“Persons are Either Anti-Racist or Racist”: California Sued Over New DEI Regulations

There is a potentially significant new filing over free speech by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in California on behalf of six California community college professors. In Palsgaard v. Christian (E.D. Cal.), the professors are challenging the new “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) regulations governing all of the more-than-54,000 professors who teach in the California Community Colleges system.Under the regulations, professors must pledge to follow and support values and beliefs that many find wrong or offensive. Some statements are likely to be viewed as too aspirational or general to sustain challenges like a requirement that they  “acknowledge” that “cultural and social identities are diverse, fluid, and intersectional.” They are also required to develop “knowledge of the intersectionality of social identities and the multiple axes of oppression that people from different racial, ethnic, and other minoritized groups face.”

However, the regulations also indicate that these faculty members will be evaluated by their advancement of these and other principles.  Moreover, some of the underlying terms raise obvious free speech problems. FIRE states:

An official glossary of terms released by the state makes plain that the “anti-racist” views it mandates are highly ideological. Indeed, the definition for “anti-racism” states that “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial.” California declares that “color-blindness,” or the belief that “the best way to end prejudice and discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity,” is itself a problem because it “perpetuates existing racial inequities and denies systematic racism.”

Even a professor saying something as benign as “I grade my class based on merit” is suspect under the regulations. “Merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality,” the glossary claims. “Merit protects White privilege under the guise of standards … and as highlighted by anti-affirmative action forces.”

FIRE objected to the regulations when they were proposed last year as unconstitutional and requiring, as a condition of employment, that faculty “profess allegiance to and to promote a contested set of ideological views.”

The regulations reflect the growing orthodoxy on our campuses as captured by its statement that “persons are either anti-racist or racist.” There is no variation allowed on how to address racism and all of those who are not racist but oppose such mandatory viewpoints are declared “in denial.”  The denial of viewpoint diversity can also be a denial of constitutional rights.

We will be following this lawsuit closely in the coming months.

81 thoughts on ““Persons are Either Anti-Racist or Racist”: California Sued Over New DEI Regulations”

  1. DEI the ideology of intellectually vapid Leftists who refuse to accept that people of all races thrive under “the system” when they value education and work hard. The Asians, not whites, are the number one per capita income group in the US and Latinos are rising, which is proof the system rewards those who apply themselves regardless of who they are. DEI is also racist in how it groups individuals into monolithic “communities” based solely on skin color, people are individuals with their own self interests, dreams and aspirations, not part of some Leftist assigned group. The sinister reason they do that is to keep them on the “Democrat Election Plantation” and if they happen to wander off to think for themselves, obtain individual success, they are chastised, cancelled, and told they aren’t really Black, brown or whatever. It’s despicable what the racist Left is doing to America.

  2. Exhibit A is the Peralta Community College District that governs 4 CCs in the Oakland CA area. It was being run by Marxist thugs who worship at the altar of CRT 30 years ago. Coincidentally Peralta crashed and burned into state trusteeship in the 90s–along with the public school districts in Richmond, Oakland, and Emeryville next door. Oakland was notorious for cutting paychecks to people who no longer worked for the district–but the briefing book with the evidence that took 6 months to compile was stolen from the Superintendent’s office. There should have been a Grand Jury but the local one-party Dem mafia is so corrupt nothing was ever done. BTW these “educational” institutions have been abject failures for decades, utterly failing to connect their students with the “high tech” job opportunities in the SF Bay Area–as the Tech Titans insist they must import legions of B-1s from Asia and the construction trades are dominated by immigrant labor. It’s like the 3 Stooges on LSD are in charge.

  3. FIRE rarely if ever loses.

    There is a giant gulf between Starbucks saying that political expression is entirely banned in the workplace.
    And State universities saying that only specific views may be expressed.

    I would further note – that your claim that some reuirements are merely aspirational is irrelevant.

    Require professors or students to adopt a specific view is a violation of the first amendment.
    Whether that view is aspirational or not.

    1. Fair enough. But did ya need to erase the posts re:Biden? That was whataboutism gold!
      Can I repost them, sans the calling out of Pennis?

      1. “sans the calling out of Pennis?”
        The name calling will stop, preferably by your efforts.

          1. For Italics you would encapsulate the text you want to italicize within Italics Tags:

            This is what you would type to italicize the word <i> EXAMPLE </i> in your text.

