just said to Orbit, what I really care about is what's being taught to our kids, be it CRT or DEI. IMO, when a politically charged topic like this is being considered to be added to curriculum or curriculum development, the details of the course ought to be provided transparently and as a matter of course.

It doesn't matter very much what we on RF think is true about DEI or CRT or whatever - what matters is what's being taught.

As related to the public school system, can you think of any topic whose nature or method of teaching is not politically charged? If not, why should DEI or CRT get special attention?

 

[icehorse]

As related to the public school system, can you think of any topic whose nature or method of teaching is not politically charged? If not, why should DEI or CRT get special attention?

Ha! fair point. But I would point back to STEM-ish topics and hope they'd be a LOT less politically charged than DEI or CRT.

But more to your point, I think that in an ideal world we'd have at least two professors concurrently teaching comparative views on political topics. Like what Richard Dawkins has said about teaching religion in school. He's thinks it would be a great idea as long as it's comparative religion

 

[Unfettered]

Ha! fair point. But I would point back to STEM-ish topics and hope they'd be a LOT less politically charged than DEI or CRT.

But more to your point, I think that in an ideal world we'd have at least two professors concurrently teaching comparative views on political topics. Like what Richard Dawkins has said about teaching religion in school. He's thinks it would be a great idea as long as it's comparative religion

That doesn't sound to me like an improvement over what the state currently imposes. But I've probably initiated a derailment here; we should get back to the main thread...

 

[Augustus]

Irish and Scottish children were abducted and enslaved amd sent to America. It happened. Changing the words doesn't change what happened. Yes, there where indentured servants, but that wasn't all of them. Prisoners of war and political prisoners were sold off as slaves.

The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves | Rasta Livewire

Irish slaves myth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[sayak83]

which I did in post #36 - and those were just a few examples.


As I've said, this would make sense for a few courses, topics like comparative sociology or comparative history. But this makes no sense for STEM-ish topics.


The document I'm concerned with is focused on curriculum, not dorms. I'm sure that dorms can be problematical - but that's an entirely different topic.



I'm sorry, but these ideas were debunked decades ago. I will acknowledge however that they have remarkable staying power - they go hand in hand with the "safe spaces" worldview. But from a pedagogy perspective, this simply isn't true. This approach does nothing to improve long term retention, it does however make students feel more warm and fuzzy in the moment.

Why on earth do you think it's a good idea to trivialize the crucial and extremely complex art and science of teaching??

I am responding to your comments in series
a) This is not a STEM curriculum book. It is a general set of recommendations. Some may apply to some disciplines, some to other disciplines.
b) The document clearly notes that the above recommendations are not exclusively about developing curriculums, but rather on the entire co-curricular ecosystem of the college. I am quoting
"The chart below provides promising practices that can be used by faculty, deans, curriculum chairs and committees, Chief Instructional Officers (CIO)/Vice Presidents of Instruction, and local academic senates to begin conversations on how to redesign practices from working within a traditional Eurocentric model to working within an equity-minded framework. "
Thus the curriculum is also about what academic policies are to be instituted so that needs of non-traditional learners can be met in order to increase college admission and reduce dropouts. An example of this is the prevalence of hunger among college students. Education outcomes get severely disrupted if a significant fraction of students are dealing with such deep socio-economic insecurities. How does the co-curricular program take into account these aspects and help them to succeed through these adversities?
A Decade of College Student Hunger: What We Know and Where We Need to Go
c) You need to provide evidence on what is it exactly that has been debunked. Meanwhile here is article examining how teaching is to change in order to be more effective compared to traditional methods.
Pedagogy and Course Design Need to Change. Here’s How.
d) As an active practitioner of the art of scientific teaching who is engaged in offline and online teaching of 1000+ students along with mentoring over 10 PG, PhD and Post-Doc scholars, I do not take kindly to your comment that I am trivializing my pursuit and passion in life.

 

[sayak83]

No, I'm reading what THIS document says.

Now I suspect that you and @Quintessence and @sayak83 have experiences that I'd be far more aligned with.

But what you've all been saying about DEI in general, is at odds with this document.

