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.
Ironically California banned affirmitive action in college admissions 30 years ago…
“the glossary claims. “Merit protects White privilege under the guise of standards … and as highlighted by anti-affirmative action forces.”
The implementation of DEI leads to tribalism and exclusion.
When white people are told to be “less white” and that asking someone where they’re from, what they do, or what sports they like are all micro aggressions, then white people don’t want to risk even talking to black people. They’re afraid that anything they say could be called a micro-aggression, regardless of intent. Whereas before, people would be friends with anyone regardless of skin color, black people are encouraged to exclude whites from dorms, study groups, graduation ceremonies, friend groups, and any other gathering, to reduce “whiteness” and “white supremacy” and to “center” blackness. White people exclude black people because they don’t want to force their “whiteness” on them, and they’re afraid they’ll be accused of being too white if they say, “Good morning.” “Oh, it would be a good morning for you, because you’re privileged.” Young students are taught to make assumptions about how easy or hard someone’s life is based on skin color, that white students should hate themselves, and that black students should hate their white classmates as being oppressors.
DEI is a racist ideology.
Jonathan: There may still be some misunderstanding regarding DEI policies. Only public colleges and universities are impacted by claims of violations of 1st Amendment rights. Harvard, Stanford, etc. are private institutions that can limit 1st Amendment rights. Thus the use of DEI statements at private colleges and universities are not in issue.
The Q is whether public institutions, like the community college system in California, can use DEI statements as part of the evaluation of professors. There is an interesting article in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment (2/23/23) that discusses the origin of DEI policies, the legal issues, and the FIRE legal challenges of those policies. Eventually the courts will sort out the legal issues.
The second Q is why FIRE is challenging DEI policies? TX Gov. Abbott and FL GOP Governor DeSantis have made DEI policies one of centers of their campaigns against the “Woke agenda”. Abbott’s office said “the innocuous sounding notion of DEI has been manipulated to push policies that expressly favor some demographic groups to the detriment of others”. Who might be the “others”? You guessed it–WHITE people. It is no coincidence FIRE has filed so many lawsuits against the “Woke agenda” on university campuses. Much of its funding comes from right-wing foundations–like the Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Charles Koch Institute–that are behind a deceptive campaign to protect “free speech” while advancing a white conservative ideology on so-called “liberal” campuses.
I won’t say you are part of the FIRE/ Abbot/DeSantis campaigns but….
Your second paragraph is quite the traipse down racism is a-ok lane.
Not only is your thesis wrong, your assertion that “others” = WHITE people is wrong, too. DIE theory as currently practiced largely benefits one race and to a lessor extent another, all others suffer, not just whites. Moreover, and this is typical lefty shortsightedness, these DIE racist policies “benefit” who they do now, but there is NOTHING to legally stop that from being reversed or altered.
You wanna be a racist, fine, but don’t pretend your aren’t one and don’t pretend that your policies do any long-term good; they never do and this isn’t the one to break the streak.
The reason FIRE is addressing it is because ACLU has been compromised, and is a shell of itself, sadly.
The money is in promoting racism, since obama the racist’s reign.
I see I spoke too soon.
Pennis— Do you yet wish to acknowlege your lie regarding violence these days?
Otherwise, please give me your expert opinion of this
“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.”
This is complete insanity.
Anyone who frames something in terms of race is by definition a racist.
So all those Kalifornians [sic] who claim to be anti-racists, are in fact racists. (Just in denial.)
-G
Holding that individual ability and talent is “race-based” is an absurdity that becomes increasingly more so with the passing of time. It remains nevertheless a potent danger considering it is but a further attack on the ideology of individualism by the ideology of collectivism. The former is growing in its appeal to all races whereas the latter has always had and always will have a vested interest in achieving dominance over spirited individuals regardless of their race.
Thank goodness I was hired before academia required loyalty oaths. Thank greater goodness that I am retired. Nonetheless, there has been a steady evolution of nuttiness and irrationality on campus for at least the last 50 years as nearly as I can tell.
One has to experience academic society first-hand to fully appreciate the return to stone-age thinking it demands. It’s tribal. I have attended, involuntarily; 1) sexual harassment training led by the biggest harasser of women on the campus, 2) civility training where the trainer had hastily edited all of her diversity training materials to address civility (with predictably comical results), 3) training on bullying where the biggest known bullies got to tell their stories of being victims, and 4) health and safety training (COVID-style) where the answers to questions in the final assessment didn’t match the dogma spouted during the training — on one question the scientifically correct answer was “safety and health” whereas “health and safety” was a wrong answer, and on it goes. Tuition dollars at work.
