Translate

Tuesday, May 28, 2024

In defence of wokeness: Right-wing attacks on ‘wokeness’ are part of a wider campaign to undermine social justice and equality advocacy.

This piece is helpful in that it shows how the far right accomplishes its goals. What they do is delegitimize a concept like "wokeness" by redefining it, and then equating it with extreme cases, or lying about its meaning.

Accordingly, "wokeness" becomes leftist hysteria over pronouns or diverse superheroes, rather than genuine efforts to combat discrimination and promote inclusivity. The question that remains is how to reclaim what today is a "dirty word" that I see the left abandoning. This is a good question to ask as this is what they're doing with critical race theory (CRT) and Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI).

DEI was always a nice way to not have to say "racist," "racism," "prejudiced," or "discrimination," so perhaps we—as marginalized people—go back to that.

The far right is so devious and disingenuous. But then, that's the point....

-Angela Valenzuela

In defence of wokeness

Right-wing attacks on ‘wokeness’ are part of a wider campaign to undermine social justice and equality advocacy.
Christopher Rhodes | Al Jazeerah |Sept. 11, 2022


Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law the Stop WOKE Act in April, but it was blocked by a court in August [Reuters/Octavio Jones]

In late August, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis made headlines with a dubious declaration. “Florida is the state where ‘woke’ goes to die,” he said at a Republican Party event in his US state, celebrating a slate of conservative victories in school board elections.

Given the governor’s policies over the last few years – including hostility to anti-COVID measures such as vaccines and masking – DeSantis’s Florida is indeed a prime destination for anyone with a death wish. But this declaration represents more than just a snappy sound bite. Rather, it is a wilful distortion of the reality of “woke” activism and history, and an attack against both the concepts of justice and equality that underlie wokeness and the people who advocate to make these ideals reality.

The terminology of being “woke” – waking up to a new awareness of the world and particularly the oppressions around us – has a long tradition in African American Vernacular English. The term has been used by Black musicians for nearly a century, from 1930s blues singer Huddie William “Lead Belly” Ledbetter to 21st-century hip-hop and neo-soul artists like Childish Gambino and Erykah Badu. The more overtly political connotations of the term were popularised by the Black Lives Matter movement during campaigns in places such as Ferguson, Missouri, before being adopted, or coopted, by non-Black activists in real life and on social media.

It was around this time, in the 2010s, that “anti-wokeness” began to emerge. At first, the main criticism, from both left and right, was against people who were using “woke” rhetoric in a performative or insincere way. In the past several years, however, the very concept of wokeness has been attacked, specifically by conservatives.

While people like DeSantis, who has created his political brand by fighting battles in the ongoing culture wars that he himself has created, or Fox News host Tucker Carlson are among the loudest “anti-woke” voices in America, they are far from the only ones. Right-wing advocates across the country – politicians, pundits, even social media trolls – have spent the last few years demonising wokeness as a destructive radical ideology.

According to the GOP and the conservative media, wokeness – not COVID-19, racism, violence or inequality – is the most dangerous challenge to America today, with “woke” ideology being tied to a variety of largely manufactured societal ills. Some decry wokeness as a new (false) religion and even accuse it of being used to undermine traditional religious beliefs. Others have condemned “woke racism”, an ill-defined criticism that seems to imply that we are taking the concept of battling racism too seriously and perhaps even engaging in reverse racism as a result.

“Woke history” is condemned for portraying the United States and its founders in a negative light, undermining patriotism. Even superhero movies and shows are now being criticised for increasingly casting actors who are not white men in leading roles, with claims that film studios like Marvel are putting wokeness – here defined as “forced” diversity – ahead of telling serious stories about flying people punching robots and aliens.

Lost in all these accusations are the actual concerns of wokeness: recognising racist violence, combating bias and fostering equality. The verbal sleight of hand that has been deployed against wokeness is not new. The rhetorical tricks employed by conservatives have been used against many groups and ideas.

A variety of terms and phrases have been redefined and demonised by the right, ranging from specific movements like “Black Lives Matter” to general concepts like “social justice” or “equity”. To see how effective these tactics can be, we need only look at a whole generation of white moderates who believe in equal rights but bristle at being called feminists.

But Black activists have long borne the brunt of this redefinition, and it is no surprise that concepts like wokeness that originated in Black activism have received the harshest attacks. In recent years, Black Lives Matter and critical race theory have received this treatment, as have writers and academics such as Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X Kendi.