        1. Darren Smith: When I say you are only scratching the surface here is a post by Neil Bobacon responding to my comment: “You are either a low-IQ neo-con cockholster posing as a marxist or you are a racist…”. (8/18/23 @ 7:20 pm) No discussion of the points raised in my comment–simply personal attacks and name calling. Do you really think you can make that end anytime soon? You have created a monster that is out of control!

          1. It’s called sarcasm, and it can be used very well at times to make a point. I see it. If one doesn’t, not sure it’s tattle worthy.

          2. “. . . simply personal attacks and name calling.”

            The only difference between theirs and yours, is that yours are more sneaky.

    2. Darren Smith: Tom is not the only one on this blog engaging in personal attacks and name calling. You are only scratching the surface. Some of us on this blog would like to engage in a rational discussion of the important issues. Tom and others make that difficult or nearly impossible. Personally, Tom calling me “Pennis” doesn’t really bother me. What bothers me is you have allowed this blog to degenerate into a circus–a gladiator spectacle that does a disservice to what I would think would be your goal–to promote a variety of opinions re JT’s columns. Unfortunately, you won’t find much of that on this blog. That’s not good for your reputation or that of JT.

      1. Dennis, You should know this:

        The President will be taking a day off from his Tahoe vacation to visit Maui.

        1. This president??

          “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

          1. Oh thanks, yes, to clarify, the post is referencing the illegitimate POS sellout, criminal, lying, traitorous, fraud currently installed into the Oval Office who sometimes goes by the names ‘Pedo Peter’ and ‘Robert L. Peters.’

            1. And did he also say this?

              “I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone”
              “any offense”, not “the offense”
              “might have caused” not “caused”
              “anyone” not “everyone”

              1. And did he also really say this?

                “Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I’ve been around,” Biden said on the call. “And he’s fresh. He’s new. He’s smart. He’s insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world ‘clean.'”

                “Clean” was out of context??? You mean, “bright” and “articulate” would have added some much needed context??? Or was it because he said Obama was the first “14” to be all of these things, implying all before him were not?

                1. Yes, he did say that!

                  He also said to blacks that Romney was “gonna put y’all back in chains.”

                  He has lied for decades about his “civil rights” record claiming that he “marched” for civil rights and even desegregated movie theaters and restaurants in Delaware, when he did not.

                  He lied and said he was arrested when he tried to visit Mandela in apartheid South Africa.

                  He’s a patholgical liar and overt racist who has done monstrous things to black people during his time in public office, including passing his 1994 crime bill, by which his OWN son be serving at least 5 years in prison with no probation.

                  Biden lies about all of it. Because the fake news lets him continue to lie.

                  Biden is an insult to ALL people and especially black people. Wake the F up, people.

                  1. Don’t forget that he cheated on his school records and plagiarized other people’s speeches.

                    And the miracle of winning the presidency by staying put in his basement while Trump gathered enormous crowds everywhere he went. Gosh, what wonders!

              2. And are you telling me he also said this?

                “You cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Oh, I’m not joking.”

                Discounting the fact that the moron blew the punch line, when someone says “I’m not joking”, does that mean they are not joking, or does it mean something else???

                1. The man, if you can call him that, because he really is just a POS, but anyway, when asked for a comment on the devastating fires and loss of life on Maui curtly said, “NO COMMENT” and then turned his back on the press and walked away — as he ALWAYS does. And the corrupt fake news simply takes it, then bows to the POS and says “how much harder shall we suck, sir”

              3. Yes, he did say that! He also said, “If you don’t know if you’re voting for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

      2. Dennis
        With all due respect sir, until 3 days ago, I was a good little boy, ignoring your totally off topic ravings. Then one day you decided to chime in to a discussion I was having with Gigi with a personal attack. During that, you challenged me to find a provable lie in one of your ramblings on. That took all of 30 seconds. When I posted the lie (and it was provable because you were the one who contradicted yourself), you refused to discuss it, moving on to your next ramble. If not for that, I would have continued to just ignore you.
        I have given you dozens of opportunities to explain your statements.
        Your whole “discussion” argument is hogwash. You’re not interested in having a discussion. You drop in, post your 80 lines, and move on. That’s your prerogative, but don’t expect anyone to believe you’re here for a dialogue.

        1. ” you refused to discuss it, moving on to your next ramble. “

          Dennis can’t walk the talk. You are not the first to notice that Dennis challenges people and runs away when they demonstrate his ignorance. You can recognize Dennis only from his back.

      3. “Personally, Tom calling me “Pennis” doesn’t really bother me.”

        Darren—does this mean I can go back to using it???

