DEI concepts promote sound educational policies and practices in public schools

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are now unwelcome across education. Under new federal guidelines and procedures (some of which were paused by a pair of court rulings last week, but only temporarily), schools, colleges and universities are being inspected for any DEI programs and policies. If the administration’s proposals stand, federal funding will be withheld to enforce the elimination of DEI.

DEI concepts promote sound educational policies and practices in public schools. Diversity requirements are protections, not guarantees. Equity ensures fair consideration for admission, scholarships and programs regardless of race or ethnicity. Inclusion means that students from all backgrounds have access to public education.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited segregation and discrimination in schools and colleges. It was not enacted to produce quotas, but to provide equal opportunities. DEI initiatives are used to enhance and preserve this legislation.

Backpedaling on these guarantees will bring us back to Brown v Board of Education and the Little Rock Nine. Most have grasped the notion that “separate but equal” is not acceptable, but bigotry and racism are still with us.

Our history should not be whitewashed or have past acts of prejudice diminished. Students hold no responsibility for the actions of their ancestors.

Analyzing historical and Constitutional cause and effect relationships creates knowledge, not guilt or remorse. It is not indoctrination to receive an unvarnished account of the progression of women’s and civil rights or learning that race is a social construct with no scientific merit.

It was illegal to educate slaves due to the fear of exposing fallacies of racial superiority. Despite the legal end of slavery and Constitutional guarantees (13th, 14th, and 15th amendments), Jim Crow laws and overt discrimination kept non-whites as second-class citizens, including limited access to education.

Students should know that white resentment triggered race riots across the country when Jack Johnson beat a white boxer (1910), destruction by white mobs of affluent black communities in Tulsa (1921) and Rosewood (1923) and bitterness from white players and fans as Black players were integrated into Major League baseball.

Effects of racism and bigotry have not been limited to Black Americans. Students should understand the systematic destruction of the Native American population and culture, and comprehend prejudice and hatred against those with Asian and Jewish backgrounds, and conflicts over religious beliefs.

Ironically, it is now illegal in some states (but not Nevada, fortunately), to teach some of the content in the three previous paragraphs. “Enola Gay” scrubbed from the picture of the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan. Really? Should the identity label “WASP” be back en vogue?

Viewpoint diversity on college and university campuses need not include opinionated nonsense; just rational, evidence-based discussions without invented facts lacking no causal relationships. Emotional expressions based on race/ethnicity or hollow concerns about gender lack academic worth.

Competence and merit cannot be determined when there is exclusion before consideration. DEI also includes accommodations for the disabled, pay equity, parental leave, having a job after the birth of a child, rejection of workplace harassment. Imagine public education without any DEI.

Is this assault on DEI warranted and will it improve student outcomes? The answer to both questions is no. So, what drives this backlash?

Described as lacking ethics and having inferior intellectual ability by his former cabinet members and government officials, the president’s push against DEI policies and practices should not be a surprise. He has exhibited life-long racist behavior and education has not always been kind to his followers.

From housing discrimination, calling for the death penalty for wrongly accused black teenagers, not wanting blacks to count money at his casinos, birther assertions against political opponents, claims of bias from a Mexican judge, Muslim bans, retweeting racist messages from white supremacists, stating white nationalists are “very fine people,” kneeling NFL players “shouldn’t be in the country,” and Haitian immigrants “all have aids,” suggesting that immigrants from Norway are superior to those from Africa and telling congresswomen of color they “should go back to the countries they came from.” This is only scratching the surface.

Reducing and eliminating DEI initiatives makes perfect sense politically. It protects a large part of his political base; undereducated white males who lack the talent and ambition to compete for positions in society. As the president declared after winning the Nevada Republican Presidential Caucus in 2016, “I love the poorly educated.”

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” 

Johnson knew all too well the white grievance that seems to be driving part of our politics today. DEI backlash is just the latest version of what Johnson saw in the 1960’s.