Sun Tzu also noted that one can expect an opponent to choose ground which is to their advantage, the counter is to then choose a different ground upon which to engage this opponent.
> Kendi calls his version of equitism “antiracism,” allowing his enthusiasts to declare that if one is not antiracist, then logic dictates that one must be proracist.
It's very easy to grasp logically if you understand the characteristics of antimatter. According to physicists, antimatter is exactly like matter in every way, except for a few specific characteristics, in which it's exactly like matter in every way *except for being oriented in the precise opposite direction.*
When you understand antimatter, you understand so-called "anti-racism" and "anti-fascism."
Somewhere along the long and winding American road from Thomas Jefferson of Virginia to Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia We the People were detoured into this current ditch. It’s not likely that We will successfully climb out to again see that universal way through the woods of our future. 😢
Had to stop and comment after two paragraphs -- I hope I'm not repeating a point you made.
"Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome." That is quite simply a restatement of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And we know where THAT came from.
I can’t grant that label. One of the biggest problems with “equity” is precisely that it is not equitable. Let no nomenclature be accepted which tacitly agrees that it is.
I further dispute that the problem that the DEIsts have no accepted label—if it really is a problem—can be solved by their opponents trying to stick one on them. It might work if we controlled the meaning-creating institutions of the culture; but they do.
I love this post. I am new subscriber. I learned about this post becuase of the organization FAIR. I just happen to see the title of the email that was updating me on FAIR's substack recap. I don't always open that email but was intrigued by the title based on the meeting I just walked out of at my kids school.
I happen to walk out of a meeting at my kids school where I was trying to explain why I don't use the word "woke" to describe the framework that was used in a recent conversation. It was fascinating to have the gentleman trying to frame my words back into a conversation about being "woke" or "not woke". I told him "woke" carries with it too much baggage and it is too broad and I want to talk in terms of specific framing. I had to stop the conversation several times when he would reinterpret what I said by saying "You mean woke." I would literally say no and then have to pull us out of that language. He was surprised to hear me use terminology that was precise in language that explained CRT in a practical way. It was a fascinating conversation and at one point I shared that I avoid some of those buzzwords because I'm trying to move the conversation forward here and I don't need people getting hung up on the individual trees when we need to be deeply concerned about the forest (the ideological framework that has taken over the conversation about Race in unhealthy and unhelpful). Then I read this post and I am saying "yes!" Great job trying to make sense of the nonsense. I told the guy it was intentional that movement has words that are elusive. I am hoping that he considers it because he is in an influential post and has no idea that he walks and talks in the frame that is destructive.
The issue is that you're trying to nail down something that specifically doesn't want to be nailed down. Take one of the quotes that you provided:
“Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”
This wasn't written by some uncharitable critic, but rather a proponent of equity. In fact, I believe that this link made its rounds at my own school back in 2020. However, if I were to feed the quote directly back to people I work with today they would take issue with it, specifically with the word "exact".
Recently we re-wrote our faculty hiring policy to suggest that equal representation is a goal. Since our student population is 80% hispanic, I asked, "so what's the goal, here? Does that mean that we should expect our faculty to be 80% hispanic?" The answer wasn't yes, but rather, "do you think the current distribution is acceptable? We may never have 80% hispanic faculty, but shouldn't we have more than we do right now?"
The point being, they probably do want 80% hispanic faculty, but even though that goal is obvious it's never explicitly stated, and if you do explicitly state it or try to get them to, they'll say that they never said that, and they'll turn it around on you and suggest that you're against their "modest" ask of considering, in a general and squishy manner, of "just having a little more hispanic faculty, and really what's the problem with that?"
The most frustrating aspect of the whole thing isn't that bad ideas are being pushed in the name of equity, but when the ideas don't work out they're not only quietly abandoned, but those pushing relentlessly for them five minutes ago act as though they never believed those things, and it's usually hard to catch them because their statements are sufficiently sloppy and vague that you can't show without a doubt that they were pushing for that, even when they obviously were.
Great post. The illustration in your Lagniappe section always gives me a few thoughts: (1) Is the point that stealing should be made equitable? and (2) What should we do about basketball, or (my sport) shot-putting (or, really, any sport where certain physical attributes contribute to success)?
Another thoughtful and well reasoned piece. I like the search for simplicity, and all the points made about the opposition. Your solution works, but equitism doesn’t roll off my tongue easily - perhaps with mor practice it will. Using your three prongs, all I can come up with is the aspiration is uniformity, the advocate would be a dullard and the philosophy is stasis, which is far too complicated.
Sun Tzu also noted that one can expect an opponent to choose ground which is to their advantage, the counter is to then choose a different ground upon which to engage this opponent.
> Kendi calls his version of equitism “antiracism,” allowing his enthusiasts to declare that if one is not antiracist, then logic dictates that one must be proracist.
