Pluralism or DEI?

Even before Trump's actions against DEI, there were many in the academic community and elsewhere that felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.  

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who currently and historically have suffered from discrimination, became a sign of exclusion of all others because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention on others.  Those left out were assumed to not need any help, but that was mistaken.  And they were and are angry.

Another problem with DEI is that it maintained if not amplified an attitude of victimization and anger at the broader society.  It supported an us v them perspective.  There was no effort in DEI to bring minority and majority groups together to help change the current dynamic.  The assumption was that if you were going to protect your rights, you had to fight for them.  And so it unintentionally further polarized an already polarized society.

Because of these problems, some in academia and state government have adopted the concept of pluralism to replace DEI.  The concept of pluralism, broadly stated, is that everyone is recognized as being part of the whole, that all voices are allowed to speak and be heard, and that opposing groups learn to speak to each other and hopefully find a way of bridging historical animosities.

This is a good thing; polarization is very harmful for all concerned.  But from what I've read, it appears that the baby has been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.

Discriminated-against groups need their own space, their own support group, because the rest of society is so lacking in understanding their history and nature and of the fact and impact of the discrimination that they not only have suffered from historically, but are still suffering from today, despite all the laws the have been passed.  

If the dominant culture truly comes to accept pluralism, then there might be less need for such identity-groups, but I think there would still be a legitimate need.  I have never understood, for example, why the gay ghetto, which was such a wonderful, nourishing experience, was felt by gays to no longer be necessary once society became more accepting of gays.  We have truly lost something, which was not necessary.  We may be accepted, but we have our own culture, which is rich, and that culture can only thrive when you're living together.

Further, it should not be seen as destructive of or inconsistent with pluralism for groups to speak out against current discrimination, racism, or misogyny in our country.   Pluralism requires the respect of everyone for everyone else.  It's the equivalent of the classic lawyer's statement that, "Reasonable men may differ."  It's about coexisting with civility regardless of differences.  

If that is not the current status—and that is certainly not the status now with racism, discrimination, and misogyny being widespread—then not only should it be ok to call out such violations of the spirit of pluralism, but this must be done.   Otherwise, pluralism will be a delusion.

In the 90s, multiculturalism was given a bad name, just as DEI has now,  And for much the same reason.  For emphasizing our differences, rather than our commonality.   Through pluralism, we must find a way of both emphasizing our commonality—the fact that we are all Americans and human beings—and supporting the vitality of the subcultures within our midst.