The AIC should be ashamed of every part of this, starting with not paying the docents in the first place. That’s the whole reason the program was very white despite their recruitment efforts (lol, can you imagine them on South Side recruiting for an unpaid job?)
They were basically exploiting the elderly for free labor, and when they got called out for the demographics, they took this approach to improve the optics while spending the minimal amount of money. True justice would involve paying all workers—and it would make those DEI recruitment efforts a lot more successful too.
Your suggestion is absurd. Any organization that can persuade people to work for free should do so. Their allegiance should be to the organization rather than to socialism or another political ideology. Employees exist to benefit the organizations that employ them so employees shouldn't be hired when they're unnecessary.
There is actually quite a bit of payment for the "unpaid" docents; getting to see every exhibit for free, access to the backrooms of the museum and its unshown collection, getting to hob-nob with the donors, etc. All of these things are valuable, and getting them is not free but an exchange of labor satisfactory to both sides.
Great, great piece, albeit terribly heartbreaking.
You're one of the few people that gets it: this movement has nothing to do with leftism, liberalism, progressivism, egalitarianism, social justice or equality. Although those words are thrown around with wild aplomb, it seems to me that the actions of this group are uniformly doing the opposite. Every time I see Biden incoherently mumble about "Jim Crow on steroids" or a "white man's idea of infrastructure," I just can't believe how far this has gone so quickly.
Your "ideological shield for the status quo" is perfect. It reminds me of an Adolph Reed quote about this new movement in a piece from around 2016 when he called young activists (I'm paraphrasing) "not leftists, but the left flank of the neoliberal class". I've since adjusted that quote in my own thinking to this new, permanent activist class being the angry militant enforcers of the neoliberal status quo. We're talking about a group that isn't fighting for the rights of labor — they outwardly hate labor and actual laborers . They're fighting to increase an intentionally impenetrable and incompetent permanent bureaucracy with soft, no-stress, no-skill subsistence jobs for all (but only if you think the right way, otherwise nothing).
Yes smoke screen so that corporates have a proper framing unless of course the donors sincerely support the ideology. Equity is more than philosophy X (not based on evidence). it is also an infrastructure that monitors, coerces, punishes and silences. Anyone who has ideas or evidence that contradicts equity is banned from discussion. Due process is deliberately and strategically obstructed across institutions.
> These academic minders will “work with other instructors to revise their syllabi, including helping instructors identify work by Black and other scholars of color to include in their courses.” In other words, it’s a committee that monitors what professors teach to Berkeley students to make sure it’s in doctrinal alignment with the ideology of “Anti-Racism.”
Referring to the above quoted passage, I read the first sentence as reflecting a neutral effort to diversify cited works and thereby show how nonwhites (along with whites) have developed scholarship in different fields. The second sentence, through the phrase "in other words," purports to reformulate the message conveyed by the first sentence. But the second sentence actually makes a different claim: that including "work by Black and other scholars of color" constitutes a "doctrinal [re]alignment." But while diversifying cited works could alter doctrine, it doesn't have to—indeed, citing diverse works could bolster existing doctrine, depending on the content of the diverse works. (Even if the syllabi revisions aim to "actively confront the legacies of racism within sociology," I'm not sure that active confrontation is itself a bad thing unless the outcome is foreordained. Which it might be.)
I teach legal writing. Many scholars in the field and some of the best recognized legal writers (John Roberts, Robert Jackson, John Marshall) are white. I see no problem with exposing my students to scholars and legal writers of different backgrounds. It's unlikely to affect the substance of my teaching, but I don't doubt that it's beneficial for all students to encounter diversity in authorship and perspective.
I say this as someone who tends to be "hair on fire" about Successor Ideology and wokeness and "antiracism." But it seems equally important to recognize that presenting diverse voices is not the same as realigning doctrine.
