#erec smith

By: Erec Smith

Published: Feb 24, 2024

My impetus for dedicating the bulk of my career to combatting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives began on a listserv for Rhetoric and Composition, the field in which I teach as a professor. Upon hearing a well-received speech claiming that the teaching of Standard English to Black students was a form of racism, I wrote an email questioning the efficacy of that argument. My inquiry induced a level of opprobrium I did not expect. I was called a white supremacist, and blatant lies were spread about me on social media.

Besides these robust attempts to degrade me, I noticed a consistent infantilization of anyone Black who was “brave” enough to speak up against me. Mind you, this extremely woke listserv was a safe place to voice disdain for anyone who refused to embrace a victim narrative—no bravery required—but in order to abide by that narrative, anyone Black had to be cast as a downtrodden victim punching up and speaking truth to power. Anyone Black except me, of course. For wanting Black students to have the utmost agency and to flourish in today’s society, I, a Black man, was shunned by whites and Blacks alike.

The U.S. is currently celebrating Black History Month, and I’ve been asked to share my thoughts about how this month of celebration aligns with DEI initiatives. The answer to that question depends on the type of DEI. Some DEI initiatives align with the classical liberal values of the civil rights movement, and indeed of America’s founding, such as freedom and equal opportunity for all, regardless of skin color. Other versions of DEI, however, are undergirded by critical social justice (CSJ), an ideology that pits whites and Blacks against each other; whites are perpetual oppressors, and Blacks are perpetually oppressed. This variation of DEI, which I refer to as CSJ-DEI, is the ideology that was on display during the aforementioned listserv debacle. It insists on the perpetual victim status of Black Americans and, in so doing, is ideologically opposed to the celebration of Black Americans because it focuses on their trials, not their triumphs. Black History Month is supposed to be about Black empowerment, but CSJ-DEI depends on Black disempowerment.

One can get the gist of CSJ by understanding its primary tenet: “The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but rather ‘how did racism manifest in that situation?’” This philosophy assumes that racism is always already a part of any interaction between whites and nonwhites; one just has to find it. Assessing the facts of a particular situation is considered unnecessary, even naive. One need not think when it comes to racial justice; the narrative—the script—does the thinking. Does this lack of agency, this deference of volition to a pre-scripted narrative, sound empowering?

CSJ-DEI is about leaning into to the “downtrodden Black person” narrative, but that narrative does not align with the reality of today’s America. Forget about the growing presence of current or recent Black immigrants and the enhanced socioeconomic status of many Black Americans today. According to the altered reality of CSJ-DEI, Black people must still be seen as irredeemably oppressed. Scholars Julian Adorney and Jake Mackey call this altered reality a “virtuous lie,” defined as “a false or dubious claim that is asserted without qualification because it is thought to advance an ethical agenda.” Exaggerated police statistics and the insistence that Black Americans are still caught in a form of slavery are just the tips of this “virtuous” iceberg.  

Virtuous lies are anything but virtuous in these situations, but they show up in traditionally virtuous places, such as scholarly journals. In the scientific journal Cell, prominent scientists insist that the Black individuals among their ranks “continue to suffer institutional slavery.” In addition, a philosophy professor argues that the “years 1492 and 1619 and 1857 and 1955 are still now” and insists she means this in “a meaningful, non-metaphorical sense” (my emphasis). The absurdity of these statements is matched, if not eclipsed, only by the fact that these authors were confident their arguments would be taken seriously. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was emboldened enough to say that a false narrative is acceptable if it feels “morally right”; to insist on facts is to be misguided.

Black History Month is too good for CSJ-DEI. It is about the celebration of figures in Black history who beat seemingly insurmountable odds. It is about figures like educator Mary McLeod Bethune, lawyer Samuel J. Lee, congressman Josiah T. Walls and many others of whom most are unaware. I firmly believe that these figures would scoff at CSJ-inspired ideas such as equitable math, the demonization of debate and the violence of teaching Standard English to Black students.