Non-verbal forms of protest have also been subjected to this distortion. American football player Colin Kaepernick still remains blacklisted from the National Football League, years after he began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem at NFL games. The reason for his protest – speaking out against police brutality and anti-Black oppression – was clearly stated for anyone who wanted to listen.

Yet, by the time Fox News and the Trump administration were done opining on the matter, Kaepernick’s respectful protest had been transformed into a hate-filled screed against veterans and the American flag. These accusations were, of course, invented out of thin air, but that hasn’t stopped a large swath of the American population from continuing to believe that the quarterback is attempting to attack the country’s most haloed institutions and symbols.

Such slander has real consequences. Kaepernick has had to sit at home, as athletes with less talent and more serious, even criminal, transgressions continue to take the field. And the meaningful discussions that could have been sparked concerning anti-Black violence continue to be obfuscated with debates over patriotism and acceptable forms of protest.

These outcomes are, of course, the point. Modern American conservatism is quite adept at deflecting from substantive debates over reform by creating arguments over language. For all the criticisms placed on the left for enforcing “political correctness” (the same criticisms that have simply been repackaged to condemn “wokeness”), it is largely the right that has engaged in policing language.

The overall disinformation campaign against progressiveness, with anti-wokeness as its latest manifestation, is surprisingly calculated and efficient. The first step was to delegitimise a concept by redefining it, equating it with its most extreme manifestations or simply lying about what it actually means. Thus, wokeness became leftist hysteria over pronouns or attempts to recast superheroes as non-white men, rather than genuine attempts to combat discrimination or increase inclusivity in society.

The second step was to use this manufactured outrage to caricature and condemn the advocates who use this terminology. Thus people like Hannah-Jones, Coates and Kendi have been dismissed by the right as “ultra-left” or “race hustlers”.

Now people like DeSantis have succeeded at the third step in the process, passing laws that actually make progressive conversations illegal, such as the (possibly unconstitutional) Stop WOKE Act that he pushed through the Florida legislature. By eroding the actual definitions of ideas, such as critical race theory, these laws are already achieving a widespread silencing effect over people, such as educators and librarians, across the Republican-controlled areas of the country.

And so allowing the right to shape the conversation over wokeness impacts much more than just semantics. Conceding the debate over “wokeness” is having tangible, oppressive consequences on people throughout the country.

And this is why it’s so important to not simply abandon terms like woke (or feminist or Black Lives Matter) as problematic or tainted. Words have meaning, and there is immense power in the ability to control those meanings. Exercising that linguistic power is an increasingly impactful tactic of those who want to roll back progress within this country.

To prevent such regressive politics from becoming even more powerful, it’s important to hold onto and defend terms, such as wokeness, that symbolise much-needed progress in this country. And defending these concepts means that we must be aware of the full implications of conservative attacks against them.

We must stay woke, even about attacks on the concept of wokeness itself.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Monday, May 27, 2024

'A Pawn in a Game' Why Texas A & M's lone Black professor of nursing called it quits

I'm sure Texas A & M wants this story swept under the rug, especially after the derailed hiring of Dr. Kathleen McElroy. Now this is a story about Dr. Arica Brandford, who sounds like an amazing scholar at the intersection of nursing and law whose interest is in "Mattering and Belonging in an Academic Nursing Program During Uncertain Times." This is so horrible and so sad to see the "lone Black professor of nursing" at Texas A & M get harassed and then betrayed by her institution that failed to support her—and indeed, was part of the problem. 

For protection, community support and advocacy, faculty need to join the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Here's the link to join.  The organization is growing in leaps and bounds. I am a member and UT Austin has a very active and influential chapter. Our goals include strengthening support for academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance. Since August 1, 2022, AAUP is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), providing legal support and a community for situations like these that surface. See the benefits one receives as a member (see FAQ).

As an AAUP member, I have most enjoyed the opportunity to be connected to faculty across campus, representing many fields of study and disciplines, as well as working together in preparation for testimony that many of us deliver in the Texas legislature—most recently, in the Texas Senate on May 14th. I also recommend for Black and Brown folks to join their civil rights organizations like the NAACP and LULAC where one can also find community and resources for struggles that manifest. This is my best advice. 

I remain concerned about the horrible injustice Dr. Brandford experienced. Texas has gotten so ruthlessly extreme in its attack on diversity.

