Federal Agencies Directed To End ‘White Privilege’ Trainings

by Christopher Paslay

A new directive states that Federal agencies must cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund trainings using critical race theory, white privilege, or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist. 

The toxic, discriminatory tenets at the center of critical race theory — which serve as the basis for anti-racism, white fragility, white privilege, and so-called white supremacy culture — are being exposed at the highest levels of government. At the urging of Christopher F. Rufo, a contributing editor for City Journal whose investigative reporting has exposed how critical race theory has infiltrated the Federal government, the heads of executive departments and agencies have been directed to identify and terminate all Federal training which teaches all whites are inherently racist. 

On September 4, 2020, Russell Vought, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued a letter addressing training in the Federal government titled, “MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.” 

The letter reads:

It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda.

For example, according to press reports, employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that “virtually all White people contribute to racism” or where they are required to say that they “benefit from racism.” According to press reports, in some cases these training have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job.

These types of “trainings” not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce. We can be proud that as an employer, the Federal government has employees of all races, ethnicities, and religions. We can be proud that Americans from all over the country seek to join our workforce and dedicate themselves to public service. We can be proud of our continued efforts to welcome all individuals who seek to serve their fellow Americans as Federal employees. However, we cannot accept our employees receiving training that seeks to undercut our core values as Americans and drive division within our workforce.

The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions. Accordingly, to that end, the Office of Management and Budget will shortly issue more detailed guidance on implementing the President’s directive. In the meantime, all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on “critical race theory/9 “white privilege,” or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil. In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un- American propaganda training sessions.

 The President, and his Administration, are fully committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in the United States. The President has a proven track record of standing for those whose voice has long been ignored and who have failed to benefit from all our country has to offer, and he intends to continue to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.

This directive from Vought is long overdue. The toxic, divisive policies at the center of critical race theory — which extend to anti-racism, white privilege, white fragility, white supremacy culture, implicit bias, and microaggressions — must no longer be tolerated. Singling people out by their race or culture clearly violates Federal anti-discrimination laws, and has been doing so for some time. 

One can only hope state and local governments will use Federal agencies as a guide, and in turn commit to routing out such divisive trainings and discriminatory practices as well. 

Replacing Anti-Racism with Mutual Accountability (Creating Win-Win Solutions)

Baylor University sociology professor Dr. George Alan Yancey

by Christopher Paslay

Everyone must come out of their comfort zone and take responsibility, and roll up their sleeves to do the hard work of finding win-win solutions. 

Correction: When this article was originally published on August 18, 2020, I mistakenly tied Baylor University sociology professor George Alan Yancey together with Emory University philosophy professor George Dewey Yancy. The intention was to write solely about George Alan Yancey, whose Mutual Accountability model I very much admire and respect. I have rewritten the article to correct the mix-up. My sincere apologies to both professors.

In a July 16^th article on Patheos.com, Baylor University sociology professor George Yancey wrote a very powerful critique of white fragility and anti-racism titled, “Not White Fragility, Mutual Responsibility,” where he proposed having a true dialogue on race relations, not merely a monologue disguised as a conversation. Named the Mutual Accountability Approach, Yancey suggested using sociological research (Intergroup Contact Theory based in active listening) to unify rather than divide, making solutions win-win rather than win-lose.

Historically speaking, there have been systems in America that have favored one group over another, and the effects of this are still felt today.  As Yancey states in his Patheos article, “We need to move from these racialized institutions that work better for majority group members to systems that are fair for everybody.”

However, certain aspects of anti-racism including DiAngelo’s White Fragility — in an effort to level the playing field — actually flip the tables on whites, alienating them from the conversation on race and from giving meaningful input on solutions. 

As Professor Yancey writes: “People of color in their zeal to correct racial problems can also go too far and set up unfair conditions for whites. Group interest theory indicates that allowing either group total control of what we are going to do means that this group will create rules that benefit them but put others at a disadvantage.”

This is where Professor Yancey’s Mutual Accountability Approach comes into play. His solution is that we all have the responsibility to communicate and listen to one another. He states, “We have to work with each other to find win-win solutions instead of relying on win-lose scenarios. I need to hear from whites about the concerns and they have to listen to me about mine. Only then can we work towards fashioning solutions to the racialized problems in our society that can serve all of us well.”