Can you link your books? PM me if you think that is more appropriate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Irish slaves myth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thsy were still forced to relocate and forced into labor. Involuntary servitude is slavery, which we still have today in our prisons.

Involuntary Servitude: How Prison Labor is Modern Day Slavery - Harvard Political Review

While one may argue that incarcerated people should be satisfied to have any work or income at all, the conditions of their “employment” are not livable.

harvardpolitics.com

 

[Augustus]

Thsy were still forced to relocate and forced into labor. Involuntary servitude is slavery, which we still have today in our prisons.

Involuntary Servitude: How Prison Labor is Modern Day Slavery - Harvard Political Review

While one may argue that incarcerated people should be satisfied to have any work or income at all, the conditions of their “employment” are not livable.

harvardpolitics.com

The article you linked to claimed James II began Irish slavery in 1625, which he somehow managed to do several years before he was actually born in 1633.

Also a bit of a strange choice of king to make up such information about given he is James/Jacobite/Battle of the Boyne/etc. opponent of the King Billy beloved by Orangemen and Ulster loyalists for defeating the Catholic James.

And if prison, penal transportation and any form of unfree labour should be considered slavery, why single out Irish and Scots?

It’s just a grievance myth invented by Irish and white nationalists.

Can read about it here in the Dublin Review of Books:

Slaves to a Myth - DRB

The notion that large numbers of Irish immigrants were once slaves has been mobilised by the American alt-right to deflect from historical and contemporary racism while simultaneously promoting a white nationalist agenda based on claims of white victimhood.

drb.ie

 

[icehorse]

I am responding to your comments in series
a) This is not a STEM curriculum book. It is a general set of recommendations. Some may apply to some disciplines, some to other disciplines.
b) The document clearly notes that the above recommendations are not exclusively about developing curriculums, but rather on the entire co-curricular ecosystem of the college. I am quoting
"The chart below provides promising practices that can be used by faculty, deans, curriculum chairs and committees, Chief Instructional Officers (CIO)/Vice Presidents of Instruction, and local academic senates to begin conversations on how to redesign practices from working within a traditional Eurocentric model to working within an equity-minded framework. "
Thus the curriculum is also about what academic policies are to be instituted so that needs of non-traditional learners can be met in order to increase college admission and reduce dropouts. An example of this is the prevalence of hunger among college students. Education outcomes get severely disrupted if a significant fraction of students are dealing with such deep socio-economic insecurities. How does the co-curricular program take into account these aspects and help them to succeed through these adversities?
A Decade of College Student Hunger: What We Know and Where We Need to Go

I make a few assumptions about this document:

1 - I assume the document was created in good faith, in other words the authors meant what they said.
2 - I assume the document has several goals, including teaching teachers what DEI is, and how to use DEI principles.
3 - I assume the minimally qualified intended audience is teachers who know little or nothing about DEI. I say this because they included a glossary of fairly foundational DEI terms.
4 - The document carries significant weight in the California community college arena.

Do you think those are fair assumptions? If so, I can respond to your points above.

 

[icehorse]

c) You need to provide evidence on what is it exactly that has been debunked. Meanwhile here is article examining how teaching is to change in order to be more effective compared to traditional methods.
Pedagogy and Course Design Need to Change. Here’s How.

Hmmm. That's not generally how it works on RF. You made a claim, I said your claim was debunked. So I think it's on you to defend your orifinal claim. I know I'm frequently in your position in these debates and in general we do not respond by saying "prove my claim was wrong". I suppose we could, but then we'd instantly be stuck in the mud.

I read the article you posted. It's a sort of hodge-podge of approaches, some I agree with others are, again, debunked. For example, "gamification" is now known to be a bad strategy if your goal is long term learning and engagement. It's important here to distinguish between games and gamification, but I'm taking the author at their word.

d) As an active practitioner of the art of scientific teaching who is engaged in offline and online teaching of 1000+ students along with mentoring over 10 PG, PhD and Post-Doc scholars, I do not take kindly to your comment that I am trivializing my pursuit and passion in life.