-Angela Valenzuela


'A Pawn in a Game' Why Texas A & M's lone Black professor of nursing called it quits

Last June, Arica Brandford received an unexpected message: a pair of public-records requests for her syllabi and emails dating back to January 1, 2022.

She didn’t recognize the requester — a man named Thomas Jones — and didn’t know why he was asking for emails containing these words: Asian, Caucasian, White, lynchings, racist, or racism. Jones, as she would eventually learn, is the leader of the American Accountability Foundation, an advocacy group that, in its own words, “deploys aggressive research and investigations to advance conservative messaging.”

To Brandford, the only tenure-track Black faculty member at Texas A&M University’s School of Nursing, the request felt targeted, both because of her identity and the subject of her research — implicit bias and racism in nursing. But she wanted to fulfill the request and move on. So that’s what she did.

Nearly five months later, Brandford’s emails would appear in an article by the Washington Examiner, which took aim at how Texas A&M’s nursing school “required commitment to diversity and inclusion” in its hiring processes. Laura Morgan of Do No Harm, an advocacy group that lobbies against identity politics in health care, told the Examiner that Brandford was an example of a “pro-DEI foot soldier” and that, based on her previous advocacy work, Texas A&M should never have hired her.

The episode and its subsequent fallout — which has been vaguely alluded to in faculty meetings on the College Station campus but has not been widely reported — came on the heels of a scandalous summer at Texas A&M. Administrators had derailed the hiring of Kathleen O. McElroy, a Black journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, in response to conservative critics who denounced her as a proponent of diversity, equity, and inclusion. As conservative opponents of DEI efforts intensify and expand their battle against the work and the people who do it, administrators and faculty members are increasingly being caught in the crossfire. In their responses, colleges have struggled to contend with anti-DEI legislation and political pressure as faculty members call on them to defend longstanding practices — and professors.

This account of the incident involving Brandford, which is based on her first public comments on the subject and a review of more than 1,200 pages of public records, sheds light on the methods of the activists, organizations, and media outlets that have been mounting anti-DEI campaigns.

Brandford’s experience also illustrates how many faculty members, especially those of color, feel as the attacks on DEI have escalated. Until recently, expressing elements of their core identity and advocating for diversity programs were widely accepted — if not encouraged — throughout higher education. Now, they feel abandoned, unsure what could trigger a political bombshell and, if it blows up, whether their institutions are willing to defend them.

In Brandford’s case, she felt her only option was to leave.

“I was used as a pawn in a game that we’re seeing play out nationwide,” Brandford said. “Through this experience, I realized there were certain people that did not want me here, or there were those that, in a sense, wanted me to stay in my place. So why stay somewhere that you’re not wanted?”

The Rainbow Parade—children's book and teaching tool

I just received a link to this beautiful book that is a celebration of LGBTQIA+ identities. You can read it yourself. Do notice that at the very end are suggestions on how it can be used as a teaching tool. You can read it for free at this link.

As we think about LGBTQ identities, it is important to note that historically, gender roles in many Native societies, were diverse along the lines of what refer to today as trans, non-binary, LGBT, and so on. However, it was conceptually understood as "two-spirit," with contemporary natives reclaiming this language and traditions of honoring these identities that the colonizing Spanish punished under settler colonialism—that was, of course, reinforced by Anglo/Europeans that followed. Here is a source for further exploration.

Sadly, we can live entire lives and even intellectual and political regimes that are so divorced of these facts of history that we thoughtlessly attribute to the advent of a new, mischievous "woke" generation and culture. Then we not only ignorantly and arrogantly distort this historical reality of gender diversity, but in so doing, diminish the love, caring, and solidarity that we should always have toward "the other"—or those considered or treated as "other."

On God's green Earth—as individuals and as people—we are all equally deserving of dignity and respect.

-Angela Valenzuela








Sunday, May 26, 2024

Texas university leaders attest to how they’re complying with the state’s DEI ban: Nevermind that the "diversity genie" is out of the bottle

I wonder how the UT system and other universities are going to get around the fact that if students perceive their campuses as hostile—which they clearly are in the wake of the taking down of DEI offices and initiatives—how are they supposed to derive that sense of “fitting in?” 

How is it helpful for their peers to not know about their cultures, including those that are Indigenous to this continent? It’s hard to express otherwise, but institutions that uphold ways of knowing and being in the world that are from white, individualist cultures, means that these students will feel excluded and misunderstood if not outright judged negatively for not “getting with the program.” 