Yancey writes in his article: 

Is there research indicating that working together can help us deal with racial alienation? Empirical work suggests that a theory known as the contact hypothesis may offer us answers. It basically states that under the right conditions intergroup contact produces more tolerance and less prejudice. While I do not want to go into all of the conditions necessary, there is research indicating that when we have an overarching identity with those we are in contact with that we move from seeing them as foreigners to seeing them as part of our group. At that point our biases towards former outgroup members tend to become dramatically reduced. . . .

This very process can bring us together and reduce the racial animosity that never seems to go away in our society. But it will be hard work. We will not easily give up the idea that we can get everything we want or that we are right but those who disagree with us have no clue. But if we can overcome these tendencies and learn how to fashion win-win solutions, then we have a chance to move forward.

This is interesting, as Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility Theory — as well as many anti-racist approaches — do not allow for this mutual conversation. Again, most modern anti-racists like DiAngelo call for a monologue, where whites are viewed as “racially illiterate” and are expected to “shut up and listen.”

Yancey says this is a recipe for continued problems.  The model may work for a while, but if both groups are not part of solutions, it will perpetuate backlash, resentment, and continue the cycle of inequality.

At the center of Yancey’s mutual accountability approach is active listening — something antiracists do push, but only on whites.  Yancey writes:

If you rely merely on accusation, blaming and canceling to compel whites to support you, we will get what we have gotten thus far. Some whites will respond to that. Others will engage in a backlash. Others will simply ignore us. I run into plenty of whites who are not insensitive to the plight of people of color, but have been called racist one time too many and now want nothing to do with anything antiracists or with ideas such as white fragility. Ironically sometimes I run into these whites after they have read some of my work and are willing to work on race relations again because of my work. It is not that I am magical or anything like that. It is that when I write or speak, I do so from having listened to whites and thus have knowledge on how to reach them. . . . 

If you are still not convinced that working for win win solutions is the best approach, then let me frame this one final way. Think about the whites who want to figure out how to deal with our racial conflict but are not comfortable with just being told to shut up. They are open to learning about institutional racism but not open to not having a say in how to deal with it. So their choice is an anti-racism program where they have no say in the process or to just ignore racism altogether. My experience is that many of them will try to go the anti-racism route for a while but will be called a racist or be asked to turn a blind eye to a person of color misusing his or her cultural power and eventually gave up. Then that person will still be concerned about racial issues but will not accept a “white fragility” path towards a solution. . . .

Will that person move towards ignoring racial issues? That is a possibility. Most likely though that person will not have a solid way to deal with his or her concern about racial alienation or racism. They will probably be paralyzed not trusting the rhetoric heard by anti-racism activists but wanting to do something. I know because I have met these people and heard their stories. . . . 

We need solution that pull us together, not drive us apart. That is the only way we will have sustainable pathways away from the racial alienation poisoning our society. We do not need to engage in more recrimination and name calling. Victories gained by those techniques will face constant challenge and keep our society in turmoil. The way forward is to move forward together. . . .

To summarize, in contrary to the questionable research surrounding White Fragility, research suggests that a common identity and fruitful interracial contact can reduce prejudice. My work indicates that interracial couples and multiracial churches have found ways to solve racial problems with respect and understanding those in other races. Conceptually the mutual accountability approach is more likely to produce unity across racial and ideological groups since it does not force anyone to totally ignore their own group interest – just compromise a bit on them. I choose to head in a direction with empirical support and that is tied to bringing us together. Doing this will be hard. Extremely hard. But why should we be surprised at that? Usually the things worth having are hard.

Amen.  Everyone must come out of their comfort zone and take responsibility, and roll up their sleeves to do the hard work of finding win-win solutions.

Fundamental Flaws of White Fragility with Jonathan Church

Writer and economist Jonathan Church examines some fundamental flaws of Robin DiAngelo’s white fragility theory, and how it’s a Kafka trap that falls prey to logical fallacies. His book critiquing Robin DiAngelo’s white fragility theory will be published by Rowman & Littlefield in January of 2021. Jonathan’s articles about whiteness studies and other topics have appeared in Quillette, Areo, Arc Digital, The Agonist Journal, Merion West, The Good Men Project, New Discourses, and The Federalist, among others. Thanks for watching!

