I recently characterized “diversity and inclusion” as a deeply Orwellian movement – doublethink all the way:
Out of all the major political movements on Earth, none is more Orwellian than “social justice.” No other movement is so dedicated to achieving the opposite of what its slogans proclaim – or so aggressive in the warping of language.
For example:
1. The diversity and inclusion movement is nominally devoted to fervent “anti-racism.” In practice, however, they are the only prominent openly racist movement I have encountered during my life in the United States. Nowadays they routinely mock and dismiss critics for the color of their skin – then accuse those they mock and dismiss of “white fragility.”
Recently, I noticed yet another fine mess of diversity and inclusion doublethink: the crusade against “othering.” What does “othering” mean? Defining other groups of human beings as objectionably different in order to rationalize the poor treatment they receive at your hands.
The crusade against “othering” has become a prominent component of the diversity and inclusive movement, with over 1.5M google hits for this odd neologism. Check out the Ngram:
The most noted skirmish of the anti-othering crusade happened in an English class at Iowa State, where the syllabus gave this now-notorious “GIANT WARNING”:
GIANT WARNING: any instances of othering that you participate in intentionally (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, sorophobia, transphobia, classism, mocking of mental health issues, body shaming, etc) in class are grounds for dismissal from the classroom. The same goes for any papers/projects: you cannot choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn’t deserve the same basic human rights as you do (ie: no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc).
Yes, the media scandal only happened because the story was atypically dramatic. The professor was even ordered to fix her syllabus and “provided additional information regarding the First Amendment policies of the university.” Yet the “othering” meme – and the attendant crusade – are already commonplace in the humanities and social sciences.
What is so Orwellian about this crusade? The fact that most of those who denounce “othering” exemplify the practices they denounce. The diversity and inclusive movement has a broad list of odious outsiders they mention with scorn and treat with disdain: “straight cis white males,” adherents of traditional religions, conservatives, moderates, opponents of abortion, and even insufficiently radical liberals and progressives.
You might think those who preach against othering would strive to assure the world of their hospitable intentions: “Just because you have other ideas doesn’t mean I’m going to other you.” Instead, they reliably do the opposite, responding to even mild dissent with anger and ostracism.
True, few professors threaten their students in writing. Yet for every educator who others unbelievers on the record, there are probably dozens – if not hundreds – who do so informally. Imagine you were a student of the chastised Iowa State professor. After she grudgingly affirms your First Amendment rights, would you feel comfortable submitting work he previously stated was grounds for dismissal? Not likely, because her initial statement so stridently othered you.
The moral: The crucial variable is not official class policy, but the attitude of the teacher. And teachers who think what the Iowa State professor wrote abound.
As far as I know, intolerant, thin-skinned, anti-intellectual educators have been around for… well, forever. What has changed is the Orwellian nature of their reaction to dissent. Traditional authoritarians othered openly. Orwellian proponents of “diversity and inclusion” other vast swaths of humanity while giving the evil eye to anyone who doubts their supreme commitment to compassion and acceptance.
READER COMMENTS
Paul
Sep 29 2020 at 11:20am
I was wondering why they (the social justice movement) still use all these *isms instead of just embracing one word to describe every kind of behavior that is…well..that they do not like. Because that seems really the only common criteria. So here it is “otherism”. I would laugh if not for the poor kids and students being subjected to this kind of thinking.
Sadly homeschooling is not an option where I live…I more and more consider it.
Mark Z
Sep 29 2020 at 12:46pm
They could just refer to people they disagree with as the Others. Or the ‘White Walkers’ actually might be a surprisingly topical prejorative.
Steve
Sep 29 2020 at 1:24pm
Related to this: I have seen explicit rejection of the old adage to take the high road. There is no honor in being better than the people you “other”, you just have to gang up on them enough to drown out their voice.
Just last week I had an acquaintance on a group chat say that they were considering calling up our Republican Senator (who is in a very hotly contested election) to say that they had previously voted for him but would not vote for him if he chose to confirm the new supreme court nominee. They asked the group if this was bad to lie about their voting record, since they basically vote straight Democrat every election. I responded with, “If you think it’s OK to lie to further your own goals, how are you any better than all the Republicans you openly despise for doing the same?”
I swiftly received at least 4 other messages saying that “it is absolutely OK to lie to Republicans” and “anything is OK that results in them losing the election”.