My prediction is that by not including and welcoming diversity, SB 17 will have the opposite effect of motivating cultures of resistance that will continue to advocate for diversity, equity, inclusion, as well as free speech and freedom of expression. After all, the seeds of the late 60's and early 70's were in the fascism of the 1950s. We've been here before....

I think that if the firings of former DEI staff would have happened in the Summer instead of during the school year, the consciousness and critical mass for resistance as the Tuesday hearing demonstrated, would have been muted.

Instead, I see that lots of folks, including parents, got a major upgrade in their consciousness of what white supremacy is and looks like. At least for the Hispanic/Latinx community, there was a widely-sensed impact of being disrespected and denied, particularly when the Latinx graduation was eliminated. I am sure that this was widely experienced, as well, among all those similarly affected. 

What I really like about what I am seeing and hearing among the students is a clear awareness of when they are being gaslighted. Our youth are too sophisticated to get tricked into a new thought world that is tantamount to "white supremacy with a smile."

The supremacists should have done this 40 years ago. The "diversity genie" is out of the bottle. Try as they may, it can't get put back in. And we're all the better for that.

Good things, I trust, will come of this.

-Angela Valenzuela

Under scrutiny from legislators, Texas university leaders attest to how they’re complying with the state’s DEI ban

Tuesday’s Texas Senate hearing comes as lawmakers are expected to propose new laws next year to enforce the DEI ban and prevent antisemitism.


The Senate Committee on Education held a hearing on antisemitism, free speech and compliance with the state's DEI ban on May 14, 2024. Credit: Leila Saidane for The Texas Tribune

BY SNEHA DEY

MAY 14, 2024

Public university leaders tried to demonstrate their schools can still build diverse student bodies in a post-DEI reality and acknowledged a rise in reports of antisemitism on campuses at a wide-ranging hearing Tuesday that covered some of the most explosive issues rattling higher education in the state.

In their first public testimony since the ban on diversity, equity and inclusion offices went into effect, university system administrators explained to the Texas Senate subcommittee on higher education how they were complying with the state law. They said they have redirected millions of dollars away from their now-defunct DEI offices toward redoubling recruiting efforts and developing alternative student support programs.

“Every dollar spent on bloated university bureaucracy should be redeployed to ensure that all Texas students regardless of race, are college ready and heavily recruited for those that want to apply to a college,” said State Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who shepherded the DEI ban through the Legislature last year.

Lawmakers put an end to DEI offices when they passed Senate Bill 17 during the 2023 legislative session. The law went into effect in January. Opponents of DEI programs and training said those programs indoctrinated students with left-wing ideology and forced universities to make hires based on their support of diversity efforts rather than on merit and achievement.

Creighton called Tuesday’s hearing after he and GOP leaders expressed concerns that colleges were not fully complying with the law. The Conroe Republican has not provided specific examples about what reports of noncompliance he has received or discussed them at the hearing.

Creighton pressed Texas Tech University leaders about how they were changing the culture at the West Texas school so that DEI practices did not reemerge.

Texas Tech came under fire last year after its biology department asked job candidates to submit so-called diversity statements and gave them negative marks for failing to articulate the difference between “equality” and “equity.” Diversity statements are typically one- to two-page letters in which job candidates are asked to share their experiences working with diverse populations and their commitment to helping a diverse group of students succeed. Critics have characterized them as political litmus tests.

University leaders said the closures of DEI offices and programs have meant they now have new funds available to spend. University of Texas System administrators said they freed up $25 million in their budget after closing 21 offices, eliminating 311 full- and part-time positions and canceling 681 trainings related to DEI.

The Texas State University System saved $3 million and the University of Houston System about $750,000 after eliminating their DEI programs and positions.

Lawmakers last year blasted DEI programs as ineffective but recognized Tuesday that Texas colleges still have to build and maintain student bodies that reflect the state’s population.

“We all support diversity. We want to include more students in the kinds of opportunities that our higher education can provide,” Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, said. “Part of that includes recruitment.”