My Interview with Ron Jolly on NewsTalk 580 WTCM

Above is the audio of my 8/13/20 interview with Northern Michigan’s Ron Jolly, who invited me on his radio program after reading my article in American Thinker titled, “Speaking Out Against Robin DiAngelo’s Toxic White Fragility.”  Ron has been covering Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility on his show for several weeks, and has voiced his concern over the divisive nature of the underlying tenets, as well as the polarizing qualities of modern anti-racism.  

More importantly, Ron has brought attention to the recent letter sent home to parents by newly appointed Leland Public Schools Superintendent Stephanie Long, who states that it’s the job of white parents and students to “question and examine our beliefs, implicit biases, and intentional or unintentional roles in perpetuating white privilege.” 

Long also writes in the letter, “we need to examine the disparity in our experiences and the underlying reasons that have created the privilege we who are white enjoy.” She also encourages parents and students to join a Black Lives Matter Chapter, and engage in anti-racism work; she has also placed White Fragility on her school district’s recommended reading list. 

The above radio interview is 23 minutes long.  I apologize in advance for the sound quality in the beginning of the segment.  My cellphone reception made parts of the conversation a bit hard to hear.  Thanks for listening!

Is the Anti-Racism Training Industry Condemning Black Children to Poverty?

by Christopher Paslay

Branding America’s schools as oppressive institutions steeped in ‘white supremacy’ is great for identity politics, but is it elevating children of color out of poverty and helping them succeed?

Ibram X. Kendi, winner of the 2016 National Book Award for Nonfiction, believes that the racial achievement gap in the United States is a myth. The very idea itself is racist, he argues, insisting the supposed gap is simply the result of poorly designed, culturally biased standardized tests. As Jonathan Chait writes in The Intelligencer: 

It does not matter to [Kendi] how many different kinds of measures of academic performance show [the achievement gap] to be true. Nor does he seem receptive to the possibility that the achievement gap reflects environmental factors (mainly worse schools, but also access to nutrition, health care, outside learning, and so on) rather than any innate differences.

To Kendi, all racial disparities are the result of only one thing: racism. Hence, the racial achievement gap in America isn’t really a gap at all, but merely the result of racist thinking.

Like White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo, Kendi is now regarded as a leading scholar and international expert on anti-racism, and has recently accepted a position at Boston University, where he will launch BU’s Center for Anti-Racist Research, and will work across disciplines to “transform how racial research is done.”

For the 37-year-old Kendi, this is quite an accomplishment; the renowned author and scholar from Queens, New York, has come a long way in the past 17 years. Back in 2003, Kendi — who went by his birth name, Ibram Henry Rogers — was writing a column for the student newspaper at Florida A&M University. “I don’t hate whites,” he wrote. “How can you hate a group of people for being who they are?”

As reported in The New Yorker:

He explained that “Europeans” had been “socialized to be aggressive people,” and “raised to be racist.” His theory was that white people were fending off racial extinction, using “psychological brainwashing” and “the aids virus.”

But suggesting whites were brainwashing people of color and using the aids virus to fend off racial extinction was a bit too progressive for 2003 audiences, so an editor demanded that Rogers discontinue his column, and Rogers agreed under protest. After graduating from Florida A&M, Rogers went on to earn a Ph.D. in African-American studies from Temple University in Philadelphia, and eventually reinvented himself with the name Ibram Xolani Kendi.

Now Kendi — a Queens native and Temple educated aids virus conspiracy theorist — will be working across disciplines at Boston University to “transform how racial research is done.” This will most likely entail using Critical Social Justice based in social constructivism, which is the concept that everything (all truth and knowledge) is simply the result of a social construct. In other words, there is no absolute truth or knowledge, rather, these things are humanly produced and constructed by social expectation and coercion and presented as “objective.”

The African-American History Museum’s page on whiteness, which summarized what it called “white culture,” is a case in point:

Under social constructivism, values such as work ethic, rational linear thinking, politeness, self-reliance, and the scientific method are no longer considered universal or objective, but are redefined as “white”—or the byproducts of a racist, Western, white supremacist culture. As Daniel Bergner writes for The New York Times:

Borrowing from feminist scholarship and critical race theory, whiteness studies challenges the very nature of knowledge, asking whether what we define as scientific research and scholarly rigor, and what we venerate as objectivity, can be ways of excluding alternate perspectives and preserving white dominance. DiAngelo likes to ask, paraphrasing the philosopher Lorraine Code: “From whose subjectivity does the ideal of objectivity come?”

