You wouldn’t think so from the news, for example: “Pages about the battle and the subsequent emancipation of local enslaved people, all references to President Abraham Lincoln’s views of the war were removed, as were some references to Union Army commander Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s views. Some mentions of slavery were cut, along with details of how White hostility in the area thwarted the efforts of freed Black people to enter their society” — Kevin Levin on how the Park Service is being turned to propaganda.
And colleges that don’t ditch DEI, he’s declared, will no longer be accredited (conversely, schools will be in trouble if they oppose racist sports-team names).
Nevertheless, part of the FOTUS administration’s complaint to Harvard was that it must hire new faculty to provide viewpoint diversity in each department … while also giving up “ideological litmust tests.” Incoherent, but what it boils down to is that the university should hire more conservatives. They’re also claiming that academic journals are obligated to provide diversity of viewpoints.
This is, of course, same-old, same-old. Right-wing beliefs about gender, history, science, evolution, vaccines, race have all been proven wrong so they frame it as a matter of free expression — some people believe in creation over evolution so why not teach the controversy? The answer: there is no controversy scientifically. Oh, there are lots of disputes in evolutionary science but none of them are “did evolution happen or were all species created in six days?” Nor is evolutionary design a theory with any legs. Presenting it as a free speech issue makes it sound like Christians’ rights to speak up have been violated. RFK Jr. uses similar tactics.
They haven’t. Despite whines about Christian oppression, they can talk, witness, discuss their views with anyone who’s willing to hear them — that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to have science teachers who lie about the science. And keep in mind I’ve never heard anyone suggest that viewpoint discrimination requires teaching Hindu beliefs about the world’s origin, or the Norse mythic belief that the first man and woman were licked out of a block of salt by a cosmic cow.
As for academic journals, every magazine is entitled to pick its own publication policies. Conservative Christian websites are not required to post positive articles about the Church of Satan. Fiction magazines that don’t want to publish religious stories (I’ve known a few) are entitled to do so. If Jeff Bezos wants the Washington Post to become more conservative, he’s entitled to do so, just as I’m entitled not to subscribe to it. The odious The Federalist doesn’t have to publish my article on why feminism is right (they’re way misogynist — click on the tag for some examples). That certain theories or beliefs are tossed out because they’re scientifically unsound does not mean the author is a persecuted modern-day Galileo. That requires being right.
Real diversity is a way to push back against a system which prioritizes white, male opportunity and doesn’t give the same breaks to women, POC and others. Not because of conscious bias, as author Lauren Rivera points out — it can happen simply because like calls to like (good cultural fit, as they say). It’s to redress and fix real problems. Viewpoint diversity isn’t wrong in the same way. Not having a popular viewpoint doesn’t mean you’re edgy or daring or clever, and it doesn’t require redress.
There are times repressing viewpoints could be a problem but what right-wing viewpoints are being suppressed? Racists, anti-vaxxers, theocrats, they’re all speaking up — the trouble is, they can’t always do it in the places they want to be published and that either hurts their egos or hinders their power to spread propaganda.
Screw the Felon’s bullshit. And apparently it’s not polling well.
To end on an upbeat note, some companies are standing by their DEI policies despite the administration’s pressure. Go!