The sounds like a Viet Cong re-education Camp. How many times must one repeat this creed or is it required to be repeated by all before any class starts. In order to be certified as a true believer. Of course one must stand and give a certified salute as the creed is repeated. Those who consistently fail the creed or are recalcitrant most likely will have a lead object explosively entered into their posterior brain. The family of the offender will then be billed for the lead object. Very efficient method for assuring conformity to a point of view.
Color-blind is racist, merit is racist, math is racist, white is racist. Remember this you filthy racists!
Let’s just call this out for what it is. A doctrine of White Original Sin. It needs to leave the story branch and root.
So California regulations want professors to “pledge” their loyalty to the DEI cause ??? Does the regulation also require them to salute ? Just wondering …..
Simple people want simple solutions.
And Democrat solutions demand no thinking.
The fit is perfect.
Amen, the left will eventually turn on themselves because in the end no one is ideological pure enough just look at the French and Russian revolutions.
They turn on themselves through purges designed to solidify power. The ideological purity is a ruse.
“Under the regulations, professors must pledge . . .” (JT)
That is a government-mandated loyalty oath. And, yet again, one that reveals the Left’s Maoist urges.
(And, yes, community colleges are government institutions.)
“I grade my class based on merit” is now suspect??? How is this not racism towards black people? They are saying that black students cannot achieve the same level of merit as white students and therefore must be treated in a different manner. If I was a black student I would be livid because everyone will look at me as only surviving on campus due to being babied scholastically.
Liberal white people, especially liberal white women, are killing our society day by day.
I would assume all the people that put this together, (how many doctorates at work here?) would know intuitively, compelled speech is a violation of Free Speech rights.
““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.””
Several months ago while visiting some friends there mid twenties son (Hampshire Col graduate) pronounced that color blindness was racist and that you HAD to treat ‘people of color’ differently because of historic inequities. When I asked why he said you can’t treat people equally he rambled on about the promotion of whiteness and systemic racism, almost verbatim the above statement. When I asked HOW it does that he couldn’t give an answer, just kept repeating the same thing. When I gave an example…’in his theater group, you have a white actor who is great, remembers his lines, is punctual, etc and one who is ‘of color’ who is a terrible at emoting, can’t remember lines, and skips rehearsals, and you only have one part to fill , which one will you pick? The one who will make the production great or the one who you know won’t? You could almost see the thought process rumbling around in his head. In the end his ideology won out and he said the ‘person of color’. So I left him with, “you are willing to sacrifice the whole production, the time, money, sweat and tears everyone has put into it to satisfy an ideology that doesn’t even make sense”. He could not answer.
Very well said.
It doesn’t just stop at “viewpoint diversity”. It is applied to the Individual’s Ethnicity.
If you are a Square Peg or a Round Peg your acceptable because you are ‘Identifiable’.
However if you are a Star, Moon, Clover, … shaped Peg that does not ‘Fit’ into the Standard accepted Holes.
Then your Out the Door. Basically, If They can’t place an Identity upon You (They don’t know what the hell You are),
Bye Bye. And that applies to many venues of the Day to Day Life for these Individuals.
How you see it … Isn’t the way it is.
Your atavistic-question is not the problem of the subjected Individual.
Rephrase: Questioning Your atavistic-perception is not the problem of the subjected Individual.
Listen, We are all Human, not all of Us have the ability to control our cognizance 100% of the time. [I don’t think a percentage exist (0%)]
That’s reality. These Rules designed by the State are well intended, but the effectiveness is nominal and can as well be counter productive.
Hmmmm, no other races believe in Merit?
Evolution happens, or doesn’t, based on Merit.
Systemic Rot or Devolution is based on having a critical mass of lefties in your system, it is the opposite of evolution. Once your system has a critical mass of lefties it DIEs.
How a system, like the state of CA can permit the abject racism of these anti-racists to operate without fear of retribution is astounding, leftism is a nasty cancer.
A state and country in denial of its own madness.
Both of my parents were community college teachers here in California so I have a lot of respect for what these colleges do to help those who cannot afford to get into a four year school or those who need to improve academically before transferring. At this point, if I were a professor at one of these institutions, I would tell them to mark me down as racist who believes in merit as there is no winning the argument with these activist nut jobs. The word no longer carries a rational definition.