May 23, 2025 • 49 mins
On this episode of The Middle, we ask how the nation can reckon with past and present injustices and ensure equal opportunity for all Americans, if not through DEI. Jeremy is joined by ACLU President Deborah Archer, author of the new book Dividing Lines, and political commentator Kmele Foster, co-host of the Fifth Column podcast and editor-at-large of Tangle News. DJ Tolliver joins as well, plus calls from around the country. #DEI #race #diversity #equity #inclusion #woke #Trump #racism
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, along with our
house DJ Tolliver, who is actually a DJ on the
radio version of this show, but not on the podcast
because we don't have the rights to play the music
on the podcast, and so I feel like I have
to occasionally remind listeners of that Tolliver in case they're
wondering what it is that you do here.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
I told you, man, I'll make a brand new soundtrack
for the Middle. Okay, don't play with me.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I'll come in and then we have the rights. Then
we would have the rights.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
So this hour we are jumping into the deep end
with a topic that can be tricky to talk about,
and that is DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. It has
been almost five years to the day since the murder
of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, an event
that shocked the world and led to widespread protests about
racial justice and reckoning in America. On an institutional level,
(00:54):
one of the biggest efforts we saw to acknowledge this
was the implementation of DEI measures across all levels of business, education,
and government. And while these efforts were designed with racial
healing in mind. They became divisive for some, with DEI
effectively turning into a dirty word for some Americans. One
of President Trump's first executive orders banned it from federal
(01:16):
programs and policies, and the President has pressured private companies
to do the same, and many of them have. So
our question is, if not DEI, then what can be
done to reckon with injustices of the past and ensure
equal opportunity for all Americans. We're taking your calls in
a moment at eight four four four middle That is
eight four four four six four three three five three.
(01:37):
But first last week on the show, we heard from
so many around the country about how the tariffs are
already affecting them. Here are some of the voicemails we
got after the show.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Hi, my name's Josephine Hall, and I live in Vermont
and I work for a jewelry company where we import
jewelry from China, and so all the tariffs have affected
our business and we have to pay three times the
price for all of the jewelry.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
My name is Daniel. I'm from Loveland, Colorado, currently the
VP of finance for a protein bar company. Consumers aren't
going to feel the pressure that's being put on prices
right now until probably almost the holiday DS, and I
think it's going to be really rough for everybody.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
Hey, my name is Maria Louise Smith and I'm calling
from Birmingham, Alabama. I'm a mom and I have a
kid who's going off to college, so we bought everything
that we thought he would need. And most of the
items that I picked up were made in China, so
I'm not sure what to expect, but we decided to
stalk up as if there's a storm coming. Well.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Thanks to everyone who called in, and you can hear
that entire episode on our podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts,
on the iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts.
It was one of the most eye opening episodes I
think we've ever done. So now to our question this hour.
If not DEI, then what tolliver? The phone number please.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three, or you can
write to us at Listen to the Middle dot com.
You can also comment on our live stream on YouTube.
I'm checking them all, okay, so hit me up. I'll
get you on the air.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
All right, joining us this hour. ACLU President Deborah Archer,
author of the new book Dividing Lines, How Transportation Infrastructure
reinforces Ratio. Great to have you on the show.
Speaker 6 (03:24):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
And Camille Foster is with us as well, editor at
large at Tangle News and independent non partisan news outlet.
He's also a board member at the Foundation for Individual
Rights and Expression. Camill, welcome to.
Speaker 7 (03:36):
You, wonderful be with you. Thanks so much for the invitation.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
So before we get to the phone, Zebra Archer, your
new book explores just one aspect of the infrastructure you
could say that has made our country unequal. That would
be transportation. You write, the nation's transportation system is a
material manifestation of the structural racial inequalities built into the
foundations of this country. Explain what you mean by that.
Speaker 8 (04:01):
Yeah, I think transportation in America is a bit of
a paradox. We often think of roads and highways and
public transit as symbols of progress and connection, and they
absolutely are.
Speaker 6 (04:14):
But the story that I tell in.
Speaker 8 (04:16):
Dividing Lines is about how these same systems have also
been used as tools of exclusion and displacement, especially in
black communities. So transportation and movement have long been tools
for enforcing white supremacy. And then as legal segregation began
to crumble during the Civil Rights movement, cities across America
(04:38):
started turning to infrastructure, and in many ways, infrastructure replaced
Jim Crow, so highways were deliberately routed through black neighborhoods.