U.T. System Chancellor J.B. Milliken testifies before the Texas Senate Committee on Education on May 14, 2024. Credit: Leila Saidane for The Texas Tribune





Rising political tide of young adults, Gen Z: An Interview of John Della Volpe, author of "Fight: How Gen Z is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America (2022)"

Friends:

I often wonder whether members of the Millennial or Gen Z generations know just how powerful they are. Together, they will be approximately 40 percent of the electorate in 2024. This is eye-popping, as far as I am concerned. Add to this growth of the Hispanic/Latinx Gen Z population to learn that "in each of the next few years, over 1 million Latino citizens will turn 18 and this trend will continue after it peaks in 2025."

As Harvard Institute of Politics pollster, John Della Volpe, aptly maintains, our youth have significant power in their hands to determine the future of this country—if they will only do so. 2024 is not an election to sit out of, my Millennial and Zoomer friends, but rather to exercise your voice to put our country on a path to a better world.

I'm really curious about and interested in an observation that Della Volpe and others are making, which is that Gen Z as a group, cares about the underdog. I'm hearing this in this Gen Z podcast I listen to titled, "#GenZ," as well as in other analyses, for example, one published in Archrival that distinguishes Gen Z from earlier generations who viewed world events indirectly through news accounts while Gen Z views the world directly through the eyes of the persons experiencing a particular situation, making it easier for them to be empathetic with others since they're getting news straight from the source. Endless TikTok, Instagram, and other social media feeds make this possible.


Aside from reading the interview below, I also highly recommend Della Volpe's book titled, "Fight: How Gen Z is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America (2022). It's well-written, inspired, and inspiring.

Angela Valenzuela

References

Peterson, J. C. (nd.). Gen Zs resolve to build a more empathetic culture in 2021, Archrival.

Rising political tide of young adults, Gen Z

Polling expert points to backlash after expulsion of 2 Black Tennessee legislators
in their 20s after gun-control rally in wake of Nashville school shooting






Reps. Justin Jones (left) and Justin Pearson were expelled over their role

in a gun-control protest on the Tennessee House floor in the aftermath of a

deadly school shooting. Both were later reinstated.

George Walker IV/AP Photo

by Christina Pazzanese | The Harvard Gazette Staff Writer
April 14, 2023

The expulsion of two Black state Democratic lawmakers in their 20s by the predominantly white, Republican-controlled Tennessee House in late March ignited backlash across the country. Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson were ousted for rallying in the House with local activists and student protesters in support of stricter gun controls following a school shooting in Nashville that left six dead. Both men were voted back into office last week.

What started as a modest gun-control protest outside the Tennessee state house erupted into a national cause after Jones and Pearson characterized their removal as an effort to silence Gen Z voices, disempower communities of color, and weaken democracy.

The incident is yet another example of the political potency of Generation Z, the 70 million young Americans born between 1997 and 2012 (aged 11-25). Since 2018, members of Gen Z have become politically engaged on issues like gun control, the environment, reproductive health, education, and racial justice, and, increasingly, running for office. The Gazette spoke with John Della Volpe, director of polling for the Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School. The IOP conducts the twice annual Harvard Youth Poll, a national survey of college-age Americans on political issues and trends. Results from the Spring 2023 Harvard Youth Poll on gun safety will be released April 24. Della Volpe’s 2022 book “Fight: How Gen Z is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America,” chronicled the impact the country’s youngest voter demographic is already having on U.S. politics. Interview has been edited for clarity and length.

(Pearson will appear in a Harvard Kennedy School discussion Wednesday at 6 p.m., moderated by Archon Fung, director, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation and Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government.)


Q&A


John Della Volpe

GAZETTE: How would you describe Gen Z socially and politically?

DELLA VOLPE: They are the most diverse, the most educated generation in American history. And like other cohorts of Americans who have seen their share of trauma and chaos in the country, this generation is unique in that they don’t have a collective memory of America coming together or united. They don’t have a memory of Sept. 11, nor Sept. 12, nor Sept. 13. So that’s one thing that stands this generation apart from all generations since the Greatest Generation.

The second thing is, they’ve had this ongoing period of disquiet in their lives. From the Great Recession, the havoc that placed on so many American families — 80 percent of families lost 20 percent of their wealth during the Great Recession — when they were young. Their earliest memories of school oftentimes [is] hiding under a desk for regular school shooter drills.

By the time they’re in middle school and high school, they’re dealing with younger people in their community suffering from depression, opioid abuse. Sadly, we saw a significant increase in suicides once they turned into adolescents. Followed by the chaos in our politics, white nationalism through COVID.