[ Autodidact, reformer and orator Frederick Douglass. ]

The misalignment of Black History Month with CSJ-DEI is exemplified by one of the most consistently celebrated figures of Black history: Frederick Douglass. As a slave, Douglass taught himself to read despite the fact that it was illegal. He had to be astute enough to be autodidactic and clever enough to do it without getting caught. When he escaped into the free states, he rose to become the most sought-after orator of the 19th century. Douglass’ life is an implicit counterargument to the CSJ-DEI narrative: If Douglass could accomplish this as a slave two centuries ago, what excuses do Black people have for embracing victimhood today, in a truly free society of which Douglass could only dream?  

By: Erec Smith

Published: May 17, 2024

Recently, the University of North Carolina‐​Chapel Hill Board of Trustees voted, unanimously, to divert money from its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives into public safety. This is on the heels of other institutions shuttering diversity offices and laying off or repurposing positions focused on DEI work. Are we starting to see a trend? Is this the beginning of a “Great Diversion”?

Contemporary DEI initiatives have been a point of contention for years now. Anti‐​DEI sentiment, which does not necessarily mean an aversion to the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion per se, grows with every exposition of DEI’s driving ideology, Critical Social Justice, which is inherently divisive, illiberal, and, actually, racist.

However, any opposition to DEI programs is usually seen as a right‐​wing attack on anything that can improve the lives of minoritized groups. That accusation holds more water in response to calls for the eradication of DEI initiatives. But the diversion of DEI funds to another worthwhile endeavor—that is, trading one good for another good—is harder to scrutinize.

Yes, UNC‐​Chapel Hill has chosen to divert DEI’s funding to public safety to prevent disruption of university operations. Whether the good of public safety constitutes a “good for good” trade is understandably debatable. However, DEI funds can also be diverted to initiatives more clearly aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion in the true sense of those words. Initially, I thought of outreach and immersion programs.

Outreach programs geared toward K‑12 students are created by colleges and universities in collaboration with local high schools to help students understand what is necessary to get into college, what they need to do to prepare, and what to expect when they get there. When I say “immersive,” I refer to outreach programs where students visit campuses and experience what it is to be a college student or a particular major. According to the Compass Education Group’s “Guide to Successful Outreach Programs,” students and colleges benefit from such programs in distinct ways.

According to Compass, outreach programs can achieve the following for students: clarify career goals, assistance with access to resources, assistance with the application process, academic advising, introduction to a college’s academic support services, and, obviously, better prepare students for college‐​level work. This kind of outreach can assuage any “culture shock” that may set in among students from marginalized communities. It can also introduce students to the necessary merits for college success at a younger age, thus demystifying academic merits.

The benefits to participating colleges include greater student readiness, better resource management, and increases in enrollment, retention, and, of course, diversity. Regarding diversity, Compass does not mince words: “Helping these students prepare for and transition to postsecondary education helps colleges meet their diversity goals.” Redistributing money from DEI initiatives to outreach programs that can be geared toward underrepresented students may be a better way to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion. Perhaps outreach programs are the new—and more effective—DEI initiative.

Several colleges already have outreach programs that, typically, take place in the summer. However, with sufficient funding, these programs can become more robust. In fact, non‐​profit organizations exist to do that. For example, The Hidden Genius Project, started by five black professionals, “trains and mentors Black male youth in technology creation, entrepreneurship, and leadership skills to transform their lives and communities.” This project has locations all over the country and offers a variety of programs to introduce students to entrepreneurs, leaders, and technologists through either single or multiday events or deeper and longer immersion into a professional culture. What’s more, this project’s effects align with concepts important to DEI initiatives, like cultural representation.

Hidden Genius alum, Tehillah Hephzibah says,

Growing up, I was never really in a place where a majority of the people looked like me. In the program, I enjoyed being around people who look more like myself and connecting with them. Throughout my life, all of the schools I attended were predominantly white or Hispanic students so joining The Hidden Genius Project was a sigh of relief and comfort for me.

Another program graduate, Brandon Bazile, shares a similar sentiment.

As a Black man who has only ever had at most two other Black boys in my grade, to suddenly having a group of Black males who look like me was eye‐​opening. Being taught and surrounded by excellent Black minds, inspired me to believe that I could always better myself, which was a feeling I had never felt before.

This program is a clear source of agency and empowerment for young black students, a goal DEI proponents claim to have.