City planners used things like one way streets and dead
ends to physically and socially and economically isolate black communities.
And then we also know how public transportation evolved under
(05:00):
a cloud of racism, first with explicit discrimination and then
more subtle dog whistle policies.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Like public transportation not going into certain neighborhoods because let's
say the white people don't want the people of color
coming in from those places into the center of the city.
Speaker 6 (05:18):
Yeah, we all have.
Speaker 8 (05:18):
With the result of the discrimination in public transportation is
something that we often refer to as transportation deserts.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
In black communities, that.
Speaker 8 (05:27):
Means they don't have access to regular public transportation, and
that's from disinvestment, but also transportation deserts in many white
communities by design to keep black people and other people
of color out, often under the guise of safety right
kind of leaning into narratives of excessive black criminality.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
So, given all of your work on this book, what
do you think when you see the backlash to the
DEI initiatives that grew after the murder of George Floyd
and the President banning DEI for in the federal government
and pressure pressuring companies and institutions to do the same.
Speaker 6 (06:04):
Yeah. So, ultimately, the book is about how racism adapts.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Right.
Speaker 8 (06:08):
Racism part of its power is that it's creative, that
it's evolving, that it finds its way into all the
spaces right in dividing lines. That's how racism found its
way into zoning boards and city planning departments. But we
see this narrative repeat all around the country. The way
that racism that we experienced post slavery and in the
(06:31):
fifties and in the seventies, it's still with us. It
has just evolved. It has changed shapes and uses different
policies and tools and bans on diversity, equity and inclusion
and related measures. Means that we can't address the ways
that we continue to be impacted by racism and inequality.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Camille Foster, you have a slightly different perspective you were
critical of DEI initiatives early on. You've said the companies
and people behind them may have had noble intentions, but
that they may have gone too far.
Speaker 7 (07:03):
Yeah, I definitely say that's true. I think, in general,
I appreciate many of the historic things that Deborah has
outlined in her opening remarks, But I think the public
debate around DEI has been dominated by a lot of
euphemism and caricature. I think a lot of advocates often
present it as this very obvious, straightforward, morally unassailable set
(07:24):
of ideas, and they will often paint critics as these
folks who are indifferent to injustice, or motivated by white supremacy,
or ignorant of history. But I think the reality is
that DEI does represent a kind of significant philosophical shift
from a position of individual equality that virtually all Americans
(07:45):
agree on pretty violently, and individual equality under the law
in particular, to something like group based analysis and redistribution
on the basis of equity with rests back to outcomes
for particular groups that are generally regarded as as disadvantage.
(08:06):
And this shift is not a minor policy tweak. This
is a real kind of transformational sort of innovation. And
I think the important thing to acknowledge is that these programs,
and whether we're talking about DEI or critical race theory
or racial justice, we're often redefining fairness in a way
that makes a lot of people deeply uncomfortable. And the
(08:28):
people who it makes uncomfortable aren't just white people. They're
often people who like me and quite frankly like Debra.
And I think it's interesting that you've got two civil
libertarians talking about these issues that many of us are
deeply concerned about any sort of policy approach that is
going to fundamentally treat people not as individuals who are
(08:49):
equal under the law that's equality, but as members of
racial groups that it will privilege some sort of class
distinction and then actually have the law or even the
bureaucratic machinery of large organizations, be they campuses or corporations,
prioritize people or deprioritize them on the basis of race.
And we have seen these programs essentially go ry and
(09:12):
precisely that way.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
So, Camille, what do you think then, when you see
so many DEI initiatives being thrown out the window, and
people like the Secretary of Defense Pete Heggs, that's saying
anyone trying to do DEI at the Pentagon will be
out well.
Speaker 7 (09:25):
I think the characters exist on both the right, on
the right and the left with respect to these issues,
both among proponents and critics. To be more specific, I
think it's also important to roll the clock back a
little bit. As I said, this is not just a
kind of this is what fairness and justice looks like.