Social constructivism is gaining ground, especially in American K-12 schools. Glenn E. Singleton runs an equity workshop for discussing race called Courageous Conversation. New York Times writer Daniel Bergner joined this two-day workshop in September of 2019, documenting his experiences in an article titled, “‘White Fragility’ Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?” Bergner writes:

Singleton . . . talks about white culture in similar ways. There is the myth of meritocracy. And valuing “written communication over other forms,” he told me, is “a hallmark of whiteness,” which leads to the denigration of Black children in school. Another “hallmark” is “scientific, linear thinking. Cause and effect.” He said, “There’s this whole group of people who are named the scientists. That’s where you get into this whole idea that if it’s not codified in scientific thought that it can’t be valid.”

Leslie Chislett, a white former executive with New York City’s Department of Education who filed a lawsuit against the department in 2019 for racial discrimination, disagrees with such beliefs. She was co-director of a drive with the goal of getting a broad slate of Advanced Placement courses into all the city’s public high schools. “The availability of A.P. classes,” she told Bergner of the New York Times, “communicates to kids that it is possible for them to exceed the regular curriculum and can help teachers see that many kids have the potential to succeed at college-level course work. It’s about creating a culture of high expectations.”

Bergner writes: 

Some lessons of the antiracism trainings weren’t easy for Chislett to embrace. Colleagues on her multiracial A.P. for All team accused her, during and outside the workshops, of hindering exercises and refusing to acknowledge her own white supremacy, her own racism. . . . Chislett eventually wound up demoted from the leadership of A.P. for All, and her suit argues that the trainings created a workplace filled with antiwhite distrust and discrimination. . . . 

“It’s absurd,” she said about much of the training she’s been through. “The city has tens of millions invested in A.P. for All, so my team can give kids access to A.P. classes and help them prepare for A.P. exams that will help them get college degrees, and we’re all supposed to think that writing and data are white values? How do all these people not see how inconsistent this is?”

This inconsistency is a valid point. Instructing administrators and teachers to put less value on skills like written communication and linear thinking could negatively affect students of color, especially when it comes to college readiness and competition in the labor market.

But when Times writer Bergner brought up such a point with Singleton, Kendi, and DiAngelo, none of these anti-racist educators could give a meaningful response. They all failed to explain what should replace such things as written communication and linear thinking, and could only offer circular, propagandistic ambiguities in response.

The social and academic consequences of such anti-racist training should be carefully considered before implementing such workshops in America’s schools. Believing that systemic racism is the only explanation for differences in learning — and that the supreme and almost absolute-power of white culture prevents Black kids from succeeding in school — might not be the best course of action to empower students of color and help them succeed.

Exposing Seattle’s ‘Internalized Racial Superiority for White People’ Training

by Christopher Paslay

Under the banner of “antiracism,” Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights is now explicitly endorsing principles of segregationism, group-based guilt, and race essentialism—ugly concepts that should have been left behind a century ago.

Christopher F. Rufo, the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty and a contributing editor for City Journal, recently obtained new documents from Seattle’s segregated “whites-only” trainings, which induct white employees into the cult of critical race theory.

As Rufo writes on his website:

Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights has developed a “race and social justice” curriculum for all 10,000 city employees.

I’ve obtained new documents from the city’s segregated “whites-only” trainings, which induct white employees into the cult of critical race theory.

The trainers require white employees to examine their “relationships with white supremacy, racism, and whiteness” and explain how their “[families] benefit economically from the system of white supremacy even as it directly and violently harms Black people.”

Under the banner of “antiracism,” Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights is now explicitly endorsing principles of segregationism, group-based guilt, and race essentialism—ugly concepts that should have been left behind a century ago.

Clearly, this is a violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which exists to outlaw discrimination based upon a person’s race, color, religion, sex, or country of national origin. It explicitly expands these protections to employment programs. Under Title VII:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training. (42 U.S. Code §2000e-2(d).)

Here are some of Seattle’s ‘Internalized Racial Superiority for White People’ training documents:

This slide below introduces the segregated training based on race, and asks white participants to introduce themselves and name their preferred “pronouns,” callously assuming the participants are even comfortable doing so (or communicating in such a manner).