First off, here's the full language so you can assess:
"Syllabi Revisions: Graduate students will be paid to begin refining course syllabi to incorporate scholars of color, particularly Black scholars, throughout the curriculum. They will begin by reviewing syllabi to identify instructors who have already revised their curricula to better incorporate scholars of color and actively confront the legacies of racism within sociology. In Year 1, the syllabi team of students will work with those instructors to develop a toolkit for syllabi revision. This toolkit will be grounded by educational resources designed to foster a critical dialogue within the department around the importance of designing inclusive syllabi and integrating critical perspectives on knowledge production. This toolkit will also include quantitative and qualitative heuristics for instructors to evaluate the inclusiveness of their syllabi and to guide course design. In Years 2 through 4, the syllabi team will use this toolkit to work with other instructors to revise their syllabi, including helping instructors identify work by Black and other scholars of color to include in their courses. This team will address undergraduate and graduate theory courses in Year 2, methods courses in Year 3, and substantive topics courses in Year 4."
I don't think anyone has a problem with having writers of diverse backgrounds. That seems uncontroversial. But having a committee that reviews your choices to ensure you meet some standard is another thing entirely. And you also have to take into account the current cultural context. An innocent, friendly "review" isn't so innocent and friendly when it's done with the understanding that falling out of favor with the reviewers is likely to result in social and professional consequences.
I appreciate the response. It's also been a while since I was a graduate student, and that was in mechanical engineering (law school is more like an extension of undergrad, so I don't count that), so I'm probably speaking out of turn insofar as I'm assuming how things work in modern social-science graduate school.
That said, when I read that graduate students would review professors' syllabi, I assumed that professors could take some suggestions and leave others. But I take your point that the current context can lend sinister overtones (or worse) to a "friendly" review.
Having reviewed the whole paragraph, my hackles go up at "integrating critical perspectives on knowledge production." To start with, it's jargon, so I don't know what it means. But it suggests (given the context) an overhaul of foundational things like scientific method and the goal of objectivity. I'm afraid of overhauls.
There is also the fact that most if not all PhD candidates are very familiar with the body of work that they are referencing, use those sources on a daily basis, and weed out the unsatisfactory works as being unsuitable for their needs. Couple that with the embracing of diversity across the academy in general, and much of this is both silly and totalitarian.
You wrote "... Oakland, implemented a supplemental basic income program for poor families that likewise used race as a criterion for eligibility, until it was forced to quietly walk it back after a spate of bad publicity." But the linked article (https://www.kqed.org/news/11867881/oakland-guaranteed-income-program-now-says-its-not-exclusively-for-people-of-color) says “We have not changed the program," said Justin Berton, communications director for Mayor Libby Schaaf. "We have had to clarify that while no family is prohibited from applying, this pilot is intentionally designed to serve and support BIPOC families..." This seems to say anyone can apply but white people won't be served. Is there any data on the demographics of the people selected for the program?
"The smokescreen of anti-Semitism" No defense of Kendi, but Weiss is no better and you make a distinction among censorious bigots. It's silly. You get away with it only within your circle, and your circle is shrinking.
You've misread the 990 for FII-National. They had $170+ million in revenue in 2020. That doesn't mean they have $170 million in the bank. Their assets at the end of the year were $54 million, and not all of that may be "in the bank."
As someone who works in the non-profit industry, I definitely agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think that much of the "diversity" push is actually a way for the powerful to retain power, consolidate it even. They're not threatened by the idea of letting their ranks become more racially diverse; that won't take any power, or money, away from them. Really questioning the structure and operation of power would; but DEI programs don't do that.
The AIC should be ashamed of every part of this, starting with not paying the docents in the first place. That’s the whole reason the program was very white despite their recruitment efforts (lol, can you imagine them on South Side recruiting for an unpaid job?)
They were basically exploiting the elderly for free labor, and when they got called out for the demographics, they took this approach to improve the optics while spending the minimal amount of money. True justice would involve paying all workers—and it would make those DEI recruitment efforts a lot more successful too.
Your suggestion is absurd. Any organization that can persuade people to work for free should do so. Their allegiance should be to the organization rather than to socialism or another political ideology. Employees exist to benefit the organizations that employ them so employees shouldn't be hired when they're unnecessary.
