Many of us grew up in educational systems where things like math, science, grammar, literature and other subjects meant to make you a better, more well-rounded, more successful person were emphasized. The current generation moving through public education is not so lucky.
Our contemporary education systems, from K-12 through so-called “higher education” are dominated by acronyms such as CRT (Critical Race Theory), SEL (Social Emotional Learning), and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion).
CRT is best, most-honestly described as “[…] a corrosive racialist ideology that undermines American institutions, it teaches citizens to categorize one another on the basis of race, and it presents a dark and twisted view of U.S. history.” In a nutshell, it stresses that ALL the world’s problems are the fault of straight, white, men.
SEL is a close cousin to CRT. It can best be characterized as centering on “[…] transforming inequitable settings and systems, and promoting justice-oriented civic engagement.” In other words, it guides the little kiddies along the path to becoming good little left-wing activists. All on our tax dime.
Arguably the most insidious member of this trio is DEI. Renowned education policy scholar Jay Schalin characterizes it like this:
[…]Academia is especially vulnerable to such linguistic subterfuge, and in the past year, many universities have greatly advanced the radical agenda through “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) policies. To most people who still understand those three words according to their traditional meanings, such policies sound benign or enlightening; many would be open to basing guidelines on them.
However, in the lexicon of today’s left-leaning academic bureaucracies, those words—taken individually or together—have new, specific meanings with a sinister bent.
The traditional definition of “diversity” generally means some sort of variation within a population. But it has undergone several transitions in recent times. First, it has been given a normative spin with connotations of goodness—“diversity is our strength,” for example—that Americans have largely accepted. But more recently, a second twist has occurred: The word “diversity” is now used as a descriptor for preferred demographic groups. An all-black gathering is considered to be diverse, while an all-white gathering is not. “Diverse” can even be used to describe an individual if they belong to the right demographic, a meaning that is completely incongruous and seems to be a contradiction of the word’s original definition.
“Equity” is perhaps the most troubling of the three terms. A Minding the Campus article discusses the etymology of the word; a close synonym of its historical meaning is “fairness.” And we’re all for fairness. But fairness, without context or further elaboration, is an elusive concept. Which version of fairness is meant? Is it based on pure meritocracy? Or maybe a sliding scale that mixes merit with indications of compassion and empathy? Or outright equality of outcomes?
According to the Minding the Campus article, “in the last several decades, and certainly in the last 5-10 years, the term equity has been stretched and twisted” into “a weapon to bludgeon our modern society into denying even the most basic differences between human beings.”
It now means that protected classes of people must have proportionate representation—or better—since “the mere fact that achievement gaps exist” between different demographic groups “is taken as proof that there is some inequity that must be remedied.” Those who use the word equity in this fashion invariably claim that the inequity is not due to the actions of individuals, but due to systemic bias, and that the structure of society or of an institution must undergo drastic changes to eliminate this bias.
Inclusion—once an innocent term intended to mean that all are permitted to attain membership in a group according to that group’s rules—now implies proportionate representation, even if the traditional standards for membership must be relaxed or altered to achieve such representation. Furthermore, it must be remembered that to include somebody in a group with a fixed capacity is to exclude somebody else who would otherwise be included.[…]
DEI, like CRT and SEL, is basically a back-door method for indoctrinating your kids toward socialism and Marxism. White, straight, church-going males are the problem, and have been so from the very start. The system must be manipulated to make things, um, “right.” Everyone — other than straight, white, religious males — is pigeon-holed into their respective “oppressed” groups and given “benefits” to help them, um, “recover” from said “oppression.”
These three acronyms are, in some form, infesting every one of our public education institutions. The professional edu-crats and the various & sundry university Education Department faculty have made sure of that.
You can find these acronyms rotting young, impressionable minds in places like Durham, San Francisco, and NYC. You can even find it happening on Airport Road in the heart of bright-red, rock-ribbed conservative Moore County, North Carolina.
Sandhills Community College announced the hiring of a Dean of Diversity in 2015. The college’s web site has a whole page devoted to DEI and the college’s commitment to incorporating its philosophy in all of its operations. There is also a standing DEI committee to oversee that incorporation.
It’s pretty fair to compare DEI employees to “political officers” in totalitarian governments from The Cold War days. Their job is to make sure their colleagues and workplace are “keeping the faith.”
Here’s a Sandhills Community College administrator “selling” DEI to college staff and faculty:
Read the above email in full HERE.
(More to come ….)