MIT’s Introduction to Technology, Engineering and Science (MITES) is an outreach program that has strong partnerships with universities nationwide. The program “provides transformative experiences that bolster confidence, create lifelong community, and build an exciting, challenging foundation in STEM for highly motivated 7th–12th grade students from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.” As with the Hidden Genius Project, representation and confidence building are some of the most salient effects of MITES.

Indigo Davitt‐​Liu, a graduate of the program, stated, “I’ve always loved math, but I always saw STEM kids as a group removed from me, a type of person I could never be. Through this program, I realized the true amount of diversity there is in STEM fields. I now see myself as part of a STEM community.” Also similar to the Hidden Genius Project, MITES immerses students in environments indicative of a given STEM field. This immersion helps students gain merits they would not have otherwise. MITE graduate Moses Stewart says,

MITES connected me with so many other brilliant and passionate people and gave me an avenue to explore a brighter future for myself. It gave me the opportunity to learn about career paths that would have otherwise been inaccessible. And, to apply and assert myself in challenging courses. Most of all, it gave me guidance and helped me grow into someone who is more confident, hard‐​working, and optimistic about the future.

The outcomes of MITES, the Hidden Genius Project, and comparable programs strongly suggest that funding for DEI programs that have proven to be more ineffective than effective could be put to better use elsewhere.

I must be clear, current DEI initiatives are often undergirded by Critical Social Justice, an ideology that frames the world into an oppressor/​oppressed dichotomy and insists that oppressive forces are present in every human interaction. Surely, funds should be diverted to initiatives that don’t promote divisiveness, resentment, and even a kind of racism. However, I believe diverting funds to immersive outreach programs for K‑12 students is so important that even DEI initiatives steeped in classical liberal values cannot be justified. Workshops on the history and nature of discrimination, cultural differences, and policy are important and should take place, but these things need not be expensive or necessarily whole offices.

No matter what ideological foundation a DEI program has, funds are better spent on programs like The Hidden Genius Project and MITES.

Editors’ note: On March 7, 2024, FBT President Erec Smith testified before Congress about DEI in higher education in an address to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development. We present a transcript of his remarks, with hyperlinks, below. A video of his remarks is available here.

By: Erec Smith

Published: Feb 10, 2024

My testimony before Congress

Chairman Owens, ranking and distinguished members of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, my name is Erec Smith and I am a research fellow at the Cato Institute. Thank you for giving me a platform to speak on the issue of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Higher Education. I have been faculty, I have been a writing program director, and I’ve even been a diversity officer.

DEI is built upon a foundation whose very mission is to perpetuate racism.

Contemporary DEI is not an extension of the Civil Rights Movement. It is undergirded by a quasi-Marxist ideology called Critical Social Justice. The primary tenet of Critical Social Justice is this: “The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but rather ‘how did racism manifest in that situation?’” So, according to Critical Social Justice, racism is always already taking place. There is no need to think for oneself; the narrative—one of perpetual oppression—does the thinking for you.

Another underlying concept of Critical Social Justice is prescriptive racism: the prescribing of certain values, attitudes, and behaviors onto someone based on race. To shirk these values, attitudes, and behaviors is to be inauthentic, to not be a true member of a particular racial group.

Questioning of this ideology is considered proof of your racism.

I have many stories to tell, but I will share one that illustrates these concepts and the general absurdity of Critical Social Justice.

A prominent figure in my field, which is Rhetoric and Composition, wrote a mass email requesting that people boycott an academic organization because he and others experienced racism during a committee meeting.

However, neither he nor anyone else would actually explain what happened. I wasn’t going to boycott an influential academic organization based on incomplete information, so I asked a simple question: What happened? For this I was vilified by colleagues of all colors and accused of perpetuating white supremacy. Merely asking the question—“what happened?”—was considered a form of racism. You see here that an accusation of racism cannot be questioned; remember, “The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but rather ‘how did racism manifest in that situation?’”

Another story involves two professors who always allow their black students to write in black vernacular (or African American Vernacular; some people say “Ebonics”). However, the students’ refusal to do so, because they were there to learn standardized English, was seen by these professors as a form self-hatred and internalized racism.

A prominent figure in my field, who is a self-proclaimed Marxist, went as far as to say these students were being “selfish” and “immature” for wanting to write in standardized English because that would just perpetuate a status quo of whiteness. As black students who wanted to write in standard English, they shirked the attitudes and values those professors prescribed to them as black students. Their desire to write in standard English was treated like a kind of pathology.