“I think any place where Gen Z feels like others are marginalized, they’ll show up,” says John Della Volpe, whose book “Fight: How Gen Z is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America,” chronicles the impact the country’s youngest voter demographic is already having on U.S. politics. Courtesy of HKS

So, this is a generation that’s dealt with more trauma more quickly than any generation in 70 years. All that trauma happened before the oldest member of this generation turned 25, when neuroscience tells us that our brains are mature.

Once they turned 18 and got the right to vote, they had a kind of whiplash between President Obama and President Trump, [where they] can see the relevance of politics in their lives and the differences between the parties.

Of course, all that was supercharged on Feb. 14, 2018, when a shooter walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and, in the span of six minutes, shattered a community forever. It was those students, two of whom are at Harvard now, who challenged themselves, their peers, and the rest of America to stand up and organize and try to fight back.

In that 2018 midterm, we saw roughly a doubling of participation relative to the average turnout in midterm election years in the last 30-something years. In most of those elections, between 15 and 20 percent of people in their teens and 20s participated in a midterm election. When Gen Z entered the arena in 2018, we saw participation in the mid-30s. More than two-thirds, as much as 70 percent, of young people in ’18 voted for Democrats. And that trend of high levels of participation and high levels of support for Democrats has continued from ’18 to ’20 to ’22.

GAZETTE: Aside from gun violence, what other issues are animating Gen Z most?

DELLA VOLPE: Overarching are concerns about individual rights and freedoms, defined as the right of a woman to control her reproductive health; the right of all Americans to breathe clean air and clean water; the right of every child to be guaranteed a quality education; and the right of younger people to feel safe from school shootings and all Americans to feel safe in public spaces. Those are the top three or four issues animating young people.

GAZETTE: Gen Z and Millennials together will soon dominate the electorate. Where are they now and how do these groups compare politically?

DELLA VOLPE: Millennials and Gen Z will be roughly 40 percent of the electorate in ’24.

These two generations travel together in terms of their political values, and the way in which they view the world government. Both generations care about the same issues. They believe in a robust government to solve some of the systemic issues facing this nation.

The biggest difference is Gen Z has an urgency about their approach that Millennials lack. Millennials seem more comfortable working outside of the traditional systems, in nonprofits, and in their communities, to tackle the issues they care about. Whereas Gen Z seems committed to using all the tools in their civic toolbox — voting, running for office, as well as everything else that Millennials were doing. There’s an urgency, almost a desperation in some cases, I’d say, when you talk to some of the more active members of Gen Z.

GAZETTE: The expulsion of Tennessee state Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson by a white Republican supermajority ignited a fierce backlash nationally. Some, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, predicted the incident would only strengthen and “radicalize” young voters politically. Do you anticipate the conflict in Tennessee and young voter turnout that helped elect a Democratic justice to the Wisconsin state supreme court will further tighten Gen Z’s embrace of its emerging political power?

DELLA VOLPE: I absolutely do. I wouldn’t necessarily use AOC’s word “radicalization,” but I believe what we saw last week and what we’re seeing is a generation who’s not only voting in even-year federal elections, but they’re now translating that enthusiasm and that passion into elections for statewide office, as well as a movement for those three things you talked about. I think what we’re seeing now that Gen Z is able to show their political muscle virtually anywhere at any time.

GAZETTE: How do you anticipate that political muscle flexing to manifest itself?

DELLA VOLPE: I think in all the ways you’d expect, and that includes more young people running for office, and more young people participating in local politics, in state politics. So, I’m watching what’s happening in Florida carefully; I’m watching what’s happening in Idaho, in Texas. That’s where this movement could be extended to a local basis. Remember, up until the last year or so, a lot of the young Gen Z organizers were only able to organize on Zoom and on Slack and on text because of COVID. So, we’re just beginning to see what happens when a generation that has spent most of the time online uses more traditional grassroots organizing practices.

GAZETTE: You’ve said Gen Z was arguably the GOP’s worst nightmare. What did you mean by that?

DELLA VOLPE: Gen Z are values-based voters motivated by a protection and expansion of basic rights — clean air, clean water, to feel safe in school, reproductive rights. They’re concerned about those who are more vulnerable themselves, specifically members of the LGBTQ community. Basically, the protection of our democracy. Those are what I would call the table stakes. Unless members of Gen Z are engaging with individuals or parties who align with their sense of priorities or values, they’re not going to get very far in terms of convincing them to support a cause or to vote for them. In the last two elections, at least 2020 and 2022, Republicans won the vote of everybody over the age of 45 handily. There was a “Red wave” among voters over 45. It’s the turnout, the participation, and the support for Democrats that blunted that. That’s why they are the Republicans worst nightmare.