There has been a kind of c change philosophically and ideologically,
(09:46):
and the Biden administration when they first arrived into power
in twenty twenty, they actually instituted a raft of executive
orders that tried to inculcate DEI into various aspects of
the federal government. And for a very long time, corporations
and universities were embracing these policies. And about five years ago,
as we all know, the quote unquote racial reckoning occurred,
(10:07):
and at that point there was a profound interest in
trying to prioritize racial equity. So it's important to recognize
that we're not just seeing the Trump administration roll something
back that we'd all agreed on before that was noble
and good. It's the Trump administration responding to something that
began on the left with people instituting these policies and
(10:28):
now rolling them back. And I think both sides, quite frankly,
would benefit from prioritizing pluralism, where we can have meaningful
disagreements and robust conversations about the role of equality and
equity in the law and under the law, quite frankly,
without demonizing one another and talking past one another. I
(10:48):
think we can have sober, serious conversations about justice, about fairness,
and about what the law ought to prioritize, and even
the efficacy and effectiveness of DEI policies without caricatures. I
look forward to having that conversation today.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
I know Debra is up to the task well, and
I would ask Deborah for a response right now, but
I'm not going to do that because I only have
about fifteen seconds to get one, So we'll get it
right after this book A remind so that too much. Well,
that wouldn't be fair if I stopped at fifteen seconds in.
But anyway, our number is eight four four middle. That's
eight four four four six four three three five three
(11:22):
and Tolliver. It is interesting, given what's happening now to
listen back to the discourse right after the murder of
George Floyd in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Yeah, back then, even Republicans were in favor of some
of the DEI initiatives that were coming out, including soccer
Senator Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 9 (11:37):
You can understand the outrage. I mean, what happened. This
is a vexing issue. If you know, if we could
have figured out exactly what to do, I think we'd
have done it years ago. It's one of our continuing
persistent problems in our society that we're all acutely aware
of and searching for answers.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Was that Ai That's really him? But that was what
things sounded like five years ago. And a reminder that
Mitch McConnell is retiring next year after a forty year
career in Congress. You are listening to the middle, We'll
be right back. This is the middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
If you're just tuning, in the Middle is a national
call and show. We're focused on elevating voices from the
(12:18):
middle geographically, politically, and philosophically, or maybe you just want
to meet in the middle this hour, we're asking if
not DEI, then what can be done to reckon with
the past and ensure equal opportunity for all Americans? Tolliver
the phone number again, please.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three. You can also
write to us to listen to the Middle dot com
or on social media and some of you already have
and it's scandalous.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Okay, Well, and if you are calling in, and by
the way, if you're hitting a busy signal, because I
see the lines are all full right now, you can
leave a message for us. I'm joined by ACLU president
Deva Archer, author of the book Dividing Lines, and Tangle
News editor a Large Camille Foster. And before we go
back to the phone's Devor Archer, let's get your your
thoughts on what we just heard there. And I guess
I'll also ask sort of how does the acl you
navigate this, because you could say you have people saying
(13:04):
that you need DEI initiatives to reduce discrimination, and you
could also say people have people saying DEI is discriminatory.
Speaker 8 (13:12):
I think there's so much that kill said that we
really need to break down and engage in conversation.
Speaker 6 (13:19):
One point is that I don't.
Speaker 8 (13:21):
Think that DEI and racial justice efforts are about redefining equality.
I think a lot of them about redefining merit, and
that makes people uncomfortable. So a lot of what we
define as merit actually are factors that consolidate and amplify
access to privilege, privilege that has historically and continues to
(13:45):
be denied disproportionately to people of color. So, for example,
we have college admissions programs that require calculus, and study
after study has shown that predominantly black and Latin ex
schools don't have access to calculus, and therefore it makes
it harder for them to get admissions. And so we
(14:06):
need to challenge this idea that our current, our system
before was based on merit and that we're doing something else.
And I think in many ways it's about redefining merit. Also,
when we talk about what DEI is, DEI is not
just affirmative action. It is not just hiring processes. DEI
(14:29):
is what led us to have a family and maternity leave.
It is not just about dealing with the inequalities at
the back end.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
It is about prevention.
Speaker 8 (14:39):
It is about trainings that help us understand where there
are inequalities built into our system against systems that we
thought were merit based but really amplify differential access. And
no one's saying that there aren't challenges or problems with
racial justice efforts or diversity equity and inclusion efforts. But
it doesn't mean that we throw everything out. Right, we
(15:02):
have a criminal legal system that is a rife with
racial inequality, and we don't just toss the whole system out. Instead,
we try to get at the problem areas.
Speaker 6 (15:12):
And so I'm not.