It's very easy to grasp logically if you understand the characteristics of antimatter. According to physicists, antimatter is exactly like matter in every way, except for a few specific characteristics, in which it's exactly like matter in every way *except for being oriented in the precise opposite direction.*
When you understand antimatter, you understand so-called "anti-racism" and "anti-fascism."
Somewhere along the long and winding American road from Thomas Jefferson of Virginia to Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia We the People were detoured into this current ditch. It’s not likely that We will successfully climb out to again see that universal way through the woods of our future. 😢
Had to stop and comment after two paragraphs -- I hope I'm not repeating a point you made.
"Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome." That is quite simply a restatement of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And we know where THAT came from.
Now back to the scheduled programming...
I can’t grant that label. One of the biggest problems with “equity” is precisely that it is not equitable. Let no nomenclature be accepted which tacitly agrees that it is.
I further dispute that the problem that the DEIsts have no accepted label—if it really is a problem—can be solved by their opponents trying to stick one on them. It might work if we controlled the meaning-creating institutions of the culture; but they do.
I love this post. I am new subscriber. I learned about this post becuase of the organization FAIR. I just happen to see the title of the email that was updating me on FAIR's substack recap. I don't always open that email but was intrigued by the title based on the meeting I just walked out of at my kids school.
I happen to walk out of a meeting at my kids school where I was trying to explain why I don't use the word "woke" to describe the framework that was used in a recent conversation. It was fascinating to have the gentleman trying to frame my words back into a conversation about being "woke" or "not woke". I told him "woke" carries with it too much baggage and it is too broad and I want to talk in terms of specific framing. I had to stop the conversation several times when he would reinterpret what I said by saying "You mean woke." I would literally say no and then have to pull us out of that language. He was surprised to hear me use terminology that was precise in language that explained CRT in a practical way. It was a fascinating conversation and at one point I shared that I avoid some of those buzzwords because I'm trying to move the conversation forward here and I don't need people getting hung up on the individual trees when we need to be deeply concerned about the forest (the ideological framework that has taken over the conversation about Race in unhealthy and unhelpful). Then I read this post and I am saying "yes!" Great job trying to make sense of the nonsense. I told the guy it was intentional that movement has words that are elusive. I am hoping that he considers it because he is in an influential post and has no idea that he walks and talks in the frame that is destructive.
This is exactly what I've been looking for - I can't ever find the right way to describe the "everything is racist" crowd, and equitist is perfect.
I still like shitlib but the meme is great. You may want to add "stochastic", you stochasticerer.
Great post Mr. Graboyes.
What's wrong with "Post Modern Nihilism", "Cultural Marxism", or "Chemical determinism"?
Bob,
Excellent essay, as usual. I am sharing and adopting this into my personal lexicon immediately. I hope it catches on.
Rick
Whatever do you mean by "level ground"?
The issue is that you're trying to nail down something that specifically doesn't want to be nailed down. Take one of the quotes that you provided:
“Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”
This wasn't written by some uncharitable critic, but rather a proponent of equity. In fact, I believe that this link made its rounds at my own school back in 2020. However, if I were to feed the quote directly back to people I work with today they would take issue with it, specifically with the word "exact".
Recently we re-wrote our faculty hiring policy to suggest that equal representation is a goal. Since our student population is 80% hispanic, I asked, "so what's the goal, here? Does that mean that we should expect our faculty to be 80% hispanic?" The answer wasn't yes, but rather, "do you think the current distribution is acceptable? We may never have 80% hispanic faculty, but shouldn't we have more than we do right now?"
The point being, they probably do want 80% hispanic faculty, but even though that goal is obvious it's never explicitly stated, and if you do explicitly state it or try to get them to, they'll say that they never said that, and they'll turn it around on you and suggest that you're against their "modest" ask of considering, in a general and squishy manner, of "just having a little more hispanic faculty, and really what's the problem with that?"
The most frustrating aspect of the whole thing isn't that bad ideas are being pushed in the name of equity, but when the ideas don't work out they're not only quietly abandoned, but those pushing relentlessly for them five minutes ago act as though they never believed those things, and it's usually hard to catch them because their statements are sufficiently sloppy and vague that you can't show without a doubt that they were pushing for that, even when they obviously were.
Great post. The illustration in your Lagniappe section always gives me a few thoughts: (1) Is the point that stealing should be made equitable? and (2) What should we do about basketball, or (my sport) shot-putting (or, really, any sport where certain physical attributes contribute to success)?
Another thoughtful and well reasoned piece. I like the search for simplicity, and all the points made about the opposition. Your solution works, but equitism doesn’t roll off my tongue easily - perhaps with mor practice it will. Using your three prongs, all I can come up with is the aspiration is uniformity, the advocate would be a dullard and the philosophy is stasis, which is far too complicated.
I'd say the aspiration is (with some equitists) more about vengeance than about uniformity.