GAZETTE: Surely, the GOP sees that the cultural and political issues they’re rallying around are turning off Gen Z voters. Do you see any indication that the party is trying to recalibrate any of their positions or messaging?

DELLA VOLPE: I don’t. There’s an article in The Hill where I made this exact point — these are values-based voters — and the Republicans [and] the author I talked to countered, “No, it’s a messaging problem.” Before you get to messaging, values need to align. The messenger has to be authentic and trustworthy, and then the message has to be clear and concise and persuasive. But the message doesn’t matter if values aren’t aligned, and the messenger isn’t authentic.

GAZETTE: What’s the best move for Democrats — sit back and just allow the Republicans to further alienate them? Or is there a way they can blow it with Gen Z?

DELLA VOLPE: Sitting back and focusing on other constituencies is the reason we had Donald Trump as president in 2016. You can never take this generation for granted. Every day, you have new members of Gen Z tuning into politics. They don’t have a natural affinity for [political] parties or for Democrats. It’s incumbent upon all parties to reach out and to listen and to work with members of this generation to show that they care. They’re empathetic, and they’ve got solutions to the challenges they care about.

GAZETTE: Is 2024 the next big test for their strength as a voting bloc?

DELLA VOLPE: I think any place where Gen Z feels like others are marginalized, they’ll show up. Wherever they feel vulnerable Americans are being taken advantage of, they’ll show up. I didn’t predict that they’d be showing up like they did in Nashville, but the Republican Party made it so. I don’t think we’re gonna have to wait until 2024 to see the impact of Gen Z.

Ignore The Provocateurs: DEI Is Good For Business And Good For America, Jeff Raikes, Forbes Magazine, April 23, 2024

Friends:

The jury on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs is in, with most Americans supporting DEI efforts. A Pew Research poll last year found 56% of workers believe DEI improves their workplace, while only 16% said it has a negative influence.

Most businesses are expanding DEI initiatives. According to Kellogg Foundation CEO La June Montgomery Tabron, 80 percent of US companies have recommitted to DEI since the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action last year, with 60% increasing their DEI staff and budget.

Our state leaders ostensibly care about business, Texas, and America. They would therefore do well to both read this recent piece by Jeff Raikes in Forbes Magazine and repeal Senate Bill 17 and allow DEI programs and initiatives in our colleges and universities. They were a big part of what made our institutions great.

-Angela Valenzuela


Ignore The Provocateurs: DEI Is Good For Business And Good For America




Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs are being irrationally blamed for everything that goes wrong in America today. But the simple truth is they make companies more successful.

If you’ve taken a flight recently, you’ve probably heard about some of the many scary incidents involving Boeing planes this year. In January alone, an Alaska Airlines plane saw a door blow off in mid-flight, Atlas Air experienced a midair engine failure, and a Delta flight lost a wheel before takeoff. The ensuing FAA investigation saw Boeing planes fail 33 of 89 audits, and whistleblowers have raised alarms about cut corners and how speed is privileged over safety.

The Real Cost of Prioritizing Profit Over Safety

All evidence suggests this meltdown at Boeing is the inevitable culmination of years of focusing on stock price over everything else. As the NYT put it, “a corporate culture that privileged profits over safety had terrible consequences.” But, if you listen to far too many high-profile conservatives, the real culprit is much more nefarious: DEI. “I’m sure this has nothing to do with mandated Diversity Equity and Inclusion practices in the airline industry!!!” exclaimed Donald Trump, Jr. on X. Elon Musk agreed, asking his followers: “Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening…People will die due to DEI.”

This notion that DEI initiatives lead to substandard hires is precisely backward. Having a broader and more diverse hiring pool leads to more talented and qualified candidates. Nonetheless, some right-wingers refuse to stop banging this drum.