There is actually quite a bit of payment for the "unpaid" docents; getting to see every exhibit for free, access to the backrooms of the museum and its unshown collection, getting to hob-nob with the donors, etc. All of these things are valuable, and getting them is not free but an exchange of labor satisfactory to both sides.
It's a given that they get in for free, paid membership is a requirement for being in the docent program to begin with.
Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
-Ibrahim Kendi
Great, great piece, albeit terribly heartbreaking.
You're one of the few people that gets it: this movement has nothing to do with leftism, liberalism, progressivism, egalitarianism, social justice or equality. Although those words are thrown around with wild aplomb, it seems to me that the actions of this group are uniformly doing the opposite. Every time I see Biden incoherently mumble about "Jim Crow on steroids" or a "white man's idea of infrastructure," I just can't believe how far this has gone so quickly.
Your "ideological shield for the status quo" is perfect. It reminds me of an Adolph Reed quote about this new movement in a piece from around 2016 when he called young activists (I'm paraphrasing) "not leftists, but the left flank of the neoliberal class". I've since adjusted that quote in my own thinking to this new, permanent activist class being the angry militant enforcers of the neoliberal status quo. We're talking about a group that isn't fighting for the rights of labor — they outwardly hate labor and actual laborers . They're fighting to increase an intentionally impenetrable and incompetent permanent bureaucracy with soft, no-stress, no-skill subsistence jobs for all (but only if you think the right way, otherwise nothing).
Yes smoke screen so that corporates have a proper framing unless of course the donors sincerely support the ideology. Equity is more than philosophy X (not based on evidence). it is also an infrastructure that monitors, coerces, punishes and silences. Anyone who has ideas or evidence that contradicts equity is banned from discussion. Due process is deliberately and strategically obstructed across institutions.
> These academic minders will “work with other instructors to revise their syllabi, including helping instructors identify work by Black and other scholars of color to include in their courses.” In other words, it’s a committee that monitors what professors teach to Berkeley students to make sure it’s in doctrinal alignment with the ideology of “Anti-Racism.”
Referring to the above quoted passage, I read the first sentence as reflecting a neutral effort to diversify cited works and thereby show how nonwhites (along with whites) have developed scholarship in different fields. The second sentence, through the phrase "in other words," purports to reformulate the message conveyed by the first sentence. But the second sentence actually makes a different claim: that including "work by Black and other scholars of color" constitutes a "doctrinal [re]alignment." But while diversifying cited works could alter doctrine, it doesn't have to—indeed, citing diverse works could bolster existing doctrine, depending on the content of the diverse works. (Even if the syllabi revisions aim to "actively confront the legacies of racism within sociology," I'm not sure that active confrontation is itself a bad thing unless the outcome is foreordained. Which it might be.)
I teach legal writing. Many scholars in the field and some of the best recognized legal writers (John Roberts, Robert Jackson, John Marshall) are white. I see no problem with exposing my students to scholars and legal writers of different backgrounds. It's unlikely to affect the substance of my teaching, but I don't doubt that it's beneficial for all students to encounter diversity in authorship and perspective.
I say this as someone who tends to be "hair on fire" about Successor Ideology and wokeness and "antiracism." But it seems equally important to recognize that presenting diverse voices is not the same as realigning doctrine.
First off, here's the full language so you can assess:
"Syllabi Revisions: Graduate students will be paid to begin refining course syllabi to incorporate scholars of color, particularly Black scholars, throughout the curriculum. They will begin by reviewing syllabi to identify instructors who have already revised their curricula to better incorporate scholars of color and actively confront the legacies of racism within sociology. In Year 1, the syllabi team of students will work with those instructors to develop a toolkit for syllabi revision. This toolkit will be grounded by educational resources designed to foster a critical dialogue within the department around the importance of designing inclusive syllabi and integrating critical perspectives on knowledge production. This toolkit will also include quantitative and qualitative heuristics for instructors to evaluate the inclusiveness of their syllabi and to guide course design. In Years 2 through 4, the syllabi team will use this toolkit to work with other instructors to revise their syllabi, including helping instructors identify work by Black and other scholars of color to include in their courses. This team will address undergraduate and graduate theory courses in Year 2, methods courses in Year 3, and substantive topics courses in Year 4."
