Friends,
In her powerful two-part series for Forward Kentucky, former multicultural educator Kimberly Kennedy offers a searing and well-informed critique of the anti-DEI movement that has taken root in Kentucky and across the nation. She begins by methodically dismantling the false narratives being circulated by legislators—debunking myths about tuition hikes, so-called liberal indoctrination, and the alleged divisiveness of DEI efforts.
Drawing from her own experiences, Kennedy defends DEI not as a partisan agenda, but as a basic commitment to equity, accurate historical education, and democratic learning spaces where all students belong.
In the second installment also posted below, she courageously connects the dots between this wave of legislation and its origins in white nationalist ideology—naming institutions like the Claremont Institute that are engineering this backlash and feeding ready-made bills to lawmakers in conservative strongholds, including Kentucky and Texas.
Like what we’ve seen with Texas’ SB 17, Kennedy makes clear that these measures are not about cost-savings or academic integrity—they are about narrative control and cultural erasure.
The ultimate harm isn’t just the silencing of marginalized communities or the gutting of student support systems; it’s the long-term degradation of our public universities and our democratic capacity as a society. Kennedy’s work is both a warning and a moral call to action: to defend truth-telling in education, to resist the rollback of civil rights gains, and to reject the normalization of white supremacist logic under the guise of “neutral” policy.
I wholeheartedly agree that the white supremacist vision for America is not only
Sí se puede! Yes we can!
-Angela Valenzuela
What anti-DEI politicos get wrong. Part 1 – the myths
The attacks on DEI programs come from a base of half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies. In this two-part series, Kimberly Kennedy lays out what our politicians get wrong about DEI.
Kimberly Kennedy, February 22, 2024 
As a former multicultural educator, my antenna went up when I heard about anti-DEI legislation proposed in Kentucky: SB 93 for K-12, plus SB 6 and HB 9 for higher education. In short, DEI refers to programs addressing Diversity (people from the rainbow of sub-cultures), Equity (fairness, equal opportunity, and justice), and Inclusion (belonging and feeling valued). As I look at each of these concepts, I can’t imagine having a problem with any of them. So I set out to investigate the objections, and here’s what I found. (Although I focus primarily upon higher education, many of the principles apply to K–12 as well.) Kentucky legislators were heard repeating the following myths:
Myth: DEI programs raise the cost of tuition.
First, tuition is set by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. Their web site illuminates the issue well: “[S]tate cuts to higher education over the last decade have shifted a larger portion of college costs to students and their families.”
Further, tuition cost is impacted by a multitude of factors, like increased operating costs and a shift in the burden of higher costs to families, who are encouraged to take on student-loan debt. There are also capital projects, including facilities to accommodate increased student population, as well as increased research and program offerings (including DEI), which respond to the needs of a changing society and technological advancements and make Kentucky’s universities competitive.
Naturally, there is an interest in faculty salaries. At the University of Kentucky, for example, top salaries are not for DEI employees, but for top administrators and athletic coaches, ranging from $400K to $1.7Mil. Salaries for DEI faculty range from $50–105K, with a few outliers being more — but still below $400K. Most importantly, all staff appear to wear multiple hats, with their DEI role being one. This suggests that cutting DEI programs may have little if any impact on faculty and salaries, thus little effect on tuition cost.
Myth: Public universities are bastions of liberal indoctrination.
Although this makes a great conservative rallying point, this assumption has been debunked by research. As conservative Matthew Woessner of Penn State observes, “[Our] results do not paint a picture of conservative students under siege.”
One explanation for this myth stems from the erroneous idea that the term “liberal” in Liberal Arts Education means the same as the word “liberal” which is opposite from a “conservative” political ideology, and thus should be attacked. But “liberal” in academia comes from the Latin “liberalis,” which means “relating to freedom,” as in thought.
This myth also assumes that 1) all professors are progressive, and 2) aren’t “professional[s] capable of divorcing their own political ideologies from their work,” says Dr. Kelly Wilz, University of Wisconsin professor.
