The Purge

 Today the roller coaster stayed at the low altitudes. If anything, it dove lower still.

My colleague informed me that my university had spent the evening purging hundreds of its webpages of any language now considered forbidden by Trump's new (soon to be dissolved?) Department of Education. A memo from an Ed Department official, sent on Valentine's Day, made various noises about how awful discrimination on the basis of is...

But cue the goose meme generator:

from Imgflip Meme Generator

 

Can you guess the answer? White people, of course. White people, who (along with Asian people) have apparently been the victims ALL ALONG: "These institutions’ embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia."

 

The memo makes for a fascinating study in supported argumentation. On certain points, the memo dutifully footnotes various court cases it summons to support the judiciary's resistance to race-based admissions schemes. But these footnotes--any evidentiary citations at all--disappear as the memo moves into its tirade about accepted sociological history:

Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon “systemic and structural racism” and advanced discriminatory policies and practices. Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them—particularly during the last four years—under the banner of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (“DEI”), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.

 

Moreover: 

Other programs discriminate in less direct, but equally insidious, ways. DEI programs, for example, frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not. Such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes. Consequently, they deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.

 

Again: no evidence, no argumentation, just pure assertion drawn from the right-wing media echo chamber. What these allegations have to do with race as a factor in admissions is unclear.

 

The memo concludes with scary-sounding demands that all educational institutions be ready to prove they're snapping into line against DEI: 

 

All educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race. Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding.

 

I am not a lawyer, but these demands seem (1) ridiculously broad--is this about admissions or any mention of race whatsoever?--and (2) practically unenforceable given the Trump administration's wild-machete-thrash-cutting of all federal workers and its stated intention to dissolve the Department of Education altogether. Who's going surveil institutions? How? Using what criteria? Will this be a patchwork of private-citizen bounty hunter laws a la Texas's anti-abortion regime? What?

 

Given the vagueness of this memo, I'm all the more dismayed to see my University not only stumble over itself to comply but to go so far beyond what the memo mentions. Apparently deans got a (not-yet-released) memo from the university's legal council with a list of no-no words that needed to be memory-holed from the university's website. 

 

Were faculty and staff consulted? Of course not! Do we know what those words are? Nope! I'm guessing they're similar to the lists given to National Science Foundation grantees. The Louisiana Illuminator notes that several of these words (diversity and equity, for example) appear in very different contexts in lots of departmental webpages, e.g., studying private health equity firms or cataloging a state's ecological diversity.

 

I found out about the purge only through my colleague's text link to the article. I found out that a bio of mine had been removed (along with those of other faculty) on a particular page only when my school's newspaper contacted me to ask if I knew about it. The reporter also asked what I thought about the anti-DEI purge. 

 

Here's what I said (after necessary qualifications that I was speaking for myself, not for the school, the department, etc.):

 

I'm dismayed by the moral panic against all things DEI. I'm disturbed by the reactionary, short-sighted, and undemocratic actions being taken to satiate that panic. In my view, both the fear and the reactions are being driven by a mix of honest ignorance held by some, persistent misinformation spread by others, and bad faith provocation stoked by outrage profiteers. 

It's a bad idea for LSU to feed into that reactivity. Censorship does not make our University stronger. It does not make education better or more affordable. It weakens our reputation, undercuts our research profile, and drives away talented faculty, staff, and students.

Most of all, it won't prevent future ultimatums by anti-DEI crusaders. Historically, moral panics aren't satisfied by just one purge. 

If we submit to this--or, worse, if we just do the censoring for them--what next sacrifices will Washington demand from us? Today it's a list of forbidden terms. What's tomorrow: forbidden topics? Forbidden books, plays, music, works or art? Forbidden disciplines? Forbidden groups of people? Where does this stop?

It has to stop with us--students, employees, staff, alumni, community members, and citizens. We can decline invitations to censor ourselves. We can refuse to alter our teaching, our research, or our services. We can say no to accommodating cynical fear mongering.

We teach our students about academic integrity--doing our work honestly, rigorously, and openly. I want LSU to model that integrity now.

 

I am trying to keep in mind that the folk behind the purge are probably operating in good faith, doing their best to protect our federal funding. But I'm surprised at the eleventh-hour, slipshod editing here. Did they think no one would notice? It's the weekend before Mardi Gras break, so perhaps they hoped they could get away with "quietly doing away with"? 

 

I'm not interested in keeping it quiet. This is a grave failure of courage on the part of the institution. I know it's not always easy to distinguish between preemptive camouflage and obeying in advance. But this act seems much more like the latter. Do better, please.