THE INTERSECTIONAL CATECHISM.

I don't have a lot of respect for what passes for diversity training these days.

No, those bureaucracies have to justify their existence, and their catechism, excuse me, their priors like those of the Holy Inquisition, insure that there will always be demons to exorcise.  "Catholic university teaches 'transphobia' and 'fatphobia' are products of racism perpetuated through religion."  Am I supposed to be grateful that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" is not a constraint on the curriculum, or troubled that the priors structuring the workshop are tighter than stretch pants on Hillary Clinton's tush?

I titled that post "Make-Work for Failed Scholars."  There's nothing in Jonathan Turley's recent take-down of Diversity Catechism at Wisconsin Law to make me change my mind.

This training is part of the ABA Standard 303’s requirement for all law schools and was presented by consultant Debra Leigh, Vice President for Cultural fluency, equity, & inclusion at St. Cloud Technical & Community College.

The controversy was featured on a couple of conservative sites such as College Fix  after law students complained about the first-year law student training. Leigh has long been controversial for her views, including that those who claim to be “colorblind” are racist.

The required reading list for student “Re-Orientation” includes instruction on indications of “white guilt, denial or defensiveness.” It then explains how “People of color, as a social group, do not have the societal, institutional power to oppress white people as a group. An individual person of color abusing a white person – while clearly wrong, (no person should be insulted, hurt, etc.) is acting out a personal racial prejudice, not racism.”

Thus, people who have accused figures like Leigh of being racist in her own writings are categorically wrong and racist themselves. No matter what Leigh says about white people, she cannot be racist.

The explanation in the material is self-serving and shallow.  The idea that racism is premised on the ability to yield power is not accepted by many, if not most, citizens. Racism is a matter of prejudice, not power. It is racism whether it is in a country, state, or city dominated politically by whites or racial minorities. It is an expression of ignorance and hate that uses the racial identity of others as the basis for claiming inferior or dangerous qualities.

The site also identified other controversial claims, including how seeking to learn about racism can be racist. Leigh explains that “I want to stop acting like a racist, so please tell me when I do something you think is racist,” is a “common racist [attitude]” or behavior.

She is quoted as adding “While it is vitally important for white anti-racists to work with other white people, this detour again results in white people controlling the direction and focus of anti-racist work.”

The controversy could not come at a worse time for the university, which recently agreed (after considerable debate and pushback) to cut down on its diversity-related materials in exchange for $800 million in funding from the state.

I suspect that Wisconsin Law are not engaging in subtle trolling here, demonstrating the folly of a rule by complying with it, although bringing in a deanlet from St. Cloud Tech to work from such "self-serving and shallow material" sure looks like keeping failed scholars in work, doesn't it?  And yes, the facilitator is working from priors that are as tight as Hillary's stretch pants.

What's more amusing, though, is that the training materials, which the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty obtained and are circulating as part of their Equality Under the Law Project, which might lead to legal action against Wisconsin Law.  There's internal inconsistency all through the study materials.

I wonder how much trouble somebody would get into asking "What evidence would persuade you to revise your prior belief?" when the prior belief is "All 'blame the victim' behaviors have two things in common. First, they avoid the real problem: racism. Second, they take away from the picture the agents of racism, white people and institutions, who either intentionally perpetuate or unintentionally collude with racism."  Or would that be like the tween asking the priest, "What evidence would persuade you that God did not make us?"

If you really want to see the sparks fly, consider this passage.

To say people of color can be racist, denies the power imbalance inherent in racism. Certainly, people of color can be and are prejudiced against white people. That was a part of their societal conditioning. A person of color can act on prejudices to insult or hurt a white person. But there is a difference between being hurt and being oppressed. People of color, as a social group, do not have the societal, institutional power to oppress white people as a group.

Just for fun, ask the facilitator, "Let us grant that people of color do not have the power to be racist. But they can insult people. If I say they're being nyekulturny, am I being racist?

Then note that in another unit of the handout, if you just put up with your interlocutor of color acting out, that's also racist.

Your white guilt shows up here as you defer to people of color. The person of color is always right, or you never criticize or challenge a person of color. You try not to notice that you notice they are black or native American or Latina or Asian. You don’t disagree, challenge or question a person of color the way we would a white person. And if you do disagree, you don’t do it with the same conviction or passion that you would display with a white person. Your racism plays out as a different standard for people of color than for white people. If this is your pattern, you can never have a genuine relationship with a person of color. People of color know when you are doing this. Your sincerity, commitment and courage will be rightly questioned. You cannot grow to a deeper level of trust and intimacy with people of color you treat this way.

The name of this monstrous lie is Original Sin, isn't it?  Professor Turley, do I hear an Amen?

The material also tells students that reference to the “Rugged Individual, the Level Playing Field and the Bootstrap Theory” are all racist tropes. Indeed, they are present as the “three of the crown jewels of U.S. social propaganda.”

How is that fostering “discourse,” as claimed by the university? They are stated affirmatively as the object of the training. The suggestion is that students are to adopt and recite, not debate and challenge such viewpoints.

The suggestion that this is a sounding board for discussion is refuted by even a cursory review of the material. Students are given facts to be learned and the material attacks those who question these facts as demonstrably racist. Even those who espouse anti-racist viewpoints are reminded that they remain racist.

Yes, and again imagine asking the priest, "Father, what if there is no hell?"

To question such material on campuses today is to invite cancel campaigns and a pariah status. Few professors want to risk such controversy, which can sharply curtail academic opportunities and even the renewal of academic contracts.

Yet, this training is now being replicated in many other schools. It is part of a rising orthodoxy in higher education. There are important elements to this material which should be part of a dialogue on campuses. Those, however, are lost by the heavy-handed indoctrination shown in this material.

Amen.