This slide below, titled “Internalized Racial Superiority,” teaches that all whites internalize a “system of white supremacy,” and insists that all segregated white participants in the room suffer from such stigmatizing things as “cognitive dissonance,” “arrogance,” “violence,” and “anti-blackness,” among a dozen others.

This slide, titled “What We Do In White People Space,” encourages the segregated whites in the room to process white feelings (like sadness, shame, paralysis, confusion, and denial), to accept retraining (to learn new behaviors, concepts, missing histories, and ways of seeing that are hidden from them in white supremacy), and to take action to shift power (get politically active in helping redistribute resources, change who’s in power, and alter situations).  

This slide, titled “Our Relationship With White Supremacy, Racism, and Whiteness in this Moment,” asks the segregated whites in the room to respond to one prompt. Prompt #1 asks: How are you aware of the ways that your family benefits economically from the system of white supremacy even as it directly and violently harms Black people and non-Black people of color and Indigenous people? Prompt #2 asks: How are you aware of your “white silence” (not naming race, racism or the system of white supremacy or taking action to end it) when it comes to comments and actions that cause harm to Black people? And prompt #3 asks: How is your “white fragility” showing up at work? (White fragility is a reflexive, defensive and sometimes deflecting response that we as white people can experience when feeling challenged about our relationship to race, racism and the system of white supremacy.)

It’s unclear whether any Seattle employee has filed a lawsuit against the city thus far.  However, Christopher F. Rufo is planning to file a complaint against Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights. In a July 29 Tweet, Rufo writes:

In the coming weeks, I will be filling an official civil rights complaint against Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights. They have created a new form of “institutional racism” that violates the core principle of “equality under the law.” It’s time to fight back.

It’s only a matter of time before others take Rufo’s lead and stand up against such divisive and polarizing racial discrimination. Proactively advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion is one thing (and should be encouraged and applauded), but reeducating employees with toxic racial bigotry that clearly violates Title VII under The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be tolerated.

Understanding Implicit Bias with Jonathan Church

Writer and economist Jonathan Church examines the concept of implicit bias, and what researches have written about it. His book critiquing Robin DiAngelo’s white fragility theory will be published by Rowman & Littlefield in January of 2021. Jonathan’s articles about implicit bias and other topics have appeared in Quillette, Areo, Arc Digital, The Agonist Journal, Merion West, The Good Men Project, New Discourses, and The Federalist, among others.

Restoring MLK’s Dream: Valuing Content of Character Over Color of Skin

by Christopher Paslay

Robin DiAngelo mistakenly ties the Civil Rights Movement to identity politics, when in fact the movement was based on universal human values.

Robin DiAngelo, who has made an estimated $2 million from her controversial bestseller White Fragility — and charges up to $40,000 for a half-day workshop — insists all social progress in America has come from identity politics.

“The term identity politics refers to the focus on the barriers specific groups face in their struggle for equality,” DiAngelo wrote in her author’s note to White Fragility.  “We have yet to achieve our founding principle [in America], but any gains we have made thus far have come through identity politics. . . . All progress we have made in the realm of civil rights has been accomplished through identity politics.”

But just as DiAngelo mangles the story of Jackie Robison in White Fragility, she also misrepresents both the concept of identity politics, and the association of identity politics with the Civil Rights Movement.  Her statement that “identity politics refers to the focus on the barriers specific groups face in their struggle for equality” is disingenuous because it’s only half of the equation.  While identity politics does aim to remove barriers to marginalized groups, it also uses identity itself — race, religion, gender, and sexuality — as a source of power.  In other words, it places membership in a social group over the character of the individual, thus turning MLK’s “dream” on its head.

DiAngelo, along with many anti-racists, insist the Civil Rights Movement was a form of identity politics because it advocated very explicitly for a certain identity group — it called for universal human rights, freedoms, and opportunities by focusing on the identity groups who lacked them. This advocacy, however, is not identity politics. It is what Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay call universal liberalism; in this case, “liberal” does not mean left of center on the political spectrum, but refers instead to a well-established philosophical and ethical position which focuses on individuality, liberty, and equal opportunity (conservatives, liberals, and libertarians all employ some forms of universal liberalism).