Unpacking the Rhetoric: DEI and Political Weaponization

Indeed, according to them, planes falling apart in midair is just one of DEI’s many sinister consequences. Apparently, it was DEI – not being struck by a cargo ship the size of the Eiffel Tower – that caused the horrifying collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. “This is what happens when you have Governors who prioritize diversity over the well-being and security of citizens,” wrote Utah state Rep. Phil Lyman (R), who is running for governor of Utah, adding, “DEI = DIE.” Anthony Sabatini, a GOP candidate for Congress in Florida, concurred, saying, “DEI did this.” After being called a “DEI Mayor” by the same crowd, Baltimore’s Mayor, Brandon Scott, conceded that he’s the “Duly Elected Incumbent” but otherwise took issue with the obvious racism. “We know what they want to say,” Scott noted, “but they don’t have the courage to say the N-word.”

That Mayor Scott was elected to office with more than 70% of the vote and represents a majority black city is of no consequence to today’s right-wing propagandists. Sadly, and just as with their doomed War on Woke, some conservatives are trying to make DEI the new all-purpose scare word to frighten their base to show up this November. DEI has been “a direct pawn in the political landscape in a way we’ve never seen before,” argued Jarvis Sam, former chief DEI officer at Nike, in January after conservatives successfully worked to oust Claudine Gay from Harvard’s presidency. Indeed, that ousting led many right-wingers to take a public victory lap. “This is the beginning of the end for DEI in America’s institutions,” stated conservative activist Christopher Rufo after Gay’s resignation. (Rufo has since been trying to foist Boeing’s plethora of problems on “a DEI bureaucracy that has poisoned the culture.”)

Back to the Facts: DEI Works

Let’s be clear: these attacks on DEI are ludicrous, inherently racist, and the same old tired routine that arch-conservative politicos have been running since the days of Nixon. (As infamous campaign consultant Lee Atwater explained the schtick in 1981, using blatant derogatory terms gradually evolved into using more abstract terms like forced busing and states’ rights. We’ve all seen this same playbook many times now, with “welfare queens,” “political correctness,” and “woke,” among others. Besides dog-whistling to racists, the goal is to tar DEI through insinuation and sheer repetition. If conservatives say DEI causes everything from train derailments to bank collapses, to bring up two more examples Joelle Emerson cites, there must be some truth to it, right?

No, there’s not. It’s time to ignore all the racist rhetoric about DEI and get back to the facts.

Most Americans support DEI efforts. A Pew Research poll last year found that 56% of workers believe that focusing on DEI improves their workplace, while only 1 in 6 (16%) said it had a negative influence.

DEI's Impact on Workplace Dynamics and Profitability

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion not only improve working environments but also enrich companies and shareholders. As I’ve noted several times before, many studies have shown that businesses that value and support DEI are more profitable than their less diverse peers. Despite all the bizarre political attacks on DEI, this is essentially common knowledge now – which is why sixty high-profile American companies publicly said last year that “racial and ethnic diversity enhance business performance.”

DEI efforts allow genuine meritocracy to thrive. Critics of DEI like to argue these programs are anti-meritocratic and result in women and people of color ascending to positions they are unqualified to hold. Leaving aside the inherent racism and misogyny often embedded in this position, and as Janice Gassam Asare writes here, the opposite is often the case. By giving everyone, regardless of race or gender, an equal opportunity to contend for senior positions, DEI can help break down some of the “old boy” and nepotism networks that allow mediocrity to fester at companies.

As Mark Cuban well put it, “I take it as a given that there are people of various races, ethnicities, orientation, etc. that are regularly excluded from hiring consideration. By extending our hiring search to include them, we can find people that are more qualified. The loss of DEI-phobic companies is my gain.”

The Business Case for DEI: Enriching Companies and Communities

Most businesses are continuing to expand DEI initiatives. As Kellogg Foundation CEO La June Montgomery Tabron recently wrote in Fortune, the vast majority of US “companies are doubling down on DEI as an essential part of their business strategy.” According to Kellogg, 80% of businesses surveyed have recommitted to DEI since the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action last year, and 60% have increased their DEI staff and budget over the past year.

There is still a lot of work to be done. Despite some progress in recent years, women and minorities are still underrepresented in C-suites and on corporate boards. They have fewer mentors at work. They are often paid less while still having to work much harder than white men to advance. So now is not the time to cave to reactionary anti-DEI hysteria from the usual suspects. Until these disparities are rectified, we need to keep working to make our companies and workplaces more diverse, equitable, and inclusive.

Follow me on TwitterCheck out my website

I am a co-founder of the Raikes Foundation with my wife, Tricia. Through this work, we noticed patterns in how systems treated people

...