The DEI Lie

Fraud so transparent, most people can't see it.

A Solution in Search of a Problem

Are there any schools left without a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Director? As of January, 2022, public K-12 schools had already spent $21M on DEI programs since George Floyd’s death, and that’s not counting the ongoing salary commitments they’ve made to those DEI Director positions.

But what are they paying for? What should taxpayers, parents, students, and even teachers, expect from these programs, and the people in this role? Considering the massive amount of money being spent, you’d think we’d have seen evidence by now, that George Floyd’s killing was at least correlated to a nationwide problem in K12 schools. I’ve searched high and low for that evidence though, and have yet to find it.

Nevertheless, we’re committed now, so I sure hope there are specific, measurable goals for DEI. I also hope there are transparency and accountability measures in place to ensure they’re being met, and a timeframe within which to achieve them. How will they know they’ve solved the problem they claim exists?

Or are we supposed to accept DEIs failure at the start? Should it really take 13 years (plus all the DEI adults are getting in Higher Ed, and the workplace) to effect the (allegedly) positive change DEI’s proponents claim it, and only it, can achieve?

Has anyone even paused to ask this question, or am I the only one? Feel free to chime in below, it gets lonely here on Skeptical Island.

Chances are your district has hired one of these DEI directors, or is paying a DEI consultant tens, or even hundreds of thousands of your hard-earned tax dollars, without even making a perfunctory effort to clearly and objectively define the problem DEI is meant to solve!

If you doubt me, go check. Chances are you’ll see something like the job description below, for the Piedmont California Unified School District:

The DEI position established by the PUSD board was created to address the district’s 5-year priorities plan related to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. Specific goals as stated on the PUSD website include “fighting racism as an institution, maintaining an inclusive and welcoming environment for all students, staff and families, eradicating opportunity gaps for students who identify as Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC), providing equitable access, inclusion, treatment, resource distribution, and opportunities for learning and achievement for all students.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is nothing specific or objective about “fighting racism as an institution,” or “maintaining an inclusive and welcoming environment for all students, staff and families.”

Every one of those is subjective and, I might add, something one would hope goes without saying in a district dominated by Biden voters. What racism are they fighting? Where is it exactly? The existing administrators (and as this org chart shows, there are quite a few of them ) couldn’t get rid of the racism without this one more person?

What evidence do they have that the district isn’t “inclusive,” or “welcoming,” and more importantly, if it’s been decided it’s not, who decided that? Why is the district listening to them? What kind of evidence, and consensus did it take to commit to a six-figure salary, and office endowed with the power to audit, and recommend changes to everything from the curriculum, to the teaching staff, to their own supervising administrator?

I sure hope it was incontrovertible. That’s a whole lot of money and power for one person.

My hypothesis, for which there’s more evidence each day than I’ve been able to find that DEI Directors and consultants were necessary in the first place: we are just seeing the fruits of 50+ years of ‘social justice’ education.

What we’re seeing is just the logical progression of teaching a couple of generations of Americans a curriculum that paints the United States as the bad guy in every History lesson (especially the Atlantic slave trade), ignores education about natural rights and the blessings of liberty, demonizes capitalism, exalts collectivism, and apologizes outright for the horrors of communism (‘it was never properly tried” or “capitalists corrupted it’).

We have been the frogs in the pot, watching political activists take over K12 without really trying to hide it. Some of us wrote it off as a phase, others assumed benign intent, and believed their children could, or would, take only the good intentions, and leave behind the the collectivism and utopian fantasies.

Perhaps you’ve even said this a time or two:

'If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain'
- Unknown, often incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill, but he never said it, nor would he have given his political record.

So my argument is, DEI Directors and consultants are merely the ‘commissars’ charged with enforcing strict adherence to those teachings.

“Equity” is a euphemism for “racial discrimination.”

Let’s work backwards with the acronym itself, and start with equity. The Glossary of Education Reform, defines it as follows:

Let’s dissect this a bit:

• What is their definition of “fairness,” and who gets to decide?

• What does “…that may be considered fair, but not necessarily equal” mean?

• This “—what is fair and just—may not, in the process of educating students, reflect strict equality” sounds a whole lot like “separate but equal is unconstitutional, but together, but UN-equal is fine.”

Do you think it’s the job of the government-run, taxpayer-funded system to decide who needs more time, human attention, and access to material resources? That’s what they’re saying in these statements though.

Do you trust representatives of the government to do this “fairly,” or do you think perhaps, maybe, there’s a possibility the people in charge of making those decisions might use that authority to, I dunno….advance their political agenda, or ideological goals?

