Skip to main content

Steve Hayward's Wrong About Diversity and "Trump 101"

My friend Steve Hayward is put out with The Chronicle of Higher Education for not including non-white-guy voices in its recent “Trump 101” syllabus:

Where to begin. First, let’s note that Trump has caught on precisely because he speaks to “marginalized groups” that the fashionable, race-obsessed academic left (and much of the GOP establishment—ahem) disdains. So the identity politics set gets a failing grade here for low self-awareness. Second, it is embarrassing but necessary to point out that when inquiring about any subject, any serious list will want to include only the best work that bears on the subject. When Ta Nahesi Coates writes something sensible about Trump, someone will include it on a recommended reading list.

So let’s talk about the “identity politics” involved here.

Steve’s underlying assumptions, it seems, are twofold: A) There’s an objective measure-it-with-a-ruler standard for what’s “best” when it comes to an inherently subjective endeavour like explaining Donald Trump and the forces behind his rise* and that B) that cream will necessarily find its way to the top. If you make an effort to include women and people of color, then, you’re engaging in a bit of PC cherry-picking.

* We don’t have a Trump canon yet, do we? We need more time.

But at this point, though, isn’t it odd that an effort to turn up a list of insightful works about All Things Trump turned up no works by women or people of color? That only white guys had something of intellectual heft and worth to say? Really?

Lefty academics can take this too far, admittedly, but they have one smart insight: A process that continually puts works by white guys as the “best” work being done — even when there are plenty of women and people of color working in the same field — over time is probably not rewarding merit so much as it’s rewarding whiteness, or the networks in which whiteness prevails. (Academia is no exception to the many fields where this is the case.) If you’re saying only white guys are doing the “best” work, either your standards are off, or you probably haven’t looked hard enough.

Conservatives like Steve seem to think that making that extra effort somehow rewards minority mediocrity. Maybe that happens in some cases, but it’s probably also the case that such efforts end up excluding mediocre white work to make room for an additional array of voices.

Steve contends the authors on the syllabus are ideologically diverse, and great! But perhaps there are perspectives that are valuable that aren’t neatly placed under an ideological rubric?

So, no, The Chronicle of Higher Education didn’t “beclown” itself, as Steve says. Sometimes, getting all the “best” voices means making an extra effort to seek out voices that might not otherwise be heard.


Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…