Whenever I hear stories like this, I always say the same thing to myself: Thank God these weren’t my professors when I was in college. I would have been steeped in negative emotionality and learned helplessness. If I had hopes and dreams, I would not have the courage to chase them.

I know some people out there are trying to do DEI in a way that does not assume racism at all times, does not prescribe behavior based on race, and does not shirk critical thinking to abide by a narrative. But those doing DEI undergirded by Critical Social Justice—and there are many—are not fighting racism. They are perpetuating racism.

I don’t know if you’ve all noticed yet, but I’m black and I’m against DEI. Why? Because I really like being black. And this ideology is infantilizing, it is anti-intellectual, and since I am a mature intellectual person, it doesn’t align with me. I am too good for contemporary DEI, and so are many others.

By: Erec Smith

Published: Jul 7, 2023

There is no such thing as a panacea; few things are actual cure‐​alls in themselves, especially when it pertains to social issues. However, the closest thing to a panacea for contemporary social injustice—both actual and perceived—is the concept of individualism. It is the closest foil to what is, arguably, the most dangerous aspect of critical social justice activism: race fatalism, i.e., the idea that especially minoritized groups have no locus of control and are at the mercy of their hegemonic oppressors.

Unfortunately, too many social justice activists embrace this fatalism and, both implicitly and explicitly, demonize individualism as an inherently oppressive, white supremacist concept.

Race fatalism cannot exist without the idea that all people from a given race experience the world similarly (race essentialism), and that we are forever defined by our home environments (linked fate), concepts that could not be more opposed to individualism. Thus, to embrace individualism is to relinquish faith in the fundamentals of critical social justice.

Fortunately, when individualism destroys these fundamentals steeped in powerlessness, it gives birth to agency and freedom conducive to an empowered and fulfilled life.

The most egregious aspects of critical social justice activism—now wryly and/​or disdainfully referred to as “woke” activism—can be considered footnotes of fatalism: skin‐​color and or gender determine if you are a perpetual oppressor or a perpetual victim; racism will never go away and can only be managed; black kids can’t learn math like other kids; all people who look the same or live in the same area are bound to a particular outlook and particular fate. All these suggest the “truth” of race essentialism, that racism is always already present, and that even words, if coming from an oppressor, are literal violence.

The power of this fatalism is weakened by the concept of methodological individualism, what can be understood as an embrace of free will with an acknowledgement that we live an interdependent existence, i.e., “no man is an island.”

In recent essays, I describe such individualism as an antidote to race essentialism and linked fate. In “Individualism is a Social Justice Issue,” I insist that the embrace of individualism can enhance racial justice through its implied refutation of linked fate and its conduciveness to defensive confidence.

Regarding linked fate, I write, “linked fate denotes the use of the social standing of a group as a proxy for one’s individual identity, i.e., an individual’s fate is inevitably and intricately linked to that of the group. Any individual that seems to escape this fate is considered an exception.” Linked fate depends on the debunked stimulus‐​response theory in behavioral science: the idea that people who share the same race or culture experience the world the same way. Senator Tim Scott’s passionate rebuttal of linked fate focuses on the idea that educational reform is the thing that can unlink fate most efficiently and instill a sense of agency in students, a sentiment elaborated upon by Ian Rowe.

Agency, or “agential fate,” a concept of individual efficacy I support in “Ditching Our Discourses of Doom” (excerpted here), “can be construed as a confluence of pre‐​established circumstances—one’s life experiences—combined with free will.” This concept necessitates the belief “that each individual in a particular context may react to stimulus in different ways; that they each may have a different desired future state; and that their decisions and choices matter in relation to achieving those future states, we enter into a place of agency, possibility, and hope.”

This agency, possibility, and hope imply the concept of defensive confidence I reference in a recent Discourse article. If people have defensive confidence—the confidence that one can successfully defend one’s ideas in given situations—they are more likely to engage the world more courageously as individuals unbeholden to a group and is, ironically, more likely to have one’s mind changed precisely because of this willingness to engage.

These concepts suggest the benefits individualism can have to a sense of social justice and, especially, in combatting the fatalism of social justice activism. Individuals can think independently, adapt to circumstances, and, therefore, more effectively exercise agential fate and defensive confidence, thus better ensuring an attempt to communicate across differences.

