New Book by Yascha Mounk: The Identity Trap

I received my copy of Yascha Mounk's new book yesterday and it is excellent. Here's the blurb from the publisher:

Blurb from the publisher regarding Yascha Mounk's new book, "The Identity Trap."

For much of history, societies have violently oppressed ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. It is no surprise that many who passionately believe in social justice came to believe that members of marginalized groups need to take pride in their identity to resist injustice.

But over the past decades, a healthy appreciation for the culture and heritage of minority groups has transformed into a counterproductive obsession with group identity in all its forms. A new ideology aiming to place each person’s matrix of identities at the center of social, cultural, and political life has quickly become highly influential. It stifles discourse, vilifies mutual influence as cultural appropriation, denies that members of different groups can truly understand one another, and insists that the way governments treat their citizens should depend on the color of their skin.

This, Yascha Mounk argues, is the identity trap. Though those who battle for these ideas are full of good intentions, they will ultimately make it harder to achieve progress toward the genuine equality we desperately need. Mounk has built his acclaimed scholarly career on being one of the first to warn of the risks right-wing populists pose to American democracy. But, he shows, those on the left and center who are stuck in the identity trap are now inadvertent allies to the MAGA movement.

In The Identity Trap, Mounk provides the most ambitious and comprehensive account to date of the origins, consequences, and limitations of so-called “wokeness.” He is the first to show how postmodernism, postcolonialism, and critical race theory forged the “identity synthesis” that conquered many college campuses by 2010. He lays out how a relatively marginal set of ideas came to gain tremendous influence in business, media, and government by 2020. He makes a nuanced philosophical case for why the application of these ideas to areas from education to public policy is proving to be so deeply counterproductive—and why universal, humanist values can best serve the vital goal of true equality. In explaining the huge political and cultural transformations of the past decade, The Identity Trap provides truth and clarity where they are needed most.

Continue ReadingNew Book by Yascha Mounk: The Identity Trap

Boston University is in Denial that it is Paying the Price for Choosing to Impose an Ideology Rather than Seeking Truth

David Decosimo, an associate professor of theology and ethics at Boston University, writing at Wall Street Journal, "How Ibram X. Kendi Broke Boston University: The university totally committed itself to his ideology. It hasn’t backed off despite the scandal."

I wrote a letter to BU’s president that afternoon, stressing that beyond the problems with Mr. Kendi’s vision, the more fundamental issue concerned betraying the university’s research and teaching mission by making any ideology institutional orthodoxy. Nothing changed. Even now, BU is insisting it will “absolutely not” step back from its commitment to Mr. Kendi’s antiracism.

Mr. Kendi deserves some blame for the scandal, but the real culprit is institutional and cultural. It’s still unfolding and is far bigger than BU. In 2020, countless universities behaved as BU did. And to this day at universities everywhere, activist faculty and administrators are still quietly working to institutionalize Mr. Kendi’s vision. They have made embracing “diversity, equity and inclusion” a criterion for hiring and tenure, have rewritten disciplinary standards to privilege antiracist ideology, and are discerning ways to circumvent the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action ruling.

Most of those now attacking Mr. Kendi at BU don’t object to his vision. They embrace it. They don’t oppose its establishment in universities. That’s their goal. Their anger isn’t with his ideology’s intellectual and ethical poverty but with his personal failure to use the money and power given to him to institutionalize their vision across American universities, politics and culture.

Whether driven by moral hysteria, cynical careerism or fear of being labeled racist, this violation of scholarly ideals and liberal principles betrays the norms necessary for intellectual life and human flourishing. It courts disaster, at this moment especially, that universities can’t afford.

Consider also, Jonathan Haidt's argues "Why Universities Must Choose One Telos: Truth or Social Justice." An Excerpt:

What is the telos of university? The most obvious answer is “truth” — the word appears on so many university crests. But increasingly, many of America’s top universities are embracing social justice as their telos, or as a second and equal telos. But can any institution or profession have two teloses (or teloi)? What happens if they conflict? ...

I am not saying that an individual student cannot pursue both goals. In the talk below I urge students to embrace truth as the only way that they can pursue activism that will effectively enhance social justice. But an institution such as a university must have one and only one highest and inviolable good. I am also not denying that many students encounter indignities, insults, and systemic obstacles because of their race, gender, or sexual identity. They do, and I favor some sort of norm setting or preparation for diversity for incoming students and faculty. But as I have argued elsewhere, many of the most common demands the protesters have made are likely to backfire and make experiences of marginalization more frequent and painful, not less. Why? Because they are not based on evidence of effectiveness; the demands are not constrained by an absolute commitment to truth.