        1. And in the future, when I crap all over your beautiful, thoughtful narrative, just think of me as one of those protestors pouring porridge all over a Rembrandt and gluing themselves to the wall.

          1. Dennis

            And did Biden also say this?

            “The consensus is A), we must take back the streets,” Biden said, “It doesn’t matter whether or not the person that is accosting your son or daughter or my son or daughter, my wife, your husband, my mother, your parents, it doesn’t matter whether or not they were deprived as a youth. It doesn’t matter whether or not they had no background that enabled them to become socialized into the fabric of society. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re the victims of society. The end result is they’re about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe, shoot my sister, beat up my wife, take on my sons.”

            And was it his bill that led to “mass incarceration” of black people?

            And is this part of the “historical racism” that you mention? Because for this old guy, it doesn’t seem that long ago?

            1. So, here is my question for you Mr McIntyre.

              Did you vote for Biden because he is racist, or anti racist?

            2. I remember him cheerleading for the Clinton Crime Bill with the mandatory minimums that put all the “black and brown” people in prison for for years even for petty drug sales. Jabbing his finger in the air on the Senate floor, , proclaiming how local DAs and judges “could not do a thing about it” as extra-hard sentences were federally mandated. I remember a case in Oakland where a guy got 8 years for giving somebody a ride to a fast food joint where he scored the drugs. Biden was posing at the signing ceremony in his shades. Something about those shades….

  4. One would think that the proponents of anti-racism when they declare: “… the definition for “anti-racism” states that “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial.”” would recognize the logical dilemma. If one states that one is a racist, then is one to be believed? If so, then it would be simpler for the anti-racist crowd to state that all people are racists, which upon reflection doesn’t really reveal much anyway. On the other hand if one states that one is a racist, then is that person in denial as well? If so then all people are in denial, which again doesn’t reveal much at all.

    While clearly, color blindness is rarely possible for the sighted, we can have a philosophical outlook to value the individuals (populationalism) rather than assume that perceived “group properties” are inherited by supposed “members” (Essentialism). Essentialism underlies Plato’s thinking and Marx’s class thinking and frankly is useful for the development of physics. The valuing of the individual is more recent and inspired Charles Darwin and is much more useful for the conceptualization of biology.

    We – as biological creatures – are much more productively thought of as individuals where variations are considered interesting rather than physical objects (e.g. atoms) where variations are considered errors. So there would be no “under represented” populations because the average of a population is largely meaningless.

  5. So tired of the push in academia to stifle thinking and demand correct speech – so brave new world , 1984 etc.

    Go The FIRE – a lonely voice in the desert standing up for individual right of speech.

    Sending all relatives with College bound students their website to check out colleges and know what they are getting into by choosing to go there.

  6. Jonathan: Unfortunately, we don’t live in a “race neutral” or “color blind” society, despite what the conservative Supremes seem to think. DJT and his MAGA supporters are playing the race card in defending against his four criminal indictments.

    A white woman in Texas was arrested for making a death threat against Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is Black. The woman called Chutkan a “stupid slave n…..”. DJT is doing the same thing on Truth Social but he uses the plural rhymes “RIGGERS” to describe all the Black prosecutors arrayed against him. Fani Willis, Letitia James and Alvin Bragg have all received racist threats from DJT’s supporters. MAGA supporters think that Black Americans have no right to prosecute their white cult leader. In a really “color blind” society this would not happen.

    Unlike other jurisdictions, under Georgia law, grand juror names are listed in indictments–like Fani Willis’ indictment of DJT and the 18 other co-conspirators. It didn’t take long for DJT’s supporters to post photographs of 13 of the 26 the grand jurors and their addresses, even social media accounts of those who served on the indicting Grand Jury, one of which at least is Black. The whole idea is to taint DJT’s jury pool–making potential jurors fearful of serving. That’s DJT game plan. Since Fulton county is heavily Black there is a good chance several will be chosen to serve on DJT’s jury. He wants to prevent that by threatening them.

    Which brings us back to your column re the FIRE lawsuit brought against the California Community College District. You claim a professor can simultaneously oppose DEI policies and still not be a “racist. Hard to reconcile what appear to be two contradictory positions. Why would a professor, who really believes in diversity, equity and inclusion, want to file a lawsuit against his/her employer over DEI policies? Unless, they perhaps still harbor some racial animus.

    “Which side are you on?” was a famous song written by Florence Reece about the miner’s struggle against the mine bosses. Bob Dylan referred to it in his song “Desolation Row”. In the continuing debate over DEI policies that Q is front and center. There really no room in the middle. You are either “anti-racist or racist”. They say you can’t be neutral on a runaway train. A professor can’t say they are not a “racist” and then oppose policies that try to deal the effects of historic racism.

