By Wanjiru Njoya
Second, the hegemony of the Civil Rights Act is entrenched in practice by the reality that in practice, officials spooked by the bad press surrounding DEI and CRT are increasingly careful in their use of words. If an equality scheme is not brazenly labelled “DEI” it is difficult to ascertain whether it is designed to promote opportunity or whether it is attempting surreptitiously to promote outcome.
A number of Republican states have banned DEI, resulting in the termination of DEI schemes in higher education institutions. The NYT reports that “In 2023, more than 20 states considered or approved new laws taking aim at D.E.I”.
Much hard work by Republicans went into getting these DEI schemes banned, especially in raising public awareness about the sinister machinations behind friendly-sounding words like diversity and inclusion. Adopting beguiling labels for their schemes is a favorite commie strategy, and it works because it marches under the banner of values many people would support. It has taken a long-running campaign by Republicans to persuade the public that these virtue-signaling labels are nothing more than a smokescreen.
But as Republicans continue to rejoice about the collapsing DEI empire, few have noticed that the seeds of the next threat are already being sown: the announcements abolishing DEI have come together with ominous expressions of commitment to enforcing equality of opportunity:
“In keeping with State of Florida legislation, the Division of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has been eliminated,” the school’s webpage says. “FIU remains committed to cultivating an environment of accessibility and equal opportunity, where all are welcomed to learn, earn, and thrive.”
What’s the problem, one might ask? After all, everyone supports equal opportunity and welcoming everyone to thrive. While many conservatives are against DEI, surely supporting “genuine” equal opportunities will work very well as long as it doesn’t turn into equity? Many conservatives naively hope that equality enforcement is a great idea in principle. As Lew Rockwell has observed:
It’s conservatives, not liberals, who are naive about the real meaning of anti-discrimination law. They say they love the Civil Rights Act, “Dr.” King, and the “ideal” of the color-blind society. They want to protect “individuals” from discrimination, but not “groups.” They like “equality of opportunity” but don’t like “equality of result.”
In his op-ed for the NYT Chris Rufo explained the reasons for abolishing DEI and then observed that promoting colorblind equality would be a good replacement for DEI:
“After abolishing D.E.I., legislators can adopt a policy of colorblind equality to help establish the equal treatment of individuals, regardless of race, sex or other characteristics.”
In abolishing DEI, the expressed aim is therefore to shift from equality of outcome (equity) to promoting colorblind equality. In Florida it was announced that equal opportunity initiatives and programs would continue after the end of DEI:
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 