I frequently see advertisements for webinars, books, etc. on the topic of courageous or brave conversations about race. The phrase, we need a dialogue, has been common on college campuses and from corporate DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) officers and consultants for years. I generally chuckle when I see or hear this kind of language, because in my experience, the people promoting these events have no interest whatsoever in entering into a dialogue. What they really mean is, We’ll do the talking and you do the listening.
It’s unfortunate. The nation really does need a dialogue, but no one is being courageous. Try going to a DEI training event (corporate, university or general) and ask questions about the basic underlying assumptions that prop up their arguments and see what happens. It won’t be a dialogue.
As a refresher, refer to my early blog on Logic and Human Constructs. In short, humans have always built constructs around presuppositions to explain things that the science of the day isn’t able to. Constructs like luck and love have evolved over time, and all manner of superstitions, religions and philosophies have evolved as well. Each is based on presuppositions which are, in turn, based on anecdotal observations.
The DEI community, including those who teach Critical Race Theory or variants thereof, bases its worldview on a set of presuppositions that are rarely challenged. This doesn’t happen with most religions. Claim to believe that God created the world in seven days and someone will be quick to debate you using scientific evidence that supports the big bang and evolution. Claim to believe in reincarnation and someone will be quick to make a case that history is linear. But say that white supremacy is the cause of income inequality and no one puts up their hand. Fear and consequences of being labeled a racist force people into an uncomfortable silence.
I recently read a biography of Galileo Galilei. In 1633 Galileo was forced to renounce his belief that the earth rotated around the sun. The formal charge was vehement suspicion of heresy. At age 70, he was forced to disavow his beliefs to avoid execution, torture or prison. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Galileo’s crime? Speaking/writing in a way that was contrary to the orthodoxy of the time.
The DEI community has done a fantastic job of creating a modern orthodoxy around the constructs of white privilege, white supremacy and the evils of the colonial period of history. Like Galileo, many white Americans have opted to toe the orthodox line while those who ask questions are labeled racist (or some other form of “ist” heretic).
A couple of recent examples can be found in congressional testimony. Republicans have seized on the Democrats embrace of trans rights to press certain witnesses with questions like, “what is a woman?” and “can men have babies?” I recognize that this is just political theater, but the answers given by witnesses who are obviously converts to wokeism do give one reason to pause. Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit, Avow Texas, answered Yes, when asked if men could get pregnant and have abortions. What she meant is that trans-men can get pregnant. But in her zeal to protect trans-men, she sounded a little silly to ordinary Americans. The scientific answer really is, a person who identifies as male can get pregnant, but that person must be a biological female.
The dangerous part of the dogma reared its head when Sen. Josh Hawley and Khiara Bridges (law professor at Berkley) got into a debate on a similar issue. Bridges shut down the debate by stating, So I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and it opens up trans people to violence. So much for courageous conversations or national dialogue. Folks from the DEI community were thrilled with Bridges’ response, but the reality is, how does asking a legitimate question (even if political theater) about what defines a woman, etc. lead to violence? I don’t know of any mainstream politician that would endorse violence against someone for identifying as a transgender. It is only logical that for a human to give birth, that person must be a biological female, no matter how they choose to outwardly present themselves.
Back in 2020 Rush Limbaugh made what I believe to be a sincere effort to have a courageous conversation about race by going onto Charlamagne The God’s radio show. This is not an endorsement of Rush Limbaugh’s body of work, but I believe that this effort on Rush’s part was sincere. If you watch the exchange on Youtube, you’ll see that Charlamagne had no interest in discussing issues, he simply shut Rush down with questions like “what are you going to do about white supremacy?” When Rush questioned the legitimacy of the assumption that white supremacy is even a real thing, the host just brushed him off, almost like he was saying it was established science.
Robin DiAngelo wrote in her contribution to wokeism, White Fragility, The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but rather, ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’ This illustrates that to the woke, systemic racism is a given (a presupposition upon which the construct is built). That’s why Charlamagne refused to engage Limbaugh – he didn’t want to challenge the presupposition any more than a devout Christian, Jew or Muslim wants to discuss the existence of God or Allah.
I don’t see how we can have courageous conversations about race if the basic presuppositions of the construct are off limits? And if anyone questions those presuppositions in the public square is going to charged with the modern version of vehement suspicion of heresy.