Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
AZ Senate Fights to Ban Racist DEI; Dems Furious
Republicans in the Arizona State Senate want to stop racial discrimination and racist ideology. Democrats and their allies think this is a terrible idea.
Sen. Justine Wadsack (R) sponsored a bill to prohibit public agencies from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race or ethnicity. The legislation, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1024, would give Arizona voters a chance to strengthen the constitutional ban on racial discrimination. Once passed by the GOP House and Senate, it bypasses the Democratic governor and goes straight to the voters.
Key to this effort is stopping public agencies from requiring employees or job seekers to sign a “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (DEI) statement they may or may not agree with. Not only is this compelled speech, it asks faculty to treat people differently depending on their immutable characteristics.
Arizona’s public universities now force applicants of up to 80% of faculty job openings to pledge loyalty to a progressive ideology that would enshrine racial bias into all hiring decisions. A bias that seems to fly in the face of Arizona’s ban on such discrimination.
Here’s a sample of the word salad (Semantic stir-fry? Jargon jambalaya?) promoted by the state’s largest university:
The School of Human Evolution and Social Change affirms the urgent need for action to advance diversity, equity and inclusion as part of our academic mission and vision. We acknowledge the long history of exclusion, discrimination and erasure within the U.S. system of higher education, as well as the historical collusion of our own scholarly disciplines in perpetuating these inequalities and injustices. We further acknowledge the 22 tribal nations in Arizona, and that our campus is built on the indigenous homelands of the Akimel O’odham, Piipaash and other groups. We acknowledge these peoples, their ancestors, their descendants and the land itself. Accordingly, our school strives to embrace diversity, and enact justice and equity not only in teaching and research, but also in administrative decisions, leadership positions and hiring practices.
The campus is also built on the Intendency of Arizpe, but Spanish imperialism must embarrass our progressive betters. Back to the text:
As a transdisciplinary unit designed to explore the human story more fully, our school is deeply committed to cultivating, with intention, an educational and working environment that is welcoming to historically marginalized students, faculty and staff with various intersecting dimensions of identity—including but not limited to, BIPOC; differently abled; first generation; international; LGBTQIA+; nontraditional; racially, ethnically, religiously, and linguistically diverse; undocumented/DACAmented; veteran; women; and working class. By extension, we are committed to engaging with, listening to, and honoring the cultural practices, intellectual traditions and unique knowledge of the diverse local and global communities with and among whom we work; and to creating opportunities and spaces for people to exchange perspectives within and beyond the classroom.
And if you don’t swallow this firehose of feculence with a broad smile on your face, don’t bother applying for a job. This reduces diversity by design.
Among its key provisions, SCR 1024 declares, “This state may not under any circumstance disadvantage or treat differently on the basis of race or ethnicity any individual from among any pool of applicants, students, employees or contract recipients when making a hiring, contracting, promotion or admission decision.”
Who could disagree with that common-sense proposal? Well, Save Our Schools Arizona, for one. This group made its name attacking any and all forms of K-12 education reform. They failed miserably in that effort and will hopefully fail in their latest bad take.
SOS Arizona issued a statement last week claiming that the bill “asks voters to enshrine racism in the state Constitution,” and “would negatively impact student learning, teacher retention and teacher recruitment.”
No, I don’t get it either.
A week earlier, they explicitly argued in favor of evaluating applicants based on their race.
“This culture-war-driven measure would prevent the state from giving minority-owned businesses any preference in state contracts [and] keep school districts from specifically hiring black or brown teachers,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, SOS Arizona has repeatedly claimed the state suffers from a severe teacher shortage. Surely the last thing families need is for school districts to reject highly qualified teachers simply because their skin color is “wrong.” (Whatever that means.)
Arizona voters rejected these racially discriminatory policies back in 2010, when they ratified—by a 19-point margin—a constitutional amendment to ban racial discrimination policies from our public institutions.
Yet now, groups like SOS Arizona wish to circumvent this language under the banners of “racial justice,” “anti-racism,” “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) and other similarly benign-sounding terms. They can use whatever euphemism they like, but no one should undermine the state’s constitutional guarantee of equal treatment for all.