Speaker 8 (15:15):
Beyond having a conversation about some of the ways in
which diversity, equity and inclusion efforts might have resulted in
unfairness or inequity. But that's the conversation we need to have,
and that's not the conversation we're having. It's not what
we're seeing. We're seeing a wholesale removal of the ability
(15:36):
to talk about race, to address racial inequality, and a
rature of people of color. And then finally, just you know,
the challenge for me is the insistence on the other
end of color blindness, and an insistence on color blindness
does real damage in a world that's shaped by race.
Speaker 6 (15:56):
Ignoring race doesn't make racism go away.
Speaker 8 (15:58):
Race continues to matter, It continues to constrain the opportunities
of some and expand the opportunities for others.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
So at the ACLU, we.
Speaker 8 (16:07):
Are fighting to make sure that everyone has equal access
to opportunity. And so for us, tearing down some of
the real barriers that we see that prevent access to
educational opportunity and economic opportunity and good health, strong communities,
that's what we're fighting for.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Well, okay, let me let me say. You say, you know,
don't want to throw everything out. It certainly does seem
like that that is exactly what the Trump administration is
doing right now. And Camille Foster, let me ask you briefly,
because I do want to get to some of these
callers as well, is there a replacement for DEI initiatives
that you think would be more useful.
Speaker 7 (16:47):
Well, I want to just clarify something here, and I
think it's pretty important. I, for one, am not a
proponent of colorblindness. Quite frankly, I'm an individualist, which I
think is fundamentally different. I'm for something. What I am
opposed to is a kind of racial primacy with respect
to our analysis and attempts to understand a really complicated,
multivariate were world. I love the example that Debora Pride
(17:11):
in a moment ago of calculus programs and access to
them being something that is absolutely essential to being able
to attain a higher education and succeed in various fields.
It does seem to me that there is a real
question about the efficacy of prioritizing racial disparities versus prioritizing
access to the actual programs that are likely to get
(17:34):
one the kind of advantages that we're all we'd all
like to see conferred upon every student. And from my standpoint,
when I see a child is either going to be
enrolled in a program in Appalachia or in Baltimore City,
I know that those students might look different from one another,
but the deprivation that they're going to suffer is identical.
(17:54):
And I think the rather subtle implication of the social
justice this kind of dei worldview, and I hate to
even use the word because it's so confusing at this point,
is that there is a suggestion that I ought to
be disproportionately concerned about someone in a particular circumstance on
(18:15):
the basis of their race, and I'm just not I
am far more concerned with actual deprivation and individual people's
lives than I am racial disparities. I think if we
obsess over disparities, we run the risk of living in
an Harrison Bergeron type world where success can be defined
as either raising the ceiling for everyone or lowering it
(18:35):
on everyone, and that can't be what we actually want.
Racial parity is not my goal. My goal is a
free and prosperous society, and I think we only get
there by prioritizing individualism and human dignity as the basis
for individual as the basis for human dignity. That has
always been the prize. And I think the mistake that's
been made by many, many well intentioned people is to
(18:59):
confuse this project of trying to adjudicate these past harms
on the basis of racial lines. That they don't appreciate
that there are inherent disadvantages that are associated with that,
like the reification of these racial categories, which I think,
quite frankly five the last five years tell us pretty
clearly that an emphasis on race here the capitalization of
(19:23):
B in black, for example, may actually be driving us
apart and concretizing these racial identities as opposed to helping
us identify what we have in common.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Most fundamentally, I want to stop you there. I think
we've actually set a record now for the longest period
without getting to any callers. And we could just go
back and forth between the two of you for the
entire show, but I do want to get to some callers.
Let's get to candas in Salt Lake City, Utah. Candas,
go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Oh.
Speaker 10 (19:53):
I am a fam tender queer tenured professor at the
University of Michigan pronounced say them. I have benefited from diversity,
equity and inclusion initiatives, and as many of you know,
the University of Michigan recently dismantled DEI initiatives across all
three Michigan campuses. Faculty, staff, and students are furious about
(20:14):
this decision. The question is what do we do instead
of DEI? And I have to call upon black feminist
scholarship for this and Ruhab Benjamin's imagination of manifesto who
Benjamin is really not a proponent of DEI within institutions,
and she sees it as a placeholder. Really, what she
(20:35):
believes is we should focus on hyperlocal organizing, So that
could include creating imagination collectives dedicated to generating and implementing
alternative futures, and I think systems and institutions could do
this too, or freedom laboratories, which are spaces to experiment
with new social arrangements technologies where communities can try out
(20:56):
alternatives to current systems. So I guess bottom line, d
I didn't go far enough.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Interesting, interesting perspective. Candice, thank you very much for that.