Most important, it doesn’t accurately reflect what occurs in a classroom. (Perhaps some legislators should revisit one.) Educators present information and then, as Dr. Wilz explains, “get [students] to think critically ... not ... tell them what to think. My job is to teach them to question the validity of sources, to learn how to conduct research, and ... to question authority, even if that ‘authority’ is me.”
And what about the students? Dr. Wilz asserts, “[This] presumes that students are so gullible and incapable of free thought, professors can shape their minds.”
Myth: DEI stifles free speech.
Dr. Wilz articulates that, in a classroom, all voices are welcome – but not all ideas have merit. Students are expected to defend their positions with evidence; if they cannot, they may sense pushback from other students “because they have not survived the challenge of scrutiny. The resistance I see is from people who can’t take that scrutiny and who can’t defend their ideas,” she says.
That is Democracy with a capital “D” in action.
In contrast, anti-DEI legislation threatens to illegalize a wide swath of speech in favor of a conservative worldview – hardly democratic. Legislators can’t claim to support Free Speech while banning speech they disagree with.
“Legislators can’t claim to support Free Speech while banning speech they disagree with.”
Myth: DEI programs cause division.
The argument here is that diversity programs focus upon our differences and thus divide us, sometimes causing reverse discrimination of white heteronormatives. But there is not substantive evidence of this – just a boatload of conservative rhetoric plus an anecdote here and there.
In fact, a 2023 Pew research poll of employees in a traditional work environment found that 56% felt DEI initiatives were a good thing – not divisive.
My experience has also been completely opposite of the myth. People who learn about cultural differences experience empathy, which produces insights and better understanding of the sub-group, thus leading to respect and improved relationships. Think about how you respond differently to a person on the autism spectrum once you learn more about it.
The most basic form of Diversity Training (DT) is teaching an accurate, unvarnished history of American sub-cultures. Kathryn Wiley, a white professor from Howard University, eloquently explains her reaction to learning a more detailed African-American history: “[M]y entire understanding of this country changed. ... I gained significant respect and reverence for communities of color. ... It made me more committed to our democratic ideals and to building community. ... It made me feel a healthy sense of responsibility to those different from myself.” Wiley indicates that if others could have this experience, they would have a renewed sense of civic responsibility.
Which brings me to Rebekah Keith, the white UK student who gave testimony to the legislature about feeling discriminated against: Her testimony was remarkable evidence of the need for DT; for had she experienced it, she would likely be able to demonstrate the insights and understanding necessary for the job that requires “relatability to non-whites.”
In conclusion: Legislators, where is your evidence of harm caused by DEI? (A handful of anecdotes does not a pattern make.)
Looking ahead: the broader white supremacist conspiracy
Many conservatives have bought into the anti-DEI rhetoric popularized via conservative media outlets without realizing its origins in white supremacist ideology. I’ll examine that in the next installment.
----------------------------------Continue with Part 2 here------------------------------
What anti-DEI politicos get wrong. Part 2 – the conspiracy & fall-out
Where is all this anti-DEI agita coming from, anyway? Kimberly Kennedy has the answer.
Kimberly Kennedy, February 26, 2024, Forward Kentucky
Most conservatives I know are not bigots. But many have bought into the anti-DEI rhetoric propagated by conservative media outlets without realizing its origins in white supremacist ideology. Let’s examine that.
The broader conspiracy
Investigative journalists at Vox, The New York Times, and others recently revealed that anti-DEI legislators across the country are pawns in a much greater scheme: A white supremacist movement to end multiculturalism, exposed in manifestos and other writings from organizations like the Claremont Institute. These documents describe not only their war on multiculturalism and all of its sub-genres — CRT, social justice, wokism, plus DEI — but also their legal work to feed sample bill language to legislators in states with conservative super-majorities, creating soldiers for the movement. Internal documents show the creation of talking points and reframing language to create negative connotations, such as describing “diversity-training concepts” as “divisive/discriminatory concepts” (which we see in SB6).
● Kentucky’s anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) bills include SB 6 and HB 9 for higher education and SB 93 for K–12.
● “Diversity” represents all cultural sub-groups, including gay and trans, white and non-white, differently abled (both physically and mentally), religions, classes, ages, and genders.