Sadly, the concept of individualism is almost anathema in critical social justice circles, in which group identity is favored and individualism is considered an oppressive concept. Race essentialism, which implies concepts like linked fate and group consciousness, is a foundational concept in critical social justice that is diametrically opposed to individualism.

Individualism is not only the best thing for curing the ills of social injustice; it is also, by nature, the downfall of critical social justice ideology. For this reason, maybe “panacea’s” more colloquial synonym, “magic bullet” would be more apropos.

[ Via: https://archive.is/KcRxu ]

==

By: Erec Smith

Published: Jun 17, 2023

The apparent goal of contemporary anti-racism activism — which is not the activism of the civil-rights era — is not to end racism but to perpetuate it.

At a former university where I taught and served as a diversity officer (yes, that happened), I had a meeting with the school’s black-student union. Toward the end of the meeting, I asked something to the effect of “Is your goal to be obsolete in the near future?”

Most of the students insisted that they didn’t understand the question. One student, who seemed to be the de facto leader of the group, expressed that he did understand and answered that the group would live on even if, ideally, racism went away. I didn’t have time for a good follow-up question, such as “Would your mission change and how?” But I did wonder.

Today, this question occupies my mind even more. Seemingly permanent organizations and protocols are being created that strongly suggest racism is here to stay. This seems inconsistent with the traditional discourse about civil rights, which has focused on ending racial discrimination once and for all. The apparent telos (or ultimate goal) of contemporary anti-racism activism — which is not the activism of the civil-rights era — is not to end racism, but to perpetuate it.

Why would I say this? If an activist group has no intention of ever being obsolete — i.e., if it doesn’t have a sacrificial telos according to which it conceives of its own end — it is not an activist group. It is, at best, a special-interest group, and a dishonest one at that.

I think it is only fair that I use my own endeavors as an example. As a member of Free Black Thought, an organization that celebrates viewpoint diversity within the black collective, I believe that race essentialism — the tendency from within and without a particular group to think each member experiences and interprets the world in identical ways — is a problem I’d like to see solved.

Currently, mass media present and represent viewpoints from black people, but only those who fit the popular narrative imperative to the politics of pity. Free Black Thought is here to showcase the fact that groups are made of individuals with separate goals, pursuits, interests, values, etc.

However, if we ever succeed in bringing about a world where people are judged individually and not by their membership in a particular racial group, our mission would be outdated. If race essentialism, or the very concept of race, period, were overcome, Free Black Thought would no longer be needed. Free Black Thought wouldn’t fold, necessarily; but our mission would have to change. Because our original mission would have been fulfilled, staying with it would be performative and dishonest. If race essentialism were overcome, we would not be needed. We would either fold or adopt a new mission.

Clearly, other organizations dealing with race relations do not understand their missions similarly. Ibram X. Kendi provides two examples.

First, he is the director of the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, which states that its mission is “to convene researchers and practitioners from various disciplines to figure out novel and practical ways to understand, explain, and solve seemingly intractable problems of racial inequity and injustice.” He adds, “We are working toward building an antiracist society that ensures equity and justice for all.”

This is a noble endeavor, but what would happen if inequality and injustice were eradicated? There is a fine line between “intractable” and “immutable.” The website says the center is still developing, but part of that development is an affiliates program connecting faculty and students into a network that may be difficult to undo.

It may be hasty to assume that ending institutional racism is not the true goal of the Center for Antiracist Research. But another brainchild of Kendi’s lends weight to the notion that perpetual racism serves the interests of Kendi and other DEI professionals. Kendi has written that he wants the United States government to pass a constitutional amendment to “establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees.” He elaborates:

The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you look carefully enough, you may see that the statement’s precarious nature could easily have the department functioning in perpetuity. A governmental department created as a result of a new constitutional amendment is not something anyone would plan to dismantle in the near future. In order to justify the perpetuation of such an entity, one would need to perpetuate racism.

A nongovernment organization like the Center for Antiracist Research is one thing; an addition to the current federal system is something else entirely.