Let me get another one in here. And Gabe, who's
in Charleston, South Carolina, Gabe your thoughts.
Speaker 11 (21:15):
Hi, thank you for having me. Yeah, we I go
to the college or I'm not I shouldn't say, but
I'm in college. And they also dismantled like all the
d I initiatives. I'm an education major and one of
the it's it's not like it's been this is this
(21:37):
thing called call me mister. And the Sisters of Septima
are two fellowships for like black educators, and uh they
essentially got their uh, their funding cut. And also like
the previous college said like we had a pride center,
we had this multicultural center. Those are completely eradicated. Not really,
(22:00):
I mean, I think the legislation was so vague that
uh that uh the board that the Board of Trustee
is kind of like, just decide to cut it, you know,
so gave.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Do you have a you have a do you have
a better solution than de I than if it's been cut?
Where you are.
Speaker 11 (22:18):
A better solution? I I can't really think about a
better solution. I don't. I don't really think of the
harm that's being done either. I say, just reinstate it.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Reinstate it, okay? Interesting? Uh devor Archer, what do you
think about that? Two people who say it didn't didn't
go far enough and reinstate it where they are where
it's been cut.
Speaker 8 (22:42):
I appreciate that because I think it recognizes that without
the you know, we saw a lot of progress on
racial inclusion, and that was because of a lot of
these efforts that we had not about giving people access
to spaces and opportunity that they didn't deserve. It is
about about making sure that we were taking down unnecessary barriers.
(23:04):
And without the DEI efforts, I think people in institutions,
that colleges and universities and companies are seeing the division
come back, where we are going to resegregate in many ways,
and so it cannot be that we have no tools,
and so I appreciate the folks that say it didn't
go far enough, focusing on other ways that we build power,
(23:26):
we create access. I don't disagree with Camille that we
need to make sure that everyone has access, but racism
is a real thing that helps to continually find its
way into all of the solutions and reinforce these inequalities.
So yes, let's make sure that children have access to
(23:46):
educational opportunities all children. We fight for all children, not
just my children. I want to fight for everyone's children.
But somehow in that fight, we still end up in
places where they're is deep racial inequalities. And either we're
going to end up in a place where we think
there's something wrong with black children and black families. They
(24:08):
don't value education, they don't believe in taking advantage of
economic opportunity, or we have to recognize there are deep,
deep problems within our systems, not historical ones but current
ones as well. And so whatever we do, it cannot
be to turn our backs on racial justice efforts. And
(24:29):
why I appreciate that sentiment in both of the callers.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Let's get to Ryan who's in Pittsburgh. Ryan, Welcome to
the middle. Go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 12 (24:38):
Hey, thank you for having me this evening. I'm a
former educator of twelve years in Chicago public schools and
now work at the University of Pittsburgh. I really wish
in looking back at DEI, there had been a more
explicit focus on socioeconomic issues, and when we talk about diversity,
you know, people that don't have college educations or people
(25:00):
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I really felt like the socioeconomic
messaging that was there in DEI was not forefront. And
you know, in looking back at like Martin Luther King's
last moments, you know, his Poor People's campaign, he really
emphasized there's no going after racism and sexism and other
(25:22):
issues without that economic issue. And if there's an e
I two point zero, I really hope that at the
forefront we see that socioeconomic message of social justice.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Thank you so much, Thank you, Ryan Camille.
Speaker 7 (25:39):
Yeah, well, there's a couple of things I'd like to say. First,
the caller from Michigan, it's very ironic that that is
the particular program that was referred to because the New
York Times Nicholas Confesssori wrote a pretty extensive and devastating
piece back in October of last year about Michigan's efforts
in DEI and underscored the fact that the spending was
(26:01):
pretty profound, that they doubled down on the program, and
that their enrollment did not budge in terms of black
student enrollment. It stayed at about six point one percent.
Despite the fact that they doubled the spending, About fifty
six percent of the spending actually ended up going into
salaries and benefits for the staff who are working on
these programs. And it's really important to underscore this that
(26:21):
these programs are not just a kind of mixed quality.
