Yes, yes, and yes. The most special and unique and valuable thing this nation provides a framework for is both de jura and de facto pluralism. That all are created morally equal, and that human judgement is ultimately fallible, lead inevitably to pluralism. Not that all things must be tolerated, but that all things have a voice that cannot be taken away, all things have a right to contend for the hearts and heads of our citizens, and that having different ideas and different origins need not prevent us from working together where we agree.
The best DEI programs have been rooted in the pluralism at the heart of this nation. Group speak in any form is the enemy of that pluralism, and yet we find this proclivity to settle into accepted patterns of thought wherever human thought is found. The response to the excesses of DEI culture should not be to tar these programs with a broad brush but rather to learn of and draw attention to the contributions they have made and to speak more specifically to the forms of excess that have made them targets for those who have no thought of tasking themselves with the challenging work of grappling with the founding commitments of this nation.
250 years ago, mostly written by Thomas Jefferson, passed by our Continental Congress in 1776, in the Preamble of our Founders’ Declaration of Independence our Founders railed against King George III. As you will sadly conclude, a great many of the Founders’ accusations to the English King are equally applicable to our present King. (The excerpts below begin with the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration’s Preamble; the original accusations list was arger.)
“The history of the present King…is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices…
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them…from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
He is at this time transporting large Armies…to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Many decades ago, my wife and I were frequently called on as the first Black/White couple legally married in Arizona, to talk about what was called race. We did so, mostly to friendly or neutral groups like churches and classrooms. My wife's views, which have not changed at age 84, is that White folk have not changed either, as evinced by Trump and his anti-DEI admin.
We attended an ASU lecture series for some years, SCETL, that I recognize from this article - for which I thank you for the great quotes - as a movement to bring more conservative thought to campuses, a worthy goal. Yet the director, Paul Carrese, said once when a speaker referred to him as a conservative, "Well, not that I'm outed...." Outed? why was he hiding this? As time went on we dropped off attending because rather than the usual Con/Lib debate we were getting more Con, and we already know those tropes.
But if you could respond, I would like references on the so-called failures of DEI. Even back in the 60s and 70s our presentations were sometimes accused of making people uncomfortable. I have no doubt that presenters have gone off the rails - I've experienced a few myself - but if we can welcome programs like SCETL veering toward straight-up conservative POV without a liberal (small l) counter, we can deal with over-enthusiastic social justice types. No cherry-picked examples, just researched insight into DEI programs.
Yes, yes, and yes. The most special and unique and valuable thing this nation provides a framework for is both de jura and de facto pluralism. That all are created morally equal, and that human judgement is ultimately fallible, lead inevitably to pluralism. Not that all things must be tolerated, but that all things have a voice that cannot be taken away, all things have a right to contend for the hearts and heads of our citizens, and that having different ideas and different origins need not prevent us from working together where we agree.
The best DEI programs have been rooted in the pluralism at the heart of this nation. Group speak in any form is the enemy of that pluralism, and yet we find this proclivity to settle into accepted patterns of thought wherever human thought is found. The response to the excesses of DEI culture should not be to tar these programs with a broad brush but rather to learn of and draw attention to the contributions they have made and to speak more specifically to the forms of excess that have made them targets for those who have no thought of tasking themselves with the challenging work of grappling with the founding commitments of this nation.
250 years ago, mostly written by Thomas Jefferson, passed by our Continental Congress in 1776, in the Preamble of our Founders’ Declaration of Independence our Founders railed against King George III. As you will sadly conclude, a great many of the Founders’ accusations to the English King are equally applicable to our present King. (The excerpts below begin with the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration’s Preamble; the original accusations list was arger.)
“The history of the present King…is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices…
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them…from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
He is at this time transporting large Armies…to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
To read the entire Preamble and Declaration go to: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Many decades ago, my wife and I were frequently called on as the first Black/White couple legally married in Arizona, to talk about what was called race. We did so, mostly to friendly or neutral groups like churches and classrooms. My wife's views, which have not changed at age 84, is that White folk have not changed either, as evinced by Trump and his anti-DEI admin.
We attended an ASU lecture series for some years, SCETL, that I recognize from this article - for which I thank you for the great quotes - as a movement to bring more conservative thought to campuses, a worthy goal. Yet the director, Paul Carrese, said once when a speaker referred to him as a conservative, "Well, not that I'm outed...." Outed? why was he hiding this? As time went on we dropped off attending because rather than the usual Con/Lib debate we were getting more Con, and we already know those tropes.
But if you could respond, I would like references on the so-called failures of DEI. Even back in the 60s and 70s our presentations were sometimes accused of making people uncomfortable. I have no doubt that presenters have gone off the rails - I've experienced a few myself - but if we can welcome programs like SCETL veering toward straight-up conservative POV without a liberal (small l) counter, we can deal with over-enthusiastic social justice types. No cherry-picked examples, just researched insight into DEI programs.
Bravo! And https://www.theglobalist.com/false-lures-of-neo-nationalism/
This is how to make civics classes truly liberal 😎