    1. Or better yet, tell us if this is racist or anti-racist…

      “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

      1. Then he tried to clean it up with this jewel…
        “Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I’ve been around,” Biden said on the call. “And he’s fresh. He’s new. He’s smart. He’s insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world ‘clean.'”
        F-ing moron. No one took exception to “clean”. They took exception to “first”.
        He coulda said Obama was articulate and bright and it woulda been just fine. What he said was he was the first, which meant that every “14” that came before him was not.

        Was his clean up job racist or anti racist? I’m asking because you’ve set yourself up as the arbiter of which is which.

    2. “You are either “anti-racist or racist”.

      LOL. You are either a low-IQ neo-con cockholster posing as a marxist or you are a racist, there is not room in the middle.

        1. Fallacy (lousy spell check…).

          Although in Dennis’s case, I may have been right the first time.

    3. “A professor can’t say they are not a “racist” and then oppose policies that try to deal the effects of historic racism.”

      It seems that JT does oppose such policies. Are you calling him a racist?

    4. Meant to post this here for Dennis:

      President ’empathy’ will be taking a day off from his latest vacation…to visit Maui.
      He’s doing it ONLY because he got lambasted for saying “No comment.”

    5. The entire pile of schiff will go down the tubes on appeal… DJT will be our next President. As for the 2020 stolen election, well, piece by piece it’s being proven. As for this racism crutch you demonrats lean on to keep people of color on “the plantation”, well, millions are calling your bs.

  7. Say “I’m post-racial, would you like to hear what exactly that means?”

    That will likely shut them up.

  8. Forgive me for interrupting, but the absence of Smeagol and his gang is just too conspicuous. Guess they don’t wanna touch this one either. Can’t say I blame them.

  9. The popular thesis of non-discrimination constitutes the egregious and unconstitutional act of denying the right and freedom of choice, which, by definition, means to discriminate.

    If Americans are denied the right and freedom to choose, a dictatorial government is deciding for them and forcing that government’s decision on them.

    That is the wholly anti-American, unconstitutional, communist “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    If Americans are not free to discriminate, Americans are not free.

    What is manifestly unconstitutional is denying the constitutional right and freedom to choose, which, by definition, means to discriminate.

    Americans are either free or submissive to governmental dictatorship.

    People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom; freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.



      – JUSTIA

      The Supreme Court enjoys the power of Judicial Review and must have struck down completed laws and acts by the executive branch, the legislative branch, State governments and local governments that deny the right and freedom of individuals to choose based on any and all criteria. Non-discrimination laws, fair housing laws, forced busing, DEI, etc., constitute unconstitutional bias and favoritism, constituting violations of Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property. The 14th Amendment, including the nonsensical “Equal Protection Clause,” is flagrantly antithetical and unconstitutional as partial and prejudicial bias and favoritism, which are rejected by the definition of equity—the absence of bias and favoritism.

      If Americans cannot discriminate, Americans cannot be free.

      The Constitution exists in equity, which is, by definition, the absence of bias and favoritism – the Constitution is neutral and the “equal protection clause” and the 14th Amendment are redundant, inane and wholly unnecessary bias and favoritism, as they single out specific and particular groups for special and superior consideration and treatment. The Constitution guarantees freedom; the Constitution does not guarantee success or even acceptance. After being created equal, Americans succeed or fail on their own characteristics, abilities, ambitions and merit.

      Certainly, the right and freedom to choose exist in the 9th Amendment, if not specifically elsewhere in the Constitution.

      Individual Americans were provided maximal freedom, while government was severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating the maximal freedom of individual Americans.

      The American Founders did not conduct a revolution to throw off the tyranny of Great Britain, only to impose the tyranny of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      It is disingenuous for the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America to imply that they cannot grasp the totality of American freedom and the invalidity, illegitimacy, illegality, and unconstitutionality of their “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      The communists know full well that Americans enjoy maximal freedom under fundamental law and that their “dictatorship of the proletariat” is irrefutably anti-American and unconstitutional.

      If there is one thing that the communists hate to the death, it is freedom.

      The Power of Judicial Review https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/the-us-supreme-court-and-judicial-review/

      The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution. This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions. The Constitution does not specifically provide for the power of judicial review. It arises instead from an 1803 decision known as Marbury v. Madison.

      – Justia

      9th Amendment

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Leave a Reply