None dare call it politics

When it comes to addressing Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy, public health campaigns fall down on the job. 

I'll focus on one example. It's an article published at the University of Michigan Health website, titled "Who has the right to ask if you're vaccinated?" (url at <https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/who-has-a-right-to-ask-if-youre-vaccinated>, accessed May 9, 2021). It sets out to expose what it calls the "false controversy" about "covid passports." Covid passports refer to the idea that businesses and certain government services, such as schools, should have the authority to require their patrons and charges to prove they have have been vaccinated against covid-19. Presumably, one way to facilitate that would be to issue documents, or "passports," that the vaccinated can show to gain entry.

The arguments the article makes seem designed to convince no one. They make a caricature of the objections that people may have about covid passports and about the covid vaccines generally. In doing so, they represent the way that public health campaigns often fail to promote public health.

Advice to my fellow DEI skeptics: reject white nationalism

Those of us who criticize DEI and other activism that passes for "anti-racism" must reject white nationalism. We must be honest about it. If we feel tempted to white nationalism, we must acknowledge to ourselves its appeal and refuse to endorse it. The temptations are ever present, and we mustn't blame others when we choose to give in to those temptations.

Advice for my fellow DEI skeptics: Life is unfair

[UPDATE: On June 19, 2021, I changed the title from "Unsolicited advice for DEI skeptics...." to "Advice for my fellow DEI skeptics...."]

Much about DEI trainings is unfair. Some of it is plain wrong. But life is unfair. Sometimes (not always,but sometimes) we should just accept it.

Why give "unsolicited advice"?

If you've read some of my more recent posts, you'll note that I've taken to offering "unsolicited advice" to activists and DEI trainers. Not that anyone has commented on them yet, but I'd like to address one potential objection to those posts:

What standing do I have to give advice to others on these matters?

That objection is legitimate. I know activism and DEI training is hard work. I have in times past dipped my toe in activism, and I'm not doing so now--and what I would do is quite limited. It's easy for someone in the cheap seats, like me, to criticize. It's much, much harder to put yourself out there.

I'll add that the goals of the advocates I criticize are, in broad brush strokes, usually either good or at least within the pale of what is defensible. "Usually" isn't "always," but it's far from never--and "defensible" is better than "shock the conscience bad." And in general, when they advocate for something that I believe is indefensible, it's usually a type of indefensible that focuses on the effects of their efforts, or on the argument that if we take their assumptions to a logical extreme, we come to some very disturbing conclusions. There but for the grace of god go any of us, and I have gone there often.

That said let me suggest that if you are an activist or a DEI trainer, you ought to consider my "unsolicited advice," even if we stipulate (which I won't) that I'm being insincere. If you want to gain the support of me, or people similarly situated to me, you may wish to follow the advice.

It's not just about gaining support, either. It's also about ensuring that we don't become hostile to your project. There is such a thing as spite. It's probably not a good thing, but the temptation to indulge it is evergreen. You might wish to lessen the temptation.

Or you might not. Maybe after considering the above, you'll decide not to heed my advice. Maybe you'll decide there's a critical number of people whose support you can win, or who you can empower, with advocacy that declines my suggestions. Like me, you live in a world of scarcity. You might want to dedicate your resources to those who, in your estimation, are more reachable than I am. At any rate, you have to draw the line somewhere. And it's not fair of me to criticize you for the act of line drawing, even if I disagree about how you draw it. 

Even then, it's good to have a clear sense of what you're doing. And my "unsolicited advice" might very well help you do that, even if you decline to follow any of my suggestions.

A final note about spite. In my opinion, activists play an outsized role when it comes to encouraging people to act out of spite. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, you can help someone choose hell or choose heaven. And too often, I fear activists help people choose hell. But as someone who likes to believe himself a person of good will, I recognize an obligation to reject spite. The person who chooses to act out of spite bears the ultimate responsibility for that choice. And I hope I choose wisely.

The racist bank teller and racial colorblindness

In my recent post on racial colorblindness, I admonished DEI trainers for not at least addressing some people's support for racial colorblindness:

It's called "anticipating the objection before someone else has a chance to raise it." It's not rocket science. It's composition 101.

Well, in that same post, I failed to anticipate objections to something I said. And while it's not a fatal objection, it's an important one, and one I cannot refute completely.

The bank teller example

I argued that one good thing about the idea of racial colorblindness is that it could serve as a guide to personal, daily practice. I used the example of a bank teller who tries to abide by "colorblind" practices:

Unsolicitied advice for DEI trainers: racial colorblindness is not always wrong

One taboo in DEI training sessions and discussions is to invoke racial colorblindness. Racial colorblindness is the idea that people should not be treated differently based on their race or perceived race.

There are good reasons to be cautious about invoking that term. But racial colorblindness has its merits. It represents a defensible aspiration for how we as individuals and as a polity should treat people 

Unsolicited advice for DEI trainers: own your contradictions

[Update, May 24, 2021: I changed the title from "Unsolicited advice for DEI leaders..." to "Unsolicited advice for DEI trainers..."]

DEI trainings (i.e., trainings to promote "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion")advance a number of contradictory assumptions and admonitions. As a result, they present a dishonest and one-way "conversation" that is more effective at closing the minds of their target audience than effecting real change.

The problem is very complicated. But one thing DEI trainers can do is to own those very contradictions, to be open abut those times when what they say conflicts with other things they say.

Example: the prohibition against "white knights" (a.k.a., "white saviors")

I'll choose one example that highlights the contradictions. It's the prohibition against what is known as acting like a "white knight" (also known as a "white savior").