Many of them fail in really profound ways. We see
so many stories about these anti racism centers that are
going out of business in various ways. And the reality
is there's a question that has to be asked which
actually mirrors what the last caller was just referring to. Here,
are these programs generally benefiting the most needy? Are they
(26:45):
actually serving the interests of the people who most need help,
or are they helping people who are already going to
be going to pretty good universities perhaps go to better
universities who are already in the C suite get a
slightly better job, And are they helping people essentially get
really great, high paying jobs in the industry that is
(27:06):
supposed to be delivering a greater diversity in not so
much serving the interests of the people in those programs.
And quite frankly, I think there's a lot of evidence
that calls into question the quality of these programs, So
simply doubling down on it would be a profound error
in my estimation, and it would probably be an error
that is motivated by attention to the stated goal and
(27:29):
purpose of these programs, not attention to whether or not
they're actually working.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Telliver some comments coming in online.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Yeah, so McDuffie from Georgia shout out to McDuffie listens
every week, says, when your only option is accept DEI
or get canceled, what do you think the result is
going to be the case for any kind of diversity program.
Programming needs to be presented much differently to get meaningful acceptance.
And then Candy and Dallas says, I'm a retired female engineer.
DEI allows those who wouldn't otherwise get a chance at
a position, even if they have equivalent education experience to
(27:58):
have that shot. De program train hiring managers to be
aware of unconscious bias. I'm gonna stop there so we
don't go too long. But I wanted to ask our
panel because my impression of DEI was that it doesn't
have anything to do with quotas. Were just expanding the
pool of applicants, and so I have trouble seeing the
negative side of that debora.
Speaker 6 (28:15):
If you wanted to, Yeah, well, I think that's right.
Speaker 8 (28:20):
Warrants clarification because quotas have been illegal for quite some time.
Reserving spots has been illegal since Baki, and so we've
always had that, and people should challenge programs that are
engaged in using quotas, that are engaged in reserving spots
and all of those things. And so DEI again, is
(28:42):
far more expansive and inclusion inclusive than we make it
out to be. You know, talking about enrollment is often
the focus, or hiring is often the focus. But I
think spending some funds for DEI programs on staff is
important because it's not just about the diversity, it's about
the equity and the inclusion. And at the institutions that
(29:04):
I've been in a lot of the DEI staff, and
folks who focus on that are about making sure that
once students are there, once folks are inside that institution,
that we are making sure that they are supported. So
I think that that is an important aspect, and the
socioeconomic issues. I'm so glad that Ryan raised that because
(29:25):
it is important. It is a challenge for my parents,
for our immigrants to this community. I'm the first generation
American citizen, first person in my family to graduate from college,
and those efforts to support folks from different socioeconomic backgrounds
help me get to where I am today.
Speaker 6 (29:44):
And we're losing those as.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Well well, Tolliver. We heard from Mitch McConnell earlier, but
we ultimately saw a lot of backlash a DEI, even
from politicians on the left.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Yeah, former Transportation Secretary Pete Budages among them. Here he
is speaking back in February.
Speaker 13 (29:58):
We believe in the values of we care about for
a reason, and this is not about abandoning those values.
What do we mean when we talk about diversity? Is
it caring for people's different experiences and making sure no
one's mistreated because of them, which I will always fight
for or is it making people sit through a training
that looks like something out of Portlandia, which I have
also experienced, and it is how it is how Trump
(30:21):
Republicans are made. If that comes to your workplace with
the best of intentions. Actually, if we thought about it
a little bit differently, things like diversity would be actually
an example of how we reach out beyond our traditional coalition.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
It's interesting to see so many Democrats like Pete Buddha
Judge and Gavin Newsom, who are clearly running for president
move to the right instead of to the left in
the pre primary stage.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Well, Portland, I don't know, port landy is pretty quiet.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
Yeah, oh that was a good show. We'll be right
back with more of the middle. This is the Middle.
I'm Jeremy Hobson, and this hour we're asking you. If
not DEI, then what you can call us at eight
four four four Middle that's eight four four four six
four three three five three, or you can reach out
at Listen to the Middle dot com. I guess our
Tangle news editor at large Camille Foster and ACLU President
Deborah Archer. Her new book is called Dividing Lines. The
(31:06):
phone lines are full. Let's get to Joseph in Saint Louis, Missouri. Joseph,
welcome to the middle.