Of course, Kendi is not the only culprit; other phenomena point to the false telos of racial harmony. Many major universities have created graduate programs in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). That is, advanced if not terminal degrees are being given to people who plan to make a career out of DEI initiatives. The University of Maryland-Baltimore, the University of Pennsylvania, and Tufts University are just a few. But if one’s livelihood consists of fighting racism, wouldn’t the end of racism spell trouble? Wouldn’t the perpetuation of racism be the very thing putting food on the table? This also goes for the explosion of administrative positions in DEI in colleges, corporations, and other institutions.

Jane Kellogg Murray of Indeed.com — a job site that assists people in finding employment — writes about the rise of DEI (She calls it DI&B: diversity, inclusion, and belonging) in the American job force:

Between September 2019 and September 2020, Indeed job postings in diversity, inclusion and belonging have risen 56.3% — from 140 jobs per million to 219. More significantly, after the U.S. economy declined in Spring 2020, the DI&B industry recovered quickly, with job postings rising by an astonishing 123% between May and September.

That sounds like a large number of people with jobs that literally depend on racism, the very thing the jobs are meant to eliminate. So a dip in racism could have a correlation with a rise in unemployment.

Of course, missions can change. Perhaps at racism’s end, these positions would be transformed into something more relevant, or the people occupying those jobs would move into other fields of employment. We cannot know for sure. However, the fact that these employees have skills directly connected to ending a particular thing like racism suggests that fighting racism is their area of expertise. What happens to diversity, equity, and inclusion officers when society actually becomes diverse, equitable, and inclusive?

Maintaining vigilance could be a new mission. That is, when racism is finally defeated, DEI officers can work to make sure it never comes back. However, this is also problematic. Maintaining an anti-racist society would get pretty boring without racism. Might such a mission make frequent use of the concept of microaggressions or the idea that, when it comes to racism, impact always outweighs intention? If bias is considered implicit, then a fine line separates DEI officers from “thought police.” To show they are not expendable, it is in their best interest to “find” racism, but what happens when there is no racism to be found?

I stopped wanting to be a diversity officer when I realized how ineffective it was — I came to this insight before contemporary “wokeness” took hold. But DEI work was a secondary job for me; I still intended to remain a professor and scholar of rhetoric. What would have happened to me if DEI were my full-time job? Would I go the way of Kendi, or would my fate be more like that of Tabia Lee, who was fired for not abiding by the current narrative that deems racism a permanent problem?

I don’t know, but I do know that all people in such positions should aim toward a sacrificial telos, which would eventually deem those positions unnecessary. If you are a DEI officer and your main goal is not to render your job obsolete as soon as possible, you are enacting the very definition of a grift.

[ Via: https://archive.is/dfeGZ ]

==

When the demand exceeds the supply. The fact that an entire industry of DEI bureaucracies (complete with bogus credentials) have, and still are, being built up as racism itself has never been lower - and yes, even in the current hypersensitive era we occupy - gives the game away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p1BmryFRF8

[As] we know from the war on drugs and the war on terror, for those in the business of providing protection, high threat levels are bread and butter. Likewise, for those in the business of healing race relations, racial division is your sworn enemy but your secret friend—so much so that wounding and healing become part of the same operation.

Now you know why "microaggressions" were invented: because the industry had grown too big for the remaining problem, but there's money to be made if only the right product could be marketed.

It's the same thing as the church. Being "right with Jesus" is a subscription plan. You can't just perform the soul-cleaning ritual and you're done. If that was the case, they'd do themselves out of a job and out of power. So instead, you have to come back next week and tithe again.

By: Erec Smith

Published: Jan 31, 2024

The historic Supreme Court ruling to end affirmative action in college admissions was one of the biggest events of 2023, but few acknowledged the ruling's inapplicability to military academies and, by extension, military recruitment strategies. Unlike public civilian institutions, military academies still face scrutiny for imposing quotas and skirting merit as a primary factor in admissions and recruiting. But affirmative action is only part of the problem.

As with other institutions, DEI—Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—is a volatile point of contention in the military. In fact, prominent figures in and around the military insist that DEI threatens national security. The issue is bigger than unequal admissions and recruitment. DEI writ large is eroding the integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces from the inside out.

Before I go any further, I need to clarify that I am not against diversity, equity, or inclusion in their original meanings. As a black man whose father has shared stories about racism in the Army during his 22 years of service (including two tours in Vietnam), I would like nothing more than to improve race relations in the military.