Now, on a quantitative scale, lying about your voting record is pretty small potatoes. But I was astonished at how quickly and confidently the others in this chat replied giving the go ahead for this less-than-ethical behavior.
Phil H
Sep 29 2020 at 8:12pm
I assume the technical features of rights mean that the professor’s position was incorrect, but in pedagogical terms, I suspect she was dead on. The chances of there being any educational value in an undergrad rehearsing Fox talking points are slim.
To Bryan Caplan: I hope these posts are just little observations. If you spend all your time railing at the illogic of the young, you become irrelevant.
Mark Z
Sep 29 2020 at 10:23pm
“The chances of there being any educational value in an undergrad rehearsing Fox talking points are slim.”
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Or, are you seriously equating criticism of abortion or BLM (or expression of right-of-center views in general?) to ‘rehearsing Fox talking points?” I mean, look, if you honestly believe only left-of-center views belong in universities, fine, I guess if someone is absolutely certain of the correctness of their views and the evil of opposing views, barring them from academic fora may make sense, but I trust you understand that no one outside of your particular worldview has any reason to listen to you then.
Phil H
Sep 29 2020 at 10:29pm
You don’t have to be evil to be wrong. You just have to be wrong. And call me old-fashioned, but I still think it’s worth going to university to learn things, not just to “express your views”. How dare those nasty professors oppress our little darlings by suggesting that they don’t just spout their ideas without consideration?!
Mark Z
Sep 30 2020 at 12:07am
Why not prohibit support for BLM, abortion, gay marriage, etc.? Does each professor decides what the classroom orthodoxy is? For example, what if a professor wrote a similar syllabus specifically forbidding socialism or support for affirmative action from discussions or writings, as being inconsistent with what the students are there to learn? Or is the position basically that the professor’s views here are so undeniably correct that they should be taken as scientific orthodoxy, and thus disagreement with them should be regarded as like supporting flat earth theory in a geology class?
Many social science or humanities classes inevitably lead to political discussions, in which students inevitably take positions on issues. Some professors consider that part of learning. If such discussions just amount to leftist students agreeing with each other and the professor and anyone else sitting silently, then that’s probably not a very fruitful discussion. If you can’t conceive of sitting in a room and having a polite discussion with someone who disagrees with you about abortion or BLM, I don’t know what to say, I can’t help you.
Phil H
Oct 3 2020 at 6:21am
“Why not prohibit support for BLM”
Funny you should mention it. The UK’s Tory government literally just passed a law forbidding the use of materials from organizations that do not support capitalism in the classroom. Real government-level censorship. That’s something that libertarians should be concerned about.
”Many social science or humanities classes inevitably lead to political discussions”
Interesting. This was an English class, and while politics may come up, it seems orthogonal to the purpose of the learning to be done. If a professor wants to set certain classroom rules, which clearly don’t conflict with her teaching duties, I don’t see an obvious reason to interfere.
Mark Z
Oct 3 2020 at 4:20pm
“The UK Tory government…”
That doesn’t really answer the question.
And my guess is you haven’t been in a college English class in a while? Maybe if it’s a class specifically all about Bede, politics won’t come up, but otherwise it’s common for English (and other humanities) professors to make politics a part of their class. An obvious example: writing projects. Asking students to write in support or against a position, possible of their choosing or within some range. I got assignments like that from grade school through college. So any composition-oriented class, it’s clearly relevant. Students are likely to be asked to specifically argue for a position on a topic of dispute, so saying, “but you can only defend positions I agree with” is clearly not just a matter of keeping the students on topic.
suddyan
Sep 30 2020 at 8:22am
[How dare those nasty professors oppress our little darlings by suggesting that they don’t just spout their ideas without consideration?!]
You seem to be the only person commenting here who implies that the above argument has been made. Specifically, I did not read what you are implying in Bryan’s article.
Kindly note that the professor referred to in the article did not prohibit raising ideas “without consideration,” but specifically prohibited raising some ideas AT ALL.
In no way can the phrase “no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc” be honestly recast as equivalent to “spout their ideas without consideration.”
There is a major difference between those two alternatives, and in my view your formulation casts valid doubt as to the sincerity with which you have entered the debate.
