In 鈥淪traight Talk with Rick and Jal,鈥� Harvard University鈥檚 Jal Mehta and I examine the reforms and enthusiasms that permeate education. In a field full of buzzwords, our goal is simple: Tell the truth, in plain English, about what鈥檚 being proposed and what it means for students, teachers, and parents. We may be wrong and we will frequently disagree, but we鈥檒l try to be candid and ensure that you don鈥檛 need a Ph.D. in eduspeak to understand us. Earlier this week we diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Today鈥檚 discussion is a continuation of that conversation.
鈥�Rick
Rick: OK, just to recap: Earlier we went back and forth about DEI. You argued that it 鈥渆merged as a needed response to the well-documented history of racism and exclusion鈥� in American history, but that its proponents eventually went overboard. This sparked a 鈥渧icious cycle鈥� characterized by backlash among conservative critics of DEI and overreaction to that backlash from parts of the left. I noted that there鈥檚 room for common ground on DEI, but I also raised the flag about ideologues run amok鈥攊ncluding when KIPP charter schools abandoned their 鈥淲ork hard, Be nice鈥� mantra in order to help 鈥渄ismantle systemic racism.鈥�
So, to repeat my charge from earlier this week: It strikes me that we need a clearer sense of the principles that can help us find that healthy equilibrium. You鈥檙e the Harvard professor. So how do we find it?
Jal: I don鈥檛 agree with some of how you have characterized some of the examples you mentioned; for instance, I see limited evidence that many schools are turning away from independence, hard work, individual thinking, and being nice in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. And I also see the costs of the things you praise from the right, particularly teachers feeling unable to raise legitimate issues around race, sexuality, or politics in classrooms. But I鈥檓 going to resist turning this into a predictable left-right debate and return to our core issue of striking a healthy balance on DEI.
One thing that I think would be helpful would be to try to get away from the 鈥渨hat team are you on鈥� dynamics that tend to characterize these discussions and move toward a more careful consideration of particular claims in particular contexts. Ezra Klein鈥檚 synthesized a lot of underlying political science research about polarization and argued that what has happened to politics is that partisans used to be divided by issues but are now divided by identities. When you feel that the other political party is not just someone you disagree with over taxes or social programs but rather an existential threat to your core beliefs and values, then it is easy to demonize the other. DEI has gotten caught up in similar Manichean dynamics in which both sides think that, to quote George W. Bush, 鈥測ou鈥檙e either with us or against us.鈥�
Another thing this will require is for brave folks to speak up when they think that people with whom they are roughly aligned have significantly overreached. As an example, consider the idea that the written word is part of white supremacy culture. If by that someone means that we are overly reliant on technical analyses in written reports and ignore the voices of those closest to the problem, I鈥檓 with them. But if they鈥檙e saying that Black and brown students don鈥檛 need to learn how to write, or that we are somehow disenfranchising those students by assigning them essays in high school, they鈥檝e lost me. If they are saying that we need to broaden the canon to incorporate a wider and more diverse range of authors, I鈥檓 with them. But if their argument is that anything written by a dead white male isn鈥檛 worth reading, I鈥檓 not. We need to challenge folks on our own side of the aisle; otherwise, we will perpetuate the dynamics of an escalating culture war led by those on the extremes.
Finally, I think more discussion of some of the polling you raised in our previous post would be helpful. Writ large, the American people are often more sensible than the self-appointed spokespeople that claim to speak for them. We鈥檝e heard ad nauseam about self-censorship on college campuses, but some of the statistics you cite, like the idea that most Americans favor a balanced approach to history, are less prominent in the public conservation than they should be. The next time conservative politicians go to the bully pulpit to promote killing African-American history or some other such thing, I hope that sensible folks on the right like you will remind them that the people are not actually with them on this.
Rick: That鈥檚 a terrific set of suggestions. I especially like the need to remind ourselves鈥攁nd especially political leaders who raise money and generate enthusiasm by catering to the base鈥攖hat the lion鈥檚 share of Americans are a lot more measured than our putative leaders would have you believe. Much of the problem emerges from Americans on the left and right having fundamental misperceptions about what their counterparts believe, so everyone winds up thinking the worst of the 鈥渙ther side鈥濃�攁nd thus clinging tighter to their tribe. This helped DEI enthusiasts intimidate lots of otherwise reasonable teachers and administrators into quietly swallowing some toxic stuff, even as it helps right-wing outrage artists rally otherwise sensible people behind grievance-fueled fever dreams.
The truth is that most people agree with the unremarkable values we鈥檝e articulated but don鈥檛 realize how much company they actually have. One of the most valuable resources on this is the 鈥淧erception Gap鈥� by YouGov and More in Common, which notes that Republicans and Democrats wildly misjudge the other side鈥檚 thoughts about patriotism, immigration, and much else. Republicans, for instance, vastly underestimate the share of Democrats who say they鈥檙e proud to be an American, while Democrats wildly underestimate the share of Republicans who think legal immigration is good for America.
And it turns out that consuming more media makes us more likely to get the 鈥渙ther side鈥檚鈥� views wrong. I think that goes a long way to understanding why the blue, news-drenched worlds of academe, education, and media tend to reflexively dismiss the right鈥檚 legitimate concerns as illicit or manufactured. On AP African-American history, for instance, I flatly disagree with your take. I鈥檝e argued at length that the concerns Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had about the ideological spin of the initial course were wholly reasonable. If you can point to someone who says, 鈥淲e shouldn鈥檛 teach about African American history or have kids read books by Black authors,鈥� I鈥檓 100 percent with you. But I think this was a case where about one-sided narratives and politicized curricula got dismissed as bigotry.
I think this is what makes much of the back-and-forth so ugly. Those of us who push back on the excesses of DEI have had the recurring experience of being told that there鈥檚 no issue and that we鈥檙e racists for suggesting otherwise. Then we get told that there may be some minor issues but that, ultimately, we鈥檙e overreacting. And then we get told that this was all just fake news鈥攖hat, of course, everyone always agreed that schools should celebrate hard work, being nice, and independent thought. The 鈥溾�� gets memory-holed. And those of us who were labeled bigots, chased out of universities, and blackballed for saying otherwise are left scarred, wondering where this sensible consensus was when students were being subjected to pernicious dogma and educators to brow-beating.
It鈥檚 easy to be magnanimous after the fact. What we need is for those leading the charge on diversity, inclusion, and equity to promote measured wisdom when it counts. If the DEI charge had featured more of that and less ideological freelancing, we might have wound up with practical, popular changes鈥攔ather than fodder for yet another culture clash.
Jal: We can agree to disagree on Ron DeSantis. I think what you describe in your own experiences as a conservative critic of DEI is part of why it is so difficult to treat this issue with the kind of calm rationality we are advocating in this piece. When you are, in your own words, 鈥渓abeled bigots, chased out of universities, and blackballed for saying otherwise,鈥� you aren鈥檛 likely to be looking for opportunities to critique your own allies for overreach. And, conversely, if you are a progressive who watched in horror as conservative members of Congress and big donors brought down the female presidents of three universities in short order, you similarly aren鈥檛 going to go public with your own internal criticisms of overreaches within higher education. When you鈥檝e been cut to the bone, magnanimity is hard to come by.
Is there any way out of this loop? I鈥檓 not sure. But discussing it publicly seems like a good start.