I assume you're referring to this earlier exchange?:

Reframe practices and policies to serve as a co-learner and engage in a partnership. (Open learning framework)
• Actively care for the whole human being in syllabi/classroom policies.
• Democratize the student/ teacher relationship and empower students’ agency over their own learning. (It is well demonstrated that not everyone learns the same way and some may have skills that remian hidden in a static lecture and exam type environment that is relevant to the course subject....like more hands-on skills etc. So how do we create a flexible curriculum that makes it possible for students to use their own abilities correctly).

icehorse: I'm sorry, but these ideas were debunked decades ago. I will acknowledge however that they have remarkable staying power - they go hand in hand with the "safe spaces" worldview. But from a pedagogy perspective, this simply isn't true. This approach does nothing to improve long term retention, it does however make students feel more warm and fuzzy in the moment.
Why on earth do you think it's a good idea to trivialize the crucial and extremely complex art and science of teaching??

== If so, here are my responses:

I have no problem helping students who - through no fault of their own - need to catch up to the level of more fortunate students who have the prerequisite skills and knowledge to complete the course. But we cannot dumb down course work to the level of the least qualified students. At some point every successful student is going to have to master complex topics if they are going to succeed in the world. For example, I completely agree and understand that some community college students come from poor educational backgrounds, and perhaps their math skills need to be improved. No worries, provide classes to let them catch up. But we cannot "dumb down" calculus for these students.

It's your second bullet that I claimed has been debunked. This idea of student "learning styles" simply does not lead to improved retention. Decades ago that idea was popular and highly touted, but it just didn't hold up. But that is NOT to say that I'm advocating for a "static lecture and exam type environment". I think we can both agree that that's also not ideal.

So what do you mean by "flexible curriculum"? I suspect I'll disagree with this approach, but back to Barack Obama's advice: Try to understand a person before you disagree with them

 

[wellwisher]

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.

That was the sunshine up the skirt sales pitch, but DEI is clannish and only promotes Leftist groups and ideology. The political Right is 50% part of our cultural diversity, but it is not welcome at the table. How is their diversity included? Religion is part of our national diversity, so where are they at the DEI table?

DEI a really a Lefty power grab scam that discriminates, in favor of its own voters. It needs to be removed like the mafia shake down cancer it is. DEI is now over a $4 billion industry, which wants to grow, into an even larger partisan cancer. Maybe the Right can install it own DEI version, that only includes itself, like the Left DEI template.

The problem with DEI, dumb everyone's intellect, it is not merit based. It creates a dumb down affect leading to politicizing coming before merit.

As an analogy, say you worked for a company and you are working hard to move up the ladder based on merit from your hard work and extra time. The owner, via DEI Nepotism, places his son, in that position, not because of merit, but because of DEI strong-arm. Since the son may not be the rightful person for the job, based on hard earned merit, but he has the power, merit based system may need to be replaced by politics. Bud Light, for example, saw the negative writing on the walls and should have stopped sooner, but politics made the dumb down the only option.

The Nepotism son may not be able to handle constructive criticism, but may take that personal; discrimination. He may also be more vulnerable to boot lickers, who use boot licking instead of merit to move up. Or he may just pull rank; power hungry and force bas ideas; Bud Light. It is not a good team situation. The best person, based on merit, commands respect due to being the natural leader. Such a leader wants his team to rise and becomes the go to person.

If you look at sports, positions on pro teams is not based on shoes size or color of hair, which has nothing to do with the sport. It based on merit, with team captains the best players. We do not worry about demographics, but want our teams to have the best players, no matter the shallow criteria or the whining.

 

[Orbit]

That was the sunshine up the skirt sales pitch, but DEI is clannish and only promotes Leftist groups and ideology. The political Right is 50% part of our cultural diversity, but it is not welcome at the table. How is their diversity included? Religion is part of our national diversity, so where are they at the DEI table?

DEI a really a Lefty power grab scam that discriminates, in favor of its own voters. It needs to be removed like the mafia shake down cancer it is. DEI is now over a $4 billion industry, which wants to grow, into an even larger partisan cancer. Maybe the Right can install it own DEI version, that only includes itself, like the Left DEI template.

The problem with DEI, dumb everyone's intellect, it is not merit based. It creates a dumb down affect leading to politicizing coming before merit.