Ponder these questions for a while and get back to me.

My argument is, taking taxpayer monies, compelling student attendance, and then giving those students UN-equal time, attention, and access to material resources based on race, is “racial discrimination,” it’s unconstitutional, and ought to be called out as such.

“Diversity” in all things but thought.

Critical Theory, the basis of the “anti-racist education” DEI Directors are tasked with implementing and enforcing, holds that all academic outcome disparities are the result of imbalances in power and privilege.

Effort? Talent? Intelligence? Character? Radom distribution (i.e., “luck”)? Nah, just the two: power and privilege, both of which are distributed from a fixed-pie. If a white student has good grades, it’s because he has “white privilege;” if a black student has poor grades, it’s because the white student “white privilege.” If an Asian student does well, it’s evidence of “internalized racism,” and if a black student does well, it’s “interest convergence” with white supremacy.

It’s like a social science Snickers bar: No matter how you slice it, it comes up racist.

The solution? DEI of course! Redistribute power and privilege by submitting to the DEI Director’s enforcement of anti-racism and “equity practices.”

So parsing their word-salad to get to the meaning of what they’re saying: what is “fair and just,” or “equitable” in an anti-racist school would be “discrimination” against the students whose alleged power and privilege are causing any racially-identifiable outcome disparities.

DEI practices, like Equity Audits of administrators and teachers, and prescriptions, like mandatory Black History courses in High School, make it clear that “celebrating diversity” of thought is the last thing DEI is about.

It seems more appropriate to describe what they do as institutionalizing Lockstep Ideological Exclusivity (or LIE, for short).

The success of this lie relies on a special form of gaslighting, or disputing the reality you see with your own eyes. If you challenge any part of the DEI Director’s claims or prescriptions, you’re not opening the floor for debate, or even asking legitimate questions, you are proving Critical Theory right: you are a racist.

Yes, conveniently, challengers to the DEI lie are described as evidence of the problem. What’s more, given the DEI Director’s reporting and enforcement power in your school district, challengers may be reported to employers, child protective services, even the police and FBI.

Remember, they (and their counterparts who are now ubiquitous in all the other institutions I just listed) are problem-solvers! They are there to “root out” and “eradicate” the “systemic racism” challengers (allegedly) represent.

If this is you, you’ll likely be told your concerns are evidence you don’t want to lose your power and privilege (if you’re white), or have internalized racism if you’re not. Just as there can be only one reason (racism) black and brown students are doing less well academically, there can be only one reason (racism) anyone would disagree with DEI Initiatives, and the people empowered by them.

This kind of gaslighting is called a Kafka Trap:

Kafkatrap (plural Kafkatraps)

1. A sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.

Exclusive Inclusion.

So what do we have so far? Equity is not about fairness, and diversity is not about differences of opinion. That means, by default, “inclusion” is about exclusion.
How can you be “inclusive” when your school makes it so clear there’s only one right way to think, and all other ways are racist or -phobic?

How welcome are you going to feel when you’re told that your questions, or comments about any of this are further evidence of one of the gravest of all character flaws?

Answer: you’re not.

DEI is self-perpetuating. Discrimination and exclusion, coupled with Kafkatraps and remediation for dissenters, will create an environment where everyone is perpetually sizing up and reporting on each other’s power and privilege. This is unlikely to create a feeling of trust, and belonging. On the contrary, it’s likely to create real racism, helped along by self-segregation into “racial affinity groups.”

So what will the people allegedly tasked with ending racism on the K12 campus say then? Whom will they blame when things are worse, not better? The same people of course! Why not? Once we accept the absurd premise that people claiming to solve our problems should be the ones to identify, define and diagnose those problems, we have become what P.T. Barnum might have called “suckers.”

Insist on the truth.

So what’s the solution? How do we stop being suckers? Start by insisting on the truth, from yourself.

“When truth is replaced by silence,the silence is a lie.” ― Yevgeny Yevtushenko

I’m not suggesting you run over to the DEI office and call them liars, I’m saying ask more questions. Don’t accept their premises at face value. Press for data, and ask what controls were used when gathering the data. The phrases “How do you know,” and “Compared to what,” need to pepper your conversation.

In the unlikely event you get straight answers, you’ll likely be horrified by their candor, as they admit to their plan to operate as political operatives within the K12 system, monitoring opposition, and indoctrinating children to be political allies.

In the more likely event you get called a racist, keep questioning, but perhaps with the assistance of legal counsel for protection. Ask if your children have the same right to ask what you’re asking, but in the classroom. The answer should be yes and if it’s not, you have your proof that DEI is a LIE.