Trump/MAGA in Denial of the Historic Fact of Racism

Trump has taken an aggressive stand against any acknowledgment of racism or other society--sanctioned discrimination in our history as well as any efforts to address these issues.  He has, not surprisingly, missed an opportunity to do something good for this country.

First of all, for him to deny, by not acknowledging or letting anyone that the federal government funds speak to these matters, is classic denial.  These things have happened in our past and are still happening today.  And they have a grave impact on our country in many respects.

So eradicating any discussion of these issues creates a situation where they fester and become even stronger than when they were discussed.  Blacks and others may have used DEI efforts to fight the establishment, but by denying them a voice it actually makes the situation, the alienation and anger, worse.

Yes, there are problems, as I wrote in my post, "Pluralism or DEI?" with the way DEI has been implemented.  But there were important reasons behind DEI that affect the welfare of our country.  Instead of throwing out all DEI efforts, what Trump should have done was repurpose the DEI efforts into a broader effort to instill Pluralism in our society.

The need to acknowledge the past and work towards improving the present and the future in terms of discrimination is vital, but it needs to be done within the context of pluralism, where everyone has a seat at the table, all voices are heard and respected.  We are all one; we are all children of the same God or the creation miracle of the Universe—however one wishes to see it.  

In keeping with the doctrine of balancing rights and responsibilities, nothing that benefits one person should be to the detriment of another.  So to it must be with measures that remediate the discrimination that various groups have suffered in the past and in the present.  By doing something that helps Blacks or women, for example, to move forward, white males should not experience any detriment beyond that caused by the increased competition for positions, offices, etc..  There is enough wealth and opportunity in this country that these two things should be possible to implement at the same time.

Trump is not stupid.  Why did he not take this route?  I believe he chose not to because his base does not want a truly pluralistic society in which all are respected.  They do not want to view people of color or even women as their equal.  And so Trump did not take this route.

Trump has done many things in his first 100 days that have gravely damaged our democracy, but perhaps his actions against DEI are the worst because they go against all sense of decency, against humanity.  And a respect for humanity is perhaps the most essential spirit that underlies the American experiment that began in 1776.

  

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.