Potential Responses to Inquiries

Template for Institutions to Consider Refuting the Premise of Anti-DEI Bills from the Start

Most Ant-DEI bills stem from what is called ‘divisive concepts’ legislation. States like FL and TX have implemented these. Other states like NC, OH, TN, OK, and IA are slated to have such legislation come through in the next year. More states will follow.

Rationale for not engaging fully with each bullet that defines divisive concepts

• A forgiving reading of Divisive Concept Bills would be that their writers misunderstand what rigorous training in race, race theory, structural racism, white privilege, and other terms that it identifies as potentially ‘divisive’ are. These Orders rests on the premise that such training at institutions posit that “men and members of certain races, as well as our most venerable institutions, are inherently sexist and racist.” None of the rigorous training or knowledge developed in equity, diversity, inclusion, or anti-racism would suggest that one’s race, gender, class, nationality, sexuality, or other facet of identity inherently means anything about one’s belief, values, or commitment. There is valid reason to teach that history is always present, as James Baldwin states, and that, as a result, the past practices, rife with power, racism, patriarchy, and more affect current conditions.
• These laws also say institutions cannot solicit or require employment applicants “to endorse or opine about beliefs, affiliations, ideals or principles regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as a condition of employment” or describe their actions concerning those beliefs. Institutions requiring diversity statements, or the like do not engage in this practice. A response that may be helpful is below.
• Such legislation also centers on how pedagogy and curriculum make students feel.

Template of a Response That College Leaders Can Pull From

The introduction of (insert bill) sparks crucial discussions at the intersection of education, politics, and the pursuit of a more inclusive society. One central concern revolves around the legislation's vagueness regarding the definition of "contemporary political debate or social action." Education, by its very nature, engages with societal issues, and students often draw connections between their learning and personal experiences. It's imperative to emphasize that educational institutions do not demand applicants endorse or express specific political beliefs. Instead, they seek educators capable of effectively navigating the intricate dynamics of diverse classrooms.

Our primary mission remains unwavering: to understand and articulate pedagogical approaches within the context of a diverse student body, irrespective of the ever-changing political landscape. This steadfast commitment aligns seamlessly with our dedication to nurturing open dialogues and embracing diverse perspectives—cornerstones of democratic societies. This approach enriches the educational environment and enhances the learning process by encouraging critical thinking and fostering a deeper understanding of the complex world in which we live.

Furthermore, it's crucial to recognize that education is a dynamic and continuous journey. Concerns that focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion might perpetuate the notion that an individual's race or sex inherently dictates their beliefs or values stem from a misunderstanding. It's essential to draw a clear distinction between encouraging critical thinking and perpetuating discrimination or bias. DEI efforts in education are not about promoting any particular ideology but rather about helping students comprehend and appreciate differences while cultivating empathy and open-mindedness.

Ultimately, education should serve as a sanctuary where diverse ideas are welcomed, and students are academically and socially prepared to navigate the complexities of an interconnected world. Through these endeavors, we fulfill our role in fostering well-rounded individuals and active, informed citizens who can contribute meaningfully to the fabric of a democratic society.
As a result, (insert institution) can safely say that we have never engaged in the practices (insert law name) is concerned with. We will remain unwavering in our pursuit of truth and developing excellent citizens of the country and world through education.

Annotation of NC Bill, which was Built off Of 2019 Trump Executive Order, TX, and FL Bills

Highlights indicate language to focus on in terms of refuting the premise of the bills.

• “The concepts listed in this subsection shall not be promoted in State government workplaces or included as part of any State employee training program:”
  
  • One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
    
    • This is not taught in classrooms or trainings.
  • An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.
    
    • This is not taught in classrooms or trainings.
  • An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.
    
    • This is the opposite of what is taught in classrooms and trainings.
  • An individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.
    
    • This would make no sense to teach in classrooms or trainings. It’s counter to what we are doing…
  • An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
    
    • Response 1: We all bear responsibility in correcting the oppressions of the present which are predicated on those of the past. This is not limited to any groups of people. But some groups would like to pretend such responsibility is not theirs, and, often those people are those whose ancestors did commit problematic actions. The fact that someone feels bad, it is okay for them to feel badly, but it isn’t great for them to stay in guilt. We want people to act.
    • Response 2: This is not taught in classrooms or trainings; Thinkers like James Baldwin, Martin Luther King, Sherman Alexi, etc. tell us that the past is always present, and we must work to reflect and improve on it.
    • Whiteness is a social construct and isn’t meant to focus on someone’s skin color.
  • Any individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress.
    
    • Agreed. But let us not confuse empathy with guilt, anguish, and distress.
    • Teaching and discussion are meant to facilitate learning. We are not teaching students to feel a particular way.
  • A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist.
    
    • Focus on addressing that we don’t teach that something is “inherent”
  • The United States was created by members of a particular race or sex for the purpose of oppressing members of another race or sex.
    
    • Again, the purpose was not to oppress. But it was an outcome.
  • The United States government should be violently overthrown.
  • Particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex.
    
    • Agreed.
  • The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.
    
    • Nobody states the rule of law does not exist. Rather, they state it is not innate to any society and is socially constructed. This is an inarguable fact.
  • All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    
    • We will continue to teach that the social constructs that lead to power and oppression are in no way natural, but man-made. As a result, whatever the Creator is may indeed bestow a semblance of equality that is marred once a human enters into a socially constructed world. But in principle, we agree.
  • Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
    
    • Ok, agreed.