I don't think anyone has a problem with having writers of diverse backgrounds. That seems uncontroversial. But having a committee that reviews your choices to ensure you meet some standard is another thing entirely. And you also have to take into account the current cultural context. An innocent, friendly "review" isn't so innocent and friendly when it's done with the understanding that falling out of favor with the reviewers is likely to result in social and professional consequences.
I appreciate the response. It's also been a while since I was a graduate student, and that was in mechanical engineering (law school is more like an extension of undergrad, so I don't count that), so I'm probably speaking out of turn insofar as I'm assuming how things work in modern social-science graduate school.
That said, when I read that graduate students would review professors' syllabi, I assumed that professors could take some suggestions and leave others. But I take your point that the current context can lend sinister overtones (or worse) to a "friendly" review.
Having reviewed the whole paragraph, my hackles go up at "integrating critical perspectives on knowledge production." To start with, it's jargon, so I don't know what it means. But it suggests (given the context) an overhaul of foundational things like scientific method and the goal of objectivity. I'm afraid of overhauls.
There is also the fact that most if not all PhD candidates are very familiar with the body of work that they are referencing, use those sources on a daily basis, and weed out the unsatisfactory works as being unsuitable for their needs. Couple that with the embracing of diversity across the academy in general, and much of this is both silly and totalitarian.
Another great piece. I do wonder where it all ends.
You wrote "... Oakland, implemented a supplemental basic income program for poor families that likewise used race as a criterion for eligibility, until it was forced to quietly walk it back after a spate of bad publicity." But the linked article (https://www.kqed.org/news/11867881/oakland-guaranteed-income-program-now-says-its-not-exclusively-for-people-of-color) says “We have not changed the program," said Justin Berton, communications director for Mayor Libby Schaaf. "We have had to clarify that while no family is prohibited from applying, this pilot is intentionally designed to serve and support BIPOC families..." This seems to say anyone can apply but white people won't be served. Is there any data on the demographics of the people selected for the program?
"The smokescreen of anti-Semitism" No defense of Kendi, but Weiss is no better and you make a distinction among censorious bigots. It's silly. You get away with it only within your circle, and your circle is shrinking.
Oh great, you again.
You had no response to my comments other than whine. You said you don't hang with racists, but you do. At least you admitted you don't defend freedom of speech. https://leightonwoodhouse.substack.com/p/kmele-foster-anna-khachiyan-and-lee/comment/3040043
Tell me, I an anti-Semite? A self-hating Jew?
Bari Weiss is famous for trying to get people fired. At this point even the Financial Times thinks it's all a bit much
https://www.ft.com/content/5d840a5c-fa0c-4d08-9574-59f0d3e8c703?shareType=nongift
I wasn't aware this was a deposition.
I grew up with lawyers. They know how to make a point. You make claims; they don't hold up.
You didn't learn much from them apparently. All you do is call people I like racists and then dare me to defend them. It's stupid.
I dare you to defend them, and you do, as you defend "nuanced" censorship. Keep digging
https://twitter.com/byjoelanderson/status/1268654308205006848?lang=en
You've misread the 990 for FII-National. They had $170+ million in revenue in 2020. That doesn't mean they have $170 million in the bank. Their assets at the end of the year were $54 million, and not all of that may be "in the bank."
Thanks, I'll take a look and correct if needed.
As someone who works in the non-profit industry, I definitely agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think that much of the "diversity" push is actually a way for the powerful to retain power, consolidate it even. They're not threatened by the idea of letting their ranks become more racially diverse; that won't take any power, or money, away from them. Really questioning the structure and operation of power would; but DEI programs don't do that.
*Exactly.*