Nick Confessore, the journalist who broke the story for The New York Times, explained in an NPR interview that the anti-DEI+ movement is a direct reaction to both the Black Lives Matter and subsequent social justice movements, which they see as having a deleterious societal influence.
The Claremont Institute refers to BLMers as “corrupt, anti-American grifters.” Furthermore, they believe that public universities are training grounds for these activists. Their publications explicitly express a white nationalist, white supremacist (not substantively different) doctrine as well as condemning “radical” feminists and gay/trans activists.
Here’s a sampling of their rhetoric:“Our society worships the false and pernicious view that diversity is, somehow, our greatest strength.”
“Diversity is not a source of strength, but of alienation, hatred, and violence.”
“White Nationalists aim to end multiculturalism” and aspire to “ethnically homogeneous homelands.”
DEI makes students “see racism where none exists” and causes “reverse discrimination” against white people.
Propaganda techniques are used extensively, most notably:Fear mongering: “Radical DEI is a mortal and existential threat to our American way of life and will cause the fall of our democracy.”
Doublespeak & false logic, creating confusion: “People who talk about race are the real racists.” “Diversity causes division.”
Disparaging education: Accusing higher education of “liberal indoctrination,” because critical thinking and freedom of thought threaten white power.
Race baiting: Proclaiming that “systemic racism doesn’t exist,” to provoke non-whites.
An obsolete vision for America
The antidote to multiculturalism, these groups suggest, is the long-abandoned Melting Pot metaphor, with assimilation at its core. (One of America’s worst experiments with assimilation was Indian schools, which resulted in unimaginable heartbreak, little assimilation – and little diminishing of indigenous peoples’ cultural identity nor pride.)
Parallel to this aspiration is the truly “colorblind” society. This sounds noble, but we are hard-wired to see differences; it’s what we do with the information that counts.
Another utopian ideal (mentioned by Kentucky legislators as well) is “meritocracy,” which condemns “conferring privileges based on race” and instead holds that individuals should be judged based upon their merit, not considering their minority status. The fallacy is that all sub-groups have been given the same opportunities to achieve equal merit with their wealthier white counterparts. If that were true, achievement gaps would not exist.
Decades ago, multicultural educators abandoned the Melting Pot for the “Tossed Salad” metaphor: Each ingredient retains its individuality but contributes to the whole. People want to be accepted and respected for who they are—meaning for the things which make them unique, different.
The catastrophic results of eliminating DEI in education
It’s impossible to overstate the disastrous results we face from this movement, including lost jobs and increased litigiousness. Instead of educators being respected as experts and professionals, they will be scrutinized and micromanaged. Programs intended to help minority students feel included and valued, and which give them the tools to succeed at school, risk elimination.
As mentioned in Part 1, the most basic form of Diversity Training is teaching accurate American History. Anti-DEI legislation ignores the experiences as well as contributions of minority sub-cultures. It chills accurate historical education and the accompanying discourse which attempts not only to make sense of our many challenging episodes, but also to encourage civic participation to improve the lives of minorities.
The greatest injury, however, will be to Kentucky’s reputation. Kentucky will experience the same “Brain Drain” that Florida is experiencing, with educators fleeing, exacerbating our teacher shortage. Instead of coming to Kentucky for a world-class college education, students will seek out colleges elsewhere which are inclusive and will deliver a comprehensive educational experience. Although Governor Beshear has attracted new businesses to set down roots in Kentucky, those companies will have trouble attracting workers, who will view our educational system as backward and anti-intellectual.
Do DEI programs need improvement? Absolutely. But as Kentuckians, we don’t give up and throw out a flawed program; we embrace the challenge and do the hard work to fix it.
We can’t allow legislators — who did not do their homework, who accepted white-supremacist ideology, who do not represent Kentuckians’ live-and-let-live values — to negatively change the face of Kentucky into a backward unwelcoming state. Contact them and tell them to vote No on these bills. And if they instead support the bills, vote them out!
Note: If you have benefited from a DEI program, tell legislators about it! And if you want to help stop these bills, tell legislators that as well. Contact your legislator now!
No comments:
Post a Comment