Photo credit: www.educationnext.org
Understanding the Current Backlash Against DEI in Education
Q: Could you elaborate on the frustrations being expressed regarding educational trainings?
A: In recent years, I have consistently heard from K–12 and higher education faculty about their discontent during professional development sessions that seem to reflect a narrow, politicized perspective. Many describe these trainings using terms like “re-education,” “Orwellian,” and “McCarthyite.” Parents have also expressed their frustration, recounting instances where their children, even as young as third grade, have been taught to feel shame about their race or to criticize their family for using traditional gender terminology. The growing trend of land acknowledgments, pronoun requirements, trigger warnings, and overt language monitoring have led many to question the sincerity and effectiveness of these initiatives.
Q: Is this backlash primarily a reaction to white supremacy within the Republican Party?
A: Not quite. The evidence suggests otherwise. In the previous election cycle, Trump garnered significant support from various demographic groups, including Latino, black, and Asian voters—unprecedented levels for a Republican candidate in recent history. This undermines the theory that the party is solely defined by white supremacist ideologies. While some theorists may argue that concepts like “objectivity” and “individualism” could be tied to white supremacy culture, it seems more accurate to say that many Americans are simply weary of being chastised for valuing principles such as equality and personal accountability.
Q: What is your perspective on concerns about anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiments?
A: Framing questions about LGBTQIA+ issues in a certain way has contributed to backlash against perceived bigotry. Attempts to engage in nuanced discussions about sexuality, gender identity, and age-appropriate content have often been mischaracterized as discrimination. Parents expressing concerns about policies perceived to be overly accommodating toward transgender rights have faced labeling as “transphobic,” while academic professionals have found themselves ostracized for raising valid scientific questions. Popular consensus around policies, like ensuring women’s sporting categories remain biologically female, has been unfairly described as “anti-transgender.” Initiatives in states like Florida, which seek to limit discussions around gender in early education, have been polemically branded as “Don’t Say Gay.” However, many parents advocating for age-appropriate content in schools do not act out of prejudice; rather, they are responding to a perceived need to safeguard children. Research indicates that from 2000 to 2020, Republican voters displayed increasing acceptance of gay and lesbian individuals.
Q: Are today’s political dynamics in Washington different from Trump’s first term? If so, in what way?
A: Yes, the landscape has changed. Five to ten years back, concepts such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) had an almost universally appealing quality. In Trump’s first term, top officials supported these motley principles without much pushback. However, after the killing of George Floyd in 2020 and the ensuing pandemic, scrutiny of DEI and anti-racism practices intensified. New realities revealed themselves: loyalty oaths disguised as “DEI statements” appeared across educational institutions, and race-based groups emerged within educational frameworks. The concept of “equity” was wielded to justify questionable disciplinary practices and convoluted grading policies. The ridiculous claims of “transgender inclusion” often contradicted established scientific understanding. Disturbingly, discussions of “diversity” have sometimes contributed to antisemitism by framing societal value in reductive terms of “whiteness” and “non-whiteness.” The currents we see today are a reaction from segments of the populace frustrated by these developments.
Q: If there are legitimate concerns about DEI, why haven’t they received substantial media attention?
A: This is an important inquiry, one best directed at education journalists. My analysis of critical race theory media coverage suggests that journalists often oversimplify or caricature concerns expressed by conservatives, thereby missing the genuine apprehensions of many. This skewed portrayal can overshadow critical discussions, as seen in the controversy surrounding the AP African American Studies curriculum. Additionally, educational organizations tasked with guiding journalists tend to lean towards demonizing right-leaning viewpoints.
Q: While there may be valid issues with DEI, could an outright removal of these initiatives lead to greater problems?
A: If this is occurring, it does pose a significant concern. A superficial approach that leads to the avoidance of meaningful historical examination would be detrimental. It is essential to maintain a balanced perspective while addressing issues related to DEI. However, as fringe elements within any movement can sometimes dominate the narrative, there is a real risk that their extreme viewpoints will shape the discourse. The ensuing response might swing too far in eliminating DEI measures, possibly undermining beneficial initiatives and policies in the process. While this is regrettable, it is a natural outcome when movements are radicalized, and their more tempered principles get lost amid the extremism.
Source
www.educationnext.org