But the words "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion" have gone from obvious American virtues to vices in recent years, not because Americans have soured on racial equality, but because those words have taken on meanings that actually oppose their common interpretations. This new DEI, backed by an ideology of critical social justice, is the very opposite of the social justice values espoused by the civil rights movement.

To be clear, the ideology of critical social justice is not Martin Luther King's civil rights. King highlighted character, open-mindedness, and equality. Sadly, the critical social justice variety of DEI (Let's call it "CSJ-DEI") is about the primacy of skin color, intolerance of opposing viewpoints, and the inherent inequality between white people (fundamentally considered oppressors) and non-white people (fundamentally considered oppressed).

Former King speechwriter Clarence Jones agrees, insisting this ideology "would violate everything that Martin King and I worked for." In fact, because of the divisive and meritless nature of CSJ-DEI, the 93-year-old has said, "I am damn sure, at this time in my life, I'm not going to turn my back. This time is more urgent than ever."

[ WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 12: U.S. Sailors with the U.S. Navy Ceremonial Color Guard present the colors during a ceremonial wreath laying at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on January 12, 2024 in Washington, DC. The ceremony is being held ahead of Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday, January 15, 2024, to honor the civil rights leader on the anniversary of his birthday. ]

Righting the wrongs of the past does not necessitate new wrongs in the present. The systemically discriminatory U.S. Army of the past is gone, but contemporary DEI initiatives could do more to reintroduce differential treatment than end it for good.

CSJ-DEI is bad for everyone, especially in the military. It is notoriously divisive; but what is a national military without unity? It demonizes the virtues a well-functioning military cannot do without: hard work, action orientation, rational thinking, discipline, etc. Why? They are considered "aspects of whiteness."

So where do we go from here? How can we protect our military from CSJ-DEI while still embracing traditional civil rights? That is, how do we make sure DEI initiatives in the military are the kind that promote equality, merit, free speech, and, of course, unity?

Fortunately, members of Congress are starting to listen, and some are taking action. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) included an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act to put a hiring freeze on CSJ-DEI initiatives in the military so that the Government Accountability Office can conduct an audit of federal DEI-related employees to ensure that any initiative to improve race relations is done productively.

Sen. Schmitt's plan is simple: look and see for ourselves. "Every branch of our military has a duty to promote and exemplify cohesiveness within a unit, branch, and fighting force as a whole," Schmitt told the Washington Examiner. "Driving wedges between soldiers with DEI initiatives undermines the military's main purpose: ensuring the United States remain ready to confront adversaries with overwhelming force wherever they may arise."

Senator Schmitt is onto something. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; an audit could help determine which initiatives are or are not good for the overall functioning of the U.S. Armed Forces. No one is against diversity, equity, and inclusion in the original senses of those terms, but it looks like contemporary DEI training flies in the face of American values like merit, unity, and, most ironically, equality.

By: Erec Smith

Published: Jun 13, 2023

In many social justice circles, especially ones dedicated to racial justice, individualism is considered a negative quality. Those who embrace this idea typically understand individualism as diversity, equity and inclusion consultant Tema Okun does: “a toxic denial of our essential interdependence and the reality that we are all in this, literally, together.”

Those who deem race a person’s primary characteristic may, either implicitly or explicitly, embrace and promote race essentialism: the belief that racial groups are monolithic, comprised of people who share the exact same values, beliefs, outlooks, fears and hopes. One’s status as an individual is secondary, tertiary or simply not taken seriously at all.

But Okun’s take on individualism is erroneous. Group identification devoid of true individualism is one of the main obstacles to real social justice because it suggests a dogma that, by definition, does not take into consideration the details and distinctions of an individual life. By extension, such group consciousness hampers our ability, as a society, to have generative conversations across ideological differences.

Fortunately, Okun’s take on this topic is not the only one. Classical liberals also have ideas about individualism. For example, what F.A. Hayek calls “true individualism” also includes the concept of interdependence, or the idea that each individual needs other individuals to some degree. No one can do it all on his or her own. Even a hermit living a reclusive life needs the surrounding ecosystem to survive. However, the fact that one can choose hermetic living over other lifestyles in the first place is a result of individual freedom.