JFA
Sep 30 2020 at 4:17pm
“but I still think it’s worth going to university to learn things”. I whole-heartedly agree that you should learn things at university… but stifling discussion on various topics (e.g. whether abortion should be allowed or what are the causes of racial differences in income, wealth, crime, etc., or should transgender students be able to compete in sport under their preferred gender) has never really been conducive to learning… that kind of environment is for the seminary and re-education camps. And it seems that the professor in question (along with many other professors) is perfectly willing to let little Johnny express his views as long as those views align with the professor’s. And part of a professor’s job is to be a life-long learner… not just to spout their views without consideration. Another thing to note: it was not a math or physics or chemistry class that had restrictions on discussion. It was an English class… they haven’t even decided whether the Oxford comma is correct or not… I’m not quite sure they have the evaluation skills to label arguments “right” or “wrong” well enough to justify stifling disagreement on more contested issues.
Phil H
Oct 3 2020 at 6:35am
“English class…not quite sure they have the evaluation skills to label arguments”
Ha, this argument is funny and good. I mean, maybe that’s right. My feeling is that this prof was probably responding to specific experiences where boorish students expressed opinions that made other students feel uncomfortable. The response was quite badly worded, but I don’t think it’s hard to see how it came about.
Or maybe she is just a crazy ideologue! Of course that’s possible; I don’t know any details. But I don’t see any obvious reason to assume that from the facts we’re given here.
Kevin
Sep 30 2020 at 3:17am
Phil, you must not know who Bryan Caplan is. You should do a little bit of research. Although, you probably already know everything.
Alexander Turok
Sep 30 2020 at 10:41pm
Basically half of Phil H’s posts here are variants of “you aren’t allowed to notice the illogic of this or that group! Or else I’ll consider you irrelevant!”
Ben
Sep 30 2020 at 9:54am
The challenge is that othering is easy while inclusivity is difficult.
Russ Roberts frequently paraphrases Adam Smith as saying “We like that our friends like what we like and dislike what we dislike.’ And we care a lot more about the latter. We really want them to hate what we hate.”
Lazy thinking allows for othering. To be inclusive would require maintaining a respectful debate with someone whom you disagree with when you might be ostracized from your own social circles for doing so.
I find it is exhausting, but worthwhile, to attempt to be respectful to folks who I strongly disagree with. It takes practice (and I’m still working at it) to bite your tongue and not engage in the muck & mire.
Thomas Hutcheson
Sep 30 2020 at 12:20pm
Assuming that one agrees that diversity and social justice are values to be promoted, maybe it would bea good idea to say something about how they SHOULD be promoted, not just how they should NOT be promoted.
Jose Pablo
Sep 30 2020 at 7:28pm
A quote from Taleb on the “structural” nature of the “doublethink” that you mention:
“The more you institutionalize rules of ethical behavior that should be voluntary (say, anti-racism, anti-sexism), the more they will be used as a cover for unethical actions”.
https://medium.com/incerto/pedophrasty-bigoteering-and-other-modern-scams-c84bd70a29e8
In fact, “True believers” of many religions have shown this kind of behavior repeatedly. Analyzing “othering” as a religion will undoubtedly help to better understand the position and actions of the “true x-ism believers”.
Burning people for no showing enough enthusiasm for the “dogma” is nothing new, banning Arianism followers from the Western Empire’s universities neither.
“The End of History” never seems to arrive. Judging from yesterday’s debate “Humans are rationals” seems a clear overstatement.
Phil H
Oct 3 2020 at 6:27am
“casts valid doubt as to the sincerity”
Of course. Someone disagrees with you. The first thing you should do is suggest that they’re insincere. And you have the temerity to come and tell me that I don’t know how intellectual debate should be conducted!
Consider the context. An English class at a state university. What experience has led the professor to try to set that particular rule? What experience do you have that makes you better positioned than her to know what should or should not happen in her classroom. Are you really respecting the principle of respect for others’ expertise?
Mark Z
Oct 3 2020 at 4:31pm
She’s not basing her decision on some particular set of experiences. She said what she based her decision on: she considers these (quite mainstream) political views to be equivalent to denying basic human rights to some people. If she’s wrong about that (I think she is) then her decision is probably wrong (unless it’s right for the wrong reasons, but that’s doubtful).
I have to ask: would you take the same position defending a professor who, say, barred criticizing the Trump administration in the classroom or assignments because it’s unpatriotic or something?
Comments are closed.