SCR 1024 would end government-endorsed racism, either in hiring or enforced ideological tests.
It’s not just the activist class that’s denouncing the legislation.
State Senator Juan Mendez (D) derided SCR 1024 as a “culture war driven measure” (there’s that language again) pushing a solution in search of a problem.
Mendez added that, “we don’t have to worry about this” because “Arizona already prohibits an employer from failing to hire a person based on their race.”
State Senator Priya Sundareshan (D) similarly complained that the bill addresses “concerns that are overblown and do not actually exist in reality.”
At the same time, both senators warned of dire consequences if we were to disallow race-based discrimination, with Mendez claiming SCR1024 would “prohibit the state from receiving … federal grants and funding that are tied to incentivized diversity.”
In other words, discrimination isn’t happening and it’s good that it is.
This doublespeak dominates efforts to replace the Constitutional principle of equality before the law with regimes that treat individuals differently according to their skin tone.
Arizona lawmakers and voters shouldn’t bow to such bigotry, nor be cowed into submission by threats of economic hostage-taking by the federal government. Rather, just as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to strike down the remnants of federally sanctioned racially discriminatory admissions practices in higher education, politicians must stand up in defense of racial equality.
Published in Education, Politics
I can’t figure out how these people come up with this stuff and then think they are doing something positive. I was about to say, “huh?” to myself but you saved me when you read my mind–
“No, I don’t get it either.”
Thank goodness!
I’m glad to see your legislature taking these courageous and ethical steps against racism–even though everyone else thinks they’re being racists . . .
If only Arizona had a Republican governor who would sign such legislation.
Don’t call it “DEI’.
It should be referred to as D-I-E .
Thats more accurate.
Division, Intolerance, and Exclusion
No Governor’s signature required for SCRs.
If only Republicans had nominated Karrin Taylor Robson for Governor.
Is that the argument for it or against it?
In that case, there’s no reason not to enact this legislation then, is there?
The cartel got its sponsored candidate with the assistance of a corrupt county that can’t count.
Thanks, Jon. It is good to continue to remind people that, whatever our frustration with the GOP, there really is a difference between the two parties.
I’m glad the university acknowledges “the land itself.” That’s nice of them. Of course, I don’t know how they’d explain what the hell the campus was built on if they didn’t. Or, for that matter, the existence of the Geology department.
Hi Jon – Here’s question on SCR’s. It sounds similar to California’s Ballot Proposition procedure in which either a citizen/citizen’s group can put a measure before the voters if enough people in the state endorse the measure or the legislators can pass such a measure. Here’s the two part question 1) do the citizens of Arizona also have the power (along with the legislature) of putting forward a measure for voter approval?, and 2) how long after the legislature passes this measure will it be until it can be voted on by the people of Arizona?
If only Republicans had voted for the person it did nominate . . .
Racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia are endemic and that is why we compel affirmation of DEI-promulgated statements and participation in consciousness adjustment sessions and that is also why it is false to claim that anyone is compelled to affirm DEI-promulgated content or that anyone is compelled to attend DEI training sessions.
We needed to revamp the elementary and high school curriculum to teach that the entire American project and especially the Constitution are based on slavery and its unchanged legacy and also why it is absurd to claim that there has been any curriculum change other than mentioning slavery which, as we know, had never been mentioned in history classes before.
Women who happen to have penises should be welcome in women’s locker rooms and lavatories and women without penises who object to that should be excluded.
How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
[groan]
DEI and its sibling ESG are the too-clever-by-half tools that the Left seeks to utilize to impose their will and ignorant policies upon the country and the world by silencing opposition to such policies by legislative degree and by shaming the opposition with a twisted accusation of their opposition to things that only make the world ‘better’. The captive media will also be their protector and attack dog to help silence the oppostion.
Good on AZ for proactively striking at this coming menace.
