In blogposts entitled Kafka Trap and Ready for the Holler, I addressed a decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) concerning affirmative action in institutions of higher education.
I applaud the Court’s conclusion and look forward to further legal action in employment settings.
In blogposts entitled Catering to DEIA, Deez Changes, Boggles the Mind, Refutation of Representation, Game Recognize Game, Oki-woke, Pinoke, Let Them Fight, Artificial Influence, and The Lowering Tide, I commented on diversity, equity, inclusivity, and access (DEIA) initiatives.
I abhor the practice of DEIA, because I view it for what it is, bigoted—obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Immediately following SCOTUS decision, Princeton University’s president apparently issued a statement by declaring, “While today’s decision will make our work more difficult, we will work vigorously to preserve—and, indeed, grow—the diversity of our community while fully respecting the law as announced today.”
This matter demonstrates the ‘A’ in DEIA. On the basis of an individual’s membership regarding a particular group, access ensures that bigoted practices will continue within certain sectors of some colleges and universities.
Using another example, following SCOTUS ruling, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill’s chancellor reportedly stated, “Due to the ruling, universities will be restricted on asking perspective students about their race. However, applicants can choose to disclose their race and how that has impacted their lives, if they wish.”
Rather than requiring that prospective students check a box to indicate racial identity, entrance essays and interviews will be used to continue discriminatory practices. Bigots gonna bigot, laws be damned!
Imagine that fictional University Elite of Texas, Rockwall County (UET) staff reach a bigoted conclusion. Unreasonably attached to the irrational belief that group W maintains power and privilege over group B, due to historic and structural racism, policies are instituted to favor one group over another.
You may ask, “What’s irrational about the promotion of social justice in this context?”
Discrimination may be defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. Although group W has historically benefitted from structural discriminatory measures, not all members of the group are culpable for such behavior.
Still, UET staff argues that even if current group W members weren’t alive during a time when ancestors of the group were overtly prejudiced towards historic members of group B, a legacy of privilege has set back modern members of group B. They were presumably disadvantaged by their membership throughout time.
All of this, even if inaccurate, is logical. The irrational part of the argument relates to the notion that in order to right the wrongs of the past, discriminatory practices of the past ought to be practiced today.
Now, group W will be unreasonably disadvantaged while group B will be unethically advantaged. Rather than treating each member of either group as an individual and assessing merit based on ability, an immutable characteristic (race) will determine who will and won’t be successful.
As group W’s ancestors once used similar practices and it is now considered morally reprehensible, it’s somehow acceptable in the present to use similarly unjust treatment that favors group B. Bigotry of the past and bigotry in the present is immoral.
In this context, so-called social justice is little more than acceptable injustice towards group W. If it was wrong to discriminate yesterday, it’s wrong to discriminate today—highlighting the irrationality of UET.
Alas, bigots gonna bigot.
Absurdly, those of us who use rational discourse as a means of challenging DEIA and who revile discriminatory behavior will be labeled bigots. In the age of openly practiced and apparently acceptable discrimination, I’m unbothered by petty remarks such as this.
Furthermore, for those I treat within my clinical practice and concerning my life coaching endeavors, I will continue challenging irrational attitudes which support modern structures of oppression. No one is free when others are oppressed.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Astor, W. and Schermerhorn, J. (2023, July 6). The future after affirmative action. Rochester Beacon. Retrieved from https://rochesterbeacon.com/2023/07/06/the-future-after-affirmative-action/
Breunlin, E. (2023, June 30). Colorado universities will double down on diversity after Supreme Court effectively barred affirmative action. The Colorado Sun. Retrieved from https://coloradosun.com/2023/06/30/colorado-colleges-universities-affirmative-action/
Hollings, D. (2022, December 29). Artificial influence. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/artificial-influence
Hollings, D. (2023, March 22). Boggles the mind. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/boggles-the-mind
Hollings, D. (2023, May 11). Catering to DEIA. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/catering-to-deia
Hollings, D. (2023, February 24). Deez changes. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/deez-changes
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, May 3). Game recognize game. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/game-recognize-game
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, June 24). Kafka trap. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/kafka-trap
Hollings, D. (2022, November 10). Labeling. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/labeling
Hollings, D. (2023, March 8). Let them fight. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/let-them-fight
Hollings, D. (2022, September 10). Oki-woke, Pinoke. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/oki-woke-pinoke
Hollings, D. (2023, June 29). Ready for the holler. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ready-for-the-holler
Hollings, D. (2022, November 10). Refutation of representation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/refutation-of-representation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2022, August 27). The lowering tide. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-lowering-tide
Knapp, K. (2023, June 29). Princeton University president issues statement after U.S. Supreme Court rejects affirmative action in college admissions. Planet Princeton. Retrieved from https://planetprinceton.com/2023/06/29/princeton-university-president-issues-statement-after-u-s-supreme-court-rejects-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/
Robertson, N. (2023, July 7). UNC to offer free tuition to some students following Supreme Court affirmative action ruling. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4086178-unc-to-offer-free-tuition-to-some-students-following-supreme-court-affirmative-action-ruling/