What is the difference between universal liberalism and identity politics? Both want to end inequality, but use very different approaches, as explained in the article “Identity Politics Does Not Continue the Work of the Civil Rights Movements,” published on the website New Discourses by Pluckrose and Lindsay. “Universal liberalism focuses on individuality and shared humanity and seeks to achieve a society in which every individual is equally able to access every right, freedom, and opportunity that our shared societies provide,” Pluckrose and Lindsay write.  “Identity politics focuses explicitly on group identity and seeks political empowerment by promoting that group as a monolithic, marginalized entity distinct from and polarized against another group depicted as a monolithic privileged entity.”

In layman’s terms, universal liberalism seeks diversity, equity, and inclusion through individuals seeking a shared humanity at the personal level — practicing the kinds of core principles and values that transcend race and other identities; things like friendship, love, respect, and tolerance for diversity are the core building blocks that unite us and provide equal access to rights, freedoms, and opportunities. Identity politics, on the other hand, are rooted in social constructivism — the idea that “truth” and “knowledge” are constructed by hierarchies of power within society.  In other words, universal values and shared humanity don’t exist, and do not transcend identity (race, religion, gender, sexuality). Therefore, civil rights can only be achieved through dismantling so-called power structures in society, which, according to an anti-racist framework, require the disruption and dismantling of things like “whiteness,” “toxic masculinity,” etc. 

As Pluckrose and Lindsay write:

The problems with this kind of rationale are not only that it sets different identity groups in opposition to each other, makes communication difficult, and creates a moral economy that locates social power (immunity from legitimate accusations of bigotry) in perceptions of victimhood or oppression. It also reduces the ability to be able to genuinely empathize across identities if we are understood to have entirely different experiences, knowledges, and rules.

There are three core problems with identity politics, according to Pluckrose and Lindsay:

• Epistemological: It relies on highly dubious social constructivist theory and consequently produces heavily biased readings of situations.
• Psychological: Its sole focus on identity is divisive, reduces empathy between groups, and goes against core moral intuitions of fairness and reciprocity.
• Social: By failing to uphold principles of non-discrimination consistently, it threatens to damage or even undo social taboos against judging people by their race, gender, or sexuality.

Pluckrose and Lindsay also state:

It is generally a terrible idea to have different rules of behavior dependent on identity because it goes against the most common sense of fairness and reciprocity which seems to be pretty hardwired. It is also antithetical to universal liberalism and precisely the opposite of what civil rights movements fought to obtain. Identity politics which argues that prejudice against white people and men is acceptable while prejudice against people of color and women is not do still work on a sense of fairness, equality, and reciprocity but it is reparative. It attempts to restore a balance by “evening the score” a little, particularly thinking historically.

Despite disingenuous claims from DiAngelo, the Civil Rights Movement did not employ the use of identity politics.  Instead, it used the values of universal human rights and the inherent worth of every individual, and did so regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexuality.  If we truly care about diversity, equity, and inclusion in America, we must resist using polarizing identity politics, and instead choose an approach based on universal human values.

Video: A Practical Guide to Surviving Anti-Racism Trainings

Schools, businesses, and government organizations need not be locked into the ridged tenets of modern anti-racism. An informed and respectful dialogue on alternatives can broaden perspectives on diversity, equity, and inclusion. This is a companion video to the article of the same name. Thanks for watching!

A Practical Guide To Surviving Anti-Racism Trainings

by Christopher Paslay

Schools, businesses, and government organizations need not be locked into the ridged tenets of modern anti-racism. An informed and respectful dialogue on alternatives can broaden perspectives on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

For the past three months, I’ve been producing videos and writing about some of the pitfalls and drawbacks of modern anti-racism and white fragility.  A common misperception is that because I criticize these approaches, I somehow oppose the fight for racial justice — specifically, the quest for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).  This could not be further from the truth.  

As a Philadelphia public schoolteacher, certified counselor and coach, my very livelihood is centered around these goals.  Each day I work to educate my students and athletes to become critical thinkers and informed members of society, modeling the kinds of principled behaviors I’d like to instill in them.  With that said, there is more than one way to skin a cat — which is to say there are other ways to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion outside of the current trendy anti-racist approach.