Maricopa County is controlled by a 4-1 Republican Board of Supervisors, and has a Republican County Recorder. In 2022, the voters in Maricopa County simply voted against Election Deniers. (Now that Trump has embraced the tern election deniers, there is no need for me to pussy foot around this term.)
The people themselves can put an issue on the ballot.
Well, Arizona is 35% Republican, 34% Independent, and 31% Democrat. Kari Lake lost Independents by 30 points, and she generated a huge turnout by Democrats.
Of course, unlike the Soviet Union or CCP, members of the Republican Party are not compelled to vote for the winner of the party primary, especially when that candidate tells us to “go to hell” and campaigns with Steve Bannon.
Jon, I like the post. Thanks.
This part is a problem, for me:
Where did we come up with such moral rules? You can’t treat someone differently based on an “immutable characteristic”? Why not?
What if they’re tall? Or short? Or blind, or deaf, or whatever? Good at sports? Smart?
I could go on and on.
What about men and women? Can’t we treat them differently? I think that we should, in some ways, maybe not in other ways.
Although, I guess, the nattering nabobs of nonsense that rule our culture seem to think that male and female are no longer immutable characteristics. They are mutable, apparently. Being a sodomite is immutable, though, according to them, and despite the empirical evidence of change.
I’ve been taking a dim view of the so-called Enlightenment. For centuries now, the bulk of the intellectual elite seems to have believed, and asserted, that our moral and legal rules must be supported by a “reasoned” argument. This is a fool’s errand, as no such arguments exist without premises that cannot be proven by reason, and usually without decision rules for weighing different premises, which decision rules also cannot be proven by reason.
So people don’t reach reasoned positions. They make rationalizations for believing whatever they want to believe, usually quite shallow ones. But they think that they have reached the only position supported by Reason, so they are very committed to their conclusions.
I wonder why this is the case. I have my hypotheses, which are not complimentary.
Jon, I realize that you may have used the “immutable characteristics” as a shorthand to refer to, well, something. You probably meant race or ethnicity.
The diversity movement is particularly perverse and insidious. If it’s theme were that we have to compensate for the lingering disadvantages of historically oppressed people, I would still oppose it on the grounds that it does more harm than good, but at least it would have a kind of defensibility to it.
But it is vastly worse than that. It celebrates trivial differences as significant. That’s what all the claptrap about diversity being inherently good is about.
In order for the diversity mantra to make any sense, its proponents have to assert that trivial details of color and ethnicity are actually important.
And that is a familiar viewpoint, one which we have worked hard to put behind us. The diversity movement is the perverse restoration of the philosophical underpinnings of old-fashioned racism.
If you focus on statistics of various outcomes by racial or ethnic group, you will find some significant differences. These may be caused by biological factors, cultural factors, or both. There’s quite a bit of evidence demonstrating that biological factors have a substantial effect on the distribution of various outcomes or characteristics for different groups.
I think that there’s very strong evidence that some of the differences between racial or ethnic groups are not trivial.
Further, even if differences are due to culture, it turns out that culture is very hard to change. So even if there are not significant biological differences, there may be nontrivial differences between groups based on cultural factors that are not immutable, but are also not likely to change.
Finally, it remains a fact that many members of minority racial or ethnic groups strongly identify with their own group. This is also difficult to change. I think that white identification with our racial group has declined, but I’m not sure that this is a good thing, as it seems to have accompanied the denigration of white culture and demonization of white people. Maybe it’s less a matter of white self-identification having declined, and more a matter of large numbers of whites being convinced to dislike their own group.
Not everyone defines his own group primarily in terms of race. For some it can be primarily in terms of religion, or some other cultural/historical factor or combination of factors. But, yes, racial identification has come to predominate in the European-English-speaking world, especially over the past couple hundred years or so. It has been weakening somewhat since I was born, though.
My impression is that the main racial divides are fairly new. There are 3 or 4 major ones right now:
There was a time, not very long ago, when the differences between French and German, British and Irish, and so on, loomed much larger in people’s minds, I think. These were even called “races” back in Churchill’s day.
At least, this is my impression from studying history and literature. Obviously, I wasn’t there.