Continue ReadingBoston University is in Denial that it is Paying the Price for Choosing to Impose an Ideology Rather than Seeking Truth

FIRE Files Suit to Ask Federal Court to Declare that DEI Statements Constitute Compelled Speech

From FIRE: FIRE is suing to stop regulations that force our clients to espouse controversial views about “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Here is an excerpt from FIRE's announcement today:

Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit on behalf of six California community college professors to halt new, systemwide regulations forcing professors to espouse and teach politicized conceptions of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Each of the professors teach at one of three Fresno-area community colleges within the State Center Community College District. Under the new regulations, all of the more-than-54,000 professors who teach in the California Community Colleges system must incorporate “anti-racist” viewpoints into classroom teaching.

The regulations explicitly require professors to pledge allegiance to contested ideological viewpoints. Professors must “acknowledge” that “cultural and social identities are diverse, fluid, and intersectional,” and they must develop “knowledge of the intersectionality of social identities and the multiple axes of oppression that people from different racial, ethnic, and other minoritized groups face.” Faculty performance and tenure will be evaluated based on professors’ commitment to and promotion of the government’s viewpoints.

“I’m a professor of chemistry. How am I supposed to incorporate DEI into my classroom instruction?” asked Reedley College professor Bill Blanken. “What’s the ‘anti-racist’ perspective on the atomic mass of boron?”

“These regulations are a totalitarian triple-whammy,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “The government is forcing professors to teach and preach a politicized viewpoint they do not share, imposing incomprehensible guidelines, and threatening to punish professors when they cross an arbitrary, indiscernible line.”

DEI requirements are controversial within academia. FIRE’s research indicates that half of professors believe mandatory diversity statements violate academic freedom. The sole mention of academic freedom in California’s model framework frames it an inconvenience, warning professors not to “‘weaponize’ academic freedom” to “inflict curricular trauma on our students.”

“Hearing uncomfortable ideas is not ‘curricular trauma,’ and teaching all sides of an issue is not ‘weaponizing’ academic freedom,” said Loren Palsgaard, a professor of English at Madera Community College and a plaintiff in the suit. “That’s just called ‘education.’”

Continue ReadingFIRE Files Suit to Ask Federal Court to Declare that DEI Statements Constitute Compelled Speech

False Facts Lead to Bad Legal Conclusions

In the recent affirmative action decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Jackson made a startling claim:

Dr. Vinay Prasad takes issue with the shoddy study on which Justice Jackson might well have relied upon in good faith. I will assume that neither she nor her law clerks have the necessary expertise for critically analyzing the study she cited for making the claim that Black doctors are twice as good at saving the lives of Black newborns. In this article, Dr. Prasad shows the skepticism one needs to show upon hearing such an extraordinary claim.

The paper in question is catastrophically flawed. First, consider that it is a bold claim that a white doctor is twice as likely to kill a black baby. The effect size (TWICE as likely!) is massive. . . .

Next, in my podcast from Aug 2020 I discuss why this paper is flawed (full podcast is 91 min. but relevant discussion runs from 1:31:00 to 0:52:00 mark). Those notes are also captured here.

  • If white doctors have so much worse outcomes, one would expect they are making different decisions in the care of neonates than Black doctors— but this paper cannot show the mechanism of the difference

  • The paper assumes doctor-baby pairings are quasi randomized, but that is unfounded assumption. It may not be quasi randomized and well off Blacks may be more likely to have Black doctors

  • A baby born is seen by a team of doctors— pediatricians, anesthesiologists, obs— which doctor is ascribed the ‘assigned provider’ per baby. What determines this assignment? (the authors do not provide this information)

  • Since, the paper was published it was revealed that some hospitals put a treating doctor on the form and others put the head of the unit. (massive bias)

  • A baby born is seen by a team— nurses, staff, doctors, etc— why are the races (and racial concordance) of these people not accounted for.

  • If a baby gets sick, and goes to NICU and dies, which doctor is ascribed responsibility. If NICU doctors have different racial make up than other doctors could this not bias results?

  • Broader issues of administrative data/ multiple hypothesis testing detailed in the episode.

Prasad also breaks down a second article claiming that Black doctors are substantially better at saving Black lives: "The Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision puts lives at risk."

Prasad sets forth the limitations on this second study, which also makes an extraordinary race-based claim:

Continue ReadingFalse Facts Lead to Bad Legal Conclusions

A Chart that Challenges Uni-causal Arguments on Income Disparity

p> It's trendy to argue that "racism" is the necessary and sufficient explanation for the lack of earnings of groups at the bottom of this chart of household income. Anti-racists reject the need for multivariate analyses. If so, what would it be that accounts for the groups at the top of the chart? That Americans especially like members of those groups? This is an inconvenient chart for those who promote DEI dogma.

Continue ReadingA Chart that Challenges Uni-causal Arguments on Income Disparity