The core tenets of anti-racist scholarship-activism, when you study them closely, are not without controversy.  They are as follows:

• Racism exists today in both traditional and modern forms.
• Racism is an institutionalized, multilayered, multilevel system that distributes unequal power and resources between white people and people of color, as socially identified, and disproportionately benefits whites.
• All members of society are socialized to participate in the system of racism, albeit in varied social locations.
• All white people benefit from racism regardless of intentions.
• No-one chose to be socialized into racism so no-one is bad, but no-one is neutral.
• To not act against racism is to support racism.
• Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged. No-one is ever done.
• The question is not Did racism take place? but rather How did racism manifest in that situation?
• The racial status quo is comfortable for most whites. Therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect.
• The racially oppressed have a more intimate insight via experiential knowledge into the system of race than their racial oppressors. However, white professors will be seen as having more legitimacy, thus positionality must be intentionally engaged.
• Resistance is a predictable reaction to anti-racist education and must be explicitly and strategically addressed.

The truth is, not everyone believes racism works this way, myself included.  Anti-racism is simply a theory of the dynamics of racism in America, one that is subject to flaws like any other.  Likewise, so-called “anti-racist” work is simply one method of achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion, and many people believe they should have the right to oppose racism from their own political, religious, or philosophical worldviews.  Unfortunately, the anti-racist approach itself makes offering alternative solutions to racial justice nearly impossible, as any form of disagreement is itself evidence of so-called “aversive racism” or oppression.

However, as scholars Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay write in their article “How to Talk to Your Employers About Anti-Racism,” it is “possible to push back at authoritarian overreach in the names of ‘Social Justice’ or ‘anti-racism’ and persuade employers and coworkers to expand their scope to include a broader range of worldviews in their anti-discrimination initiatives.”

Pluckrose and Lindsay suggest writing a letter to your employer to address your concerns about anti-racist trainings, explaining that you are familiar with the main tenets of Critical Social Justice and are not coming from a place of ignorance; and that you fully support the fight for diversity, equality, and inclusion, and are not coming from a place of bigotry.  Here are eight things to consider in your letter:

1. Begin with acknowledgement of the issue and why your organization is making a response at all.
2. Indicate concern in a broad sense, beginning with the concern for the underlying issue, need for dialogue and action, and then expressing broader concerns, especially that hasty decisions could create unintended problems.
3. Demonstrate that this concern is well-founded by explaining your familiarity with the fundamental tenets of CSJ (see, for example, our forthcoming book, Cynical Theories, explaining this) and examples in which it has been put into practice (e.g., The Evergreen State College).
4. Illustrate some specific problems with the proffered approach, both theoretically (e.g., contradictions, unfairness, kafkatraps, etc.) and in application; express concern about these damaging the organization and its mission.
5. Acknowledge the underlying problem again and suggest/remind that there are other ways to approach it.
6. Provide some examples from liberal, egalitarian principles, make suggestions for genuine leadership training or alternative approaches to engaging diversity successfully (i.e., IKEA effect exercises, antifragility models, and so on).
7. Express plainly that you believe the current course of action is a mistake that, while it signifies intention to take on the problems of current concern, could exacerbate the issues or create other new ones.
8. Close with a thank you and invitation to more discussion and a willingness to take leadership roles with regard to navigating the issue, if needed or appropriate.

Being tactful and exhibiting a professional tone is very important.  Pluckrose and Lindsay also state:

That you demonstrate your competence with Critical Social Justice ideas is very important. The training session or whatever you are being compelled or strongly encouraged to attend works on the assumption that you have biases you are not even aware of and that you will need to be trained to see them. This is because the worldview at hand believes people with systemic power on their sides are socialized — literally brainwashed by the power dynamics of society — to believe that they earned their dominance and that it is appropriate and natural, thus invisible to them. The training will assume that you will be resistant and defensive because you are fragile or reactionary and won’t want to confront your racism. It will label you not just ignorant but willfully ignorant — you don’t know and you don’t want to know. This means that all disagreement can be dismissed or even turned against you.

Obviously, this is not the best way to have open, honest, and productive discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion in schools or businesses.  However, when you take an honest look at the underpinnings of modern anti-racism and whiteness studies, this is exactly how these things operate.  Any administrator, supervisor, or manager genuinely open to racial equality should welcome alternative points of view as long as they are stated respectfully.  And Pluckrose and Lindsay have offered a plethora of resources for doing just that.

In summary, disagreeing with a modern anti-racist approach to fighting racism doesn’t mean you’re against equity and racial justice.  On the contrary, you’re forwarding the cause by broadening its scope.