From Political Correctness to DEI:(From the best of intentions to thoroughly hellish circumstances)

part 1

The original sin of affirmative action was not, so far as I know, remarked on at the time.

It was taken for granted that unfortunate, debilitating consequences of historical discrimination and oppression could be properly ameliorated by some sort of special help to the most direct or obvious descendants of the formerly oppressed.

In hindsight, however, it becomes quite clear that such simple solutions cannot do the job. Giving today's descendants “a leg up” to a better job, to a higher salary, to some preferment over others in any particular direction, ignores the reality that decades or centuries of discrimination and oppression have shaped most (or perhaps every) aspect of the culture of the formerly oppressed: traditional attitudes toward religion, toward family, toward ambitions, toward feasible ways of earning a living, toward interacting with other groups and cultures — all contribute in smaller and larger degrees to contemporary ways in which descendants of the formerly oppressed are not as well off as many others are, in a variety of ways. That cannot be cured by fiat, say, by monetary reparations, let alone by appointment or promotion that would not occur with some non-descendant of the formerly oppressed.

If members of Group A are more likely than members of Group B to suffer from poverty, lack of healthcare or to good education, the correct solution is not to treat members of Group A differently, it is to find ways to eliminate for everyone such undesirable circumstances as poverty, lack of healthcare or access to good education, etc. Giving preferential treatment to any identifiable group inevitably seems — is — unfair to everyone who is not a member of that preferentially treated group; result: backlash and polarization.

Cultures change only slowly. The consequences of discrimination and oppression can only become ameliorated and eventually disappear as the cultures change, not only those of the former oppressors and other formerly non-oppressed groups, but also of the formerly oppressed themselves. Racist bigotry against black people will eventually die out through changes in the cultures not only of white and brown and yellow communities but also of black communities.

At any rate, the introduction of affirmative action, to considerable (though far from universal) approval, began the process whereby political correctness achieved something like social hegemony: It has now been for quite some time more than impolite — simply not to be done — to question the legitimacy, the moral correctness, of doing things intended to compensate for historical discrimination and oppression.

I became aware of political correctness when, around 1980, it came to my then university, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (nowadays everywhere called just Virginia Tech). As administrator (Dean of the [former] College of Arts & Sciences, 1978-86) and faculty member (Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies, 1978-1999) I saw at first hand the perversely corrupting influence of largely well-intended endeavors that had extremely damaging consequences for quite large numbers of people, chiefly students and faculty. For example:

—> As Dean, I had thought it possible to engage the university's Women's Network of activists in such obviously worthwhile projects as having the university provide child care for the many secretaries and other staff who had young children. I failed to arouse interest, and was told that what interested the young activists was to have all the Deans resign so that half (at least) could be replaced by women.

—> Affirmative action had been originally described in this way: With two equally qualified position-applicants, a little nudge would be given to the minority individual.
Although I doubted the likelihood of truly equal qualifications, I was prepared to rephrase as “if a decision was particularly difficult”. The actual practice was nothing like the original description, however. Nationwide, the official line was that eliminating statistical disparities was a matter of setting goals, certainly not the establishing of quotas. That was a blatant lie.
We were told that if we could attract a woman or a black person, a position would be created for them in some pertinent department, whether or not such a need or a vacancy existed. Another lie: the official line was that all positions were openly advertised; but if we could find a desired individual, of course there was no advertising at all.
Another official line, put into writing in all advertisements, was that the University did not discriminate by race, gender, sex, etc., etc. — once more a blatant lie, since there was heavy, almost total discrimination against white male applicants.
One pertinent anecdote: PhD physicists had been a glut on the academic market since the 1970s. One such came to my Dean's Office every few weeks, repeating the warning that if I did not find a job for him, the university would lose one of its “feather-in-the-cap” faculty, namely his wife, an assistant professor of mathematics education.

—> My University acquired a black Director of Affirmative Action (Cornel Morton; later sometime Dean of Students, and sometime Assistant to the President). He decreed that all search committees must have at least one member who was female or belonged to a racial minority. If the department where the vacancy existed had no such faculty member, Morton would choose someone from another department to fill that essential role.
Morton also held attendance-required sessions in which he explained, among other things, that racism equals prejudice plus power, and that blacks could not be racist because they lacked power.
After I had resigned as Dean and remained on the research and teaching faculty, I was often invited to panels or meetings to represent opinions unfavorable to affirmative action. When one such panel discussion had lasted an hour or so, Morton appeared for the first time, and at the first opportunity to speak from the floor, he made some critical remarks about “negative people like Henry Bauer and Jesse Helms”.

—> My University also employed a Women's Affairs Officer (Nancy Reynolds). That led to the university becoming deprived of its most well-known, hugely popular and appreciated teacher of economics [1a,b]. I could play no role since Economics was not in the College of Arts & Sciences, but the episode led to my becoming a member of the National Association of Scholars (NAS) [2] and to founding and editing Virginia Scholar [3], the Newsletter of the Virginia chapter of NAS.

So I had first-hand experience of an early couple of decades of political correctness. Since 2000, as I was no longer teaching, I have only occasionally glimpsed how political correctness has become worse, if anything; but I had thought that “DEI” and “wokeness” were little more than strong political correctness — until three articles in Academic Questions made me realize how disastrous has become the domination of academe by DEI bureaucracy.

(To be continued in part 2)

===========================================================================

[1a] Henry H. Bauer, “The Trivialization of Sexual Harassment: Lessons from the Mandelstamm Case”, Academic Questions, 5 (#2, Spring 1992) 55-66; follow-up letters from Abigail L. Rosenthal and Laura Bianchi, and response, in Academic Questions, 5 (#4, Fall 1992) 5-6; Abigail L. Rosenthal, “More on Mandelstamm” 6 (#2, Spring 1993) 9; Barry R. Gross, “In defense of a friend”, p. 6

[1b] Henry H. Bauer, “Affirmative Action at Virginia Tech: The Tail That Wagged the Dog”, Academic Questions, 6 (#1, Winter 1992-93) 72-84

[2] nas.org

[3] Virginia Scholar was made available on-line by Peter Rony, and remains available because of the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine): https://web.archive.org/web/20131030115950/http://fbox.vt.edu/faculty/aaup/index4.html