In truth, Okun’s interpretation is the opposite of true individualism. The hyper-individualism she inveighs against is a strawman and not possible, even if people believe, contrary to their lived experience, that it is. Civil society would not work without acknowledging our interdependence.

Importantly, true individualism is not a rejection of group affiliation. It is a rejection of the idea that groups, especially racial groups, are necessarily monolithic and all-encompassing.

The main issue is “group consciousness,” but this concept should not be confused with an all-out dismissal of groups. As Duke University political scientists Paula McClain and her co-authors have written in a 2009 paper, group consciousness “is in-group identification politicized by a set of ideological beliefs about one’s group’s social standing, as well as a view that collective action is the best means by which the group can improve its status and realize interests.”

Most certainly, this is what Nikole Hannah-Jones meant when she tweeted there is a “difference between being politically black and racially black.” Although group consciousness applied to race is often called race consciousness, this is not what is meant by “racially Black.” Specifically, those who are race conscious abide by a particular ideology that involves in-group preference, out-group culpability for the in-group’s problems, and a disapproval of narratives and ideas that do not align with the group’s ideology.

What’s more, group consciousness is so ingrained that anything that happens to an individual in a group has, in effect, also happened to everyone in the group. Slogans like “I am Michael Brown,” for instance, exemplify this.

This is not to say that empathy is a bad thing, but existential identification with someone based on a trait like race is misguided and stifling, leading to what may be the most detrimental and erroneous aspect of group consciousness: linked fate. As McClain et al. explain, linked fate denotes the use of the social standing of a group as a proxy for one’s individual identity, i.e., an individual’s fate is inevitably and intricately linked to that of the group. Any individual that seems to escape this fate is considered an exception.

Sen. Tim Scott recently made headlines when he countered the idea of linked fate during his appearance on the daytime talk show “The View.” When confronted with the idea that successful Black people from downtrodden upbringings are an exception, he stated, “I believe America could do for anyone what she’s done for me: restoring hope, creating opportunities, and defending and protecting the America that we love. It’s such an important combination.” He concluded that the “exception” of Black fulfillment can be made into the norm through education.

“One of the ways that we can restore hope in this country is to focus on our education system. We have too many kids in poor zip codes trapped in failing schools. I want parents to have a choice so kids have a bigger chance.” Scott’s point is that one’s zip code is not one’s life sentence; fates are not existentially linked to such things. Sadly, for having such optimism about the power of individual gumption, he was sardonically labeled “Professor Positive” and someone who “doesn’t get it” by one of the show’s hosts, a well-to-do white woman.

In addition to politicians, like Sen. Scott, who denounce the idea of linked fate, the concept also has been debunked by behavioral science mainly because it relies on the idea that individuals who have the same skin color experience the world in the same ways. Scott’s insistence that Black achievement can be normalized regardless of background, combined with the critique from the behavioral sciences, illuminate the fallacious reasoning behind linked fate and group consciousness in general.

A salient difference between those who do and do not embrace group consciousness is a matter of what psychologists Dolores Albarracin and Amy Mitchell call “defensive confidence.” Individuals who feel they can confidently defend their ideas are less likely to embrace group consciousness strongly, if at all.

Those who do not feel confidence in defending their ideas may see group consciousness as a ready-made shortcut to thinking; the answer to critical inquiry or refutation is always already in some or all of the group’s ideological tenets, maxims and talking points. Those who embrace group consciousness do not have to think of ways to defend their ideas; the group does it for them.

Perhaps most importantly, people with defensive confidence seem more likely to entertain opposing ideas and, therefore, are more likely to understand and even potentially align with those ideas. Perhaps counterintuitively, individuals with the most defensive confidence are more likely to have their minds changed by opposing views simply because they are willing to engage them.

Not surprisingly, individuals who embrace group consciousness and enjoy a kind of group confidence are less likely to entertain opposing viewpoints. This suggests defensive confidence better ensures communication across differences than does group consciousness.

So individualism is not a symptom of a divided society but one of its remedies. It is more conducive to self-actualization (as opposed to group actualization), and it actually fosters communication across differences.

Defensive confidence—aligned with self-efficacy, agency, positive self-regard—is a kind of empowered individualism that, when not beholden to race or some other form of group identity, is more open to exploring possibilities ignored by those who fear scrutiny of their group-oriented outlook.