As an analogy, say you worked for a company and you are working hard to move up the ladder based on merit from your hard work and extra time. The owner, via DEI Nepotism, places his son, in that position, not because of merit, but because of DEI strong-arm. Since the son may not be the rightful person for the job, based on hard earned merit, but he has the power, merit based system may need to be replaced by politics. Bud Light, for example, saw the negative writing on the walls and should have stopped sooner, but politics made the dumb down the only option.

The Nepotism son may not be able to handle constructive criticism, but may take that personal; discrimination. He may also be more vulnerable to boot lickers, who use boot licking instead of merit to move up. Or he may just pull rank; power hungry and force bas ideas; Bud Light. It is not a good team situation. The best person, based on merit, commands respect due to being the natural leader. Such a leader wants his team to rise and becomes the go to person.

If you look at sports, positions on pro teams is not based on shoes size or color of hair, which has nothing to do with the sport. It based on merit, with team captains the best players. We do not worry about demographics, but want our teams to have the best players, no matter the shallow criteria or the whining.

Stop politicizing education.

 

[icehorse]

Stop politicizing education.

I have to agree with @wellwisher here. The DEI folks brought a TON of political baggage in with them.

 

[Orbit]

I have to agree with @wellwisher here. The DEI folks brought a TON of political baggage in with them.

No, they didn't. They brought DEI policies with a desire to serve ALL of our students better.

Right wing politicians are actively trying to control what is taught in schools, through legislation no less, so that what is taught conforms to their political ideology. Just stop.

Stop second-guessing educational professionals. Stop dumping on and slandering educational professionals by saying they want to "indoctrinate" students. Stop saying that you want personal control over "exactly what is taught". Every discipline already has standards, and professors teach the material of their discipline in good faith.

 

[Quintessence]

That was the sunshine up the skirt sales pitch, but DEI is clannish and only promotes Leftist groups and ideology.

Well drat, you're onto me! I give up! I attend Leftist cult meetings every Tuesday where we discuss how to bring down the Right and indoctrinate Americans into... what is it you get all upset and in a twist about? Yeah. That. Those things. All of those things. Whatever they are.

 

[icehorse]

No, they didn't. They brought DEI policies with a desire to serve ALL of our students better.

I'd guess that everyone on this forum is well intended and wants to serve all of our students better. But it's also the case that DEI is often weaponized to try to bring "woke" ideologies to school.

(As an aside, I'm not attached to the term "woke". I have asked before and gotten no responses, so I'll ask again:

Some people put a lot of emphasis on social justice, they might also strongly believe in intersectionality theory, they might put a lot of emphasis on identity politics, and so on. I would like to know what term they would like to be referred to as? perhaps "progressive left"?)

You can see examples of the woke politicizing schools in this very document. I will direct you to the 2nd paragraph in the left column of page 2. Please read that paragraph very carefully. Then tell me again that this is not woke politicalization. I will be more than happy to walk through this paragraph with you in detail.

Right wing politicians are actively trying to control what is taught in schools, through legislation no less, so that what is taught conforms to their political ideology. Just stop.

Yup, some politicians on the right are doing just that. And I agree that we should keep politics out of school. But that means BOTH right wing AND left wing politics. It is simply not the case that only the right is trying to control schools. The left is as well !

Stop second-guessing educational professionals.

Well first off I am a professional educator, and I disagree with a lot of the ideas in the DEI document provided earlier.

My personal sense is that this DEI document was sloppily done in an attempt to appease "progressive left" political agendas. If you were to agree with that, we'd probably find that we're more aligned than not. But as long as you defend that document without compromise I have to disagree with you about what constitutes high quality education.

Stop dumping on and slandering educational professionals by saying they want to "indoctrinate" students.

Most do not, a few do.

Stop saying that you want personal control over "exactly what is taught".

I never said that. But I will not stop saying what I believe should NOT be taught. So I think it's destructive and divisive to teach students that european colonizers are uniquely "bad" and that our education system is systemically racist and must be dismantled. (Which is one of the things the document explicitly calls for.)

OTOH, if we were to teach that most ALL cultures have been guilty of colonization and we should do a comparative analysis, I think that would be fine.

Every discipline already has standards, and professors teach the material of their discipline in good faith.

Some disciplines have been hijacked by the progressive left, and some progressive left teachers are politicizing their disciplines.