Speaker 14 (31:12):
What do you think, good evening, I think that the
best way to ensure equality of opportunity is to ensure
equality of opportunity. I mean, given that we live in
a diverse society, given that identities are important to people,
we should really strive to kind of especially in the
context of employment contracts or government policy, like how orchestras
(31:37):
do blind auditions where race, sex, age doesn't matter. And
you know, that's not to say that race doesn't matter
in life, but just in these legally binding contractual obligations
that we all enter into. And we really need to
get rid of the disparate impact theory, which is just
(31:57):
so silly on its fafe that we're gnashing our teeth
and pulling our hair that there aren't enough Guatemalans in
the NBA, or that there's not enough women coders, or
too many black children are suspended from school, or you know,
not as well.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
So, Joseph, let me ask you this. Clearly, you're not
a fan of the DEI efforts that existed before. Did
it factor into your vote in the last election? Did
you vote for Trump.
Speaker 14 (32:21):
I did. And yeah, I mean I like, for like
the Buddha Jedge comment that you said, where it's like
a Portlandia's sketch. I've had to sit through some of
these struggle sessions that the irony is they make people really,
as one of your guests has, concretize their identities as
separate from each other. And it makes the people who
(32:43):
didn't get the job, even if they didn't deserve it,
feel resentful that they didn't get it, and then the
people who did get the job are looked at as, oh,
you're just a DEI affirmative action higher. So I mean,
in a diverse society like this, we really need to
struggle to just kind of individual marriage.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Okay, Joseph, thank you very much. Camille Foster, I'm glad
we got a call like that because it is representative
obviously of people who who voted on this issue for
Donald Trump.
Speaker 7 (33:12):
Yeah, i'd say that's right, And I think it's it's
just imperative to acknowledge the various ways and perhaps to
find find some specific examples of where these programs run
a foul of a lot of people's just deeply inborn
sensibilities about what fairness looks like. And it is important
to acknowledge that those blind auditions, for example, have been
(33:32):
criticized on the grounds that they don't take into consideration
racial equity, that what some people would prefer to see
is something akin to quota systems, And it is it's
important to acknowledge that a lot of the co consternation
currently aimed at Harvard not from the administration, who I
think has made any number of profound errors and is
kind of running a foul of various civil liberty principles
(33:55):
that are very important to me. That there are various
ways in which schemes have been implemented in order to
try and limit the number of Asian students who are
being enrolled in schools because they are overrepresented quote unquote's
respect to their share of the demographic population. And I
just think that that's wrong. A person should not be
(34:15):
penalized for their individual success on account of happening to
belong to the wrong racial group. There's too many of
you people here is not the sort of sentiment that
anyone should be promoting. And if it, I know that
it sounds perhaps a bit crass to put it that way,
but that literally is the direct impact of a policy
(34:39):
of prioritizing people for admittance on the basis of their race,
even if they're a member of an underrepresented group. So
I do think that has pernicious consequences, and we've seen
that over the course of the last five years or so.
And there is an alternative. We could simply look at
a policy of trying to make our society one that
is treating people on an individual basis, in as much
(35:01):
as that is a possibility, and it's hard to optimize
for that. If we continue to reiffy race and continue
to double down on a kind of soft essentialism, I
think it is. It's a profound mistake, and in many
instances it's not even so soft.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Let's hear from Harry in Missouri City, Texas. Hi, Harry,
Welcome to the middle. Go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 15 (35:21):
Well, my thoughts are I agree with Camille Foster and
Deb Archer and some of the callers. I don't really
agree with that last caller who voted for Trub. I
think the trub administration is trying to resegregate America because
he came out of segregated society, and I just think
(35:42):
that what he's trying to do is he's just trying
to say white privilege. First. You know, with this DEI issue,
it's difficult. You have to work at it. If not
EI what people what the question is, you're going to
have to put people have to put their prejudices aside
because a lot in this society racism is taught at
(36:04):
a very young age, and it's very difficult for people
to put that aside. When you when people come in
for they want to apply for a uh uh, they
want to go to IVY school whether it's or they
want to apply for corporations, uh and then and we
want equal opportunity if you if they have the credentials,
(36:28):
then their ethnic background should not matter. Because if you
UH in a corporation or any of these schools, if
you have mostly white people in it, then you're not
really practicing the I because the people of color are
being left behind because you're you we live in a
diversity of society and you're not you're you're you're not
(36:49):
practicing where it is diverse in corporations and in UH
universities if you have mostly white people. And I think
that's what Donald Trump replisites, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
Okay, Harry is for Yeah, I think we've got it. Harry,
thank you very much for that. Debora Archer, I'll go
to you for for your thoughts on those calls.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (37:16):
So I do want to stress that no one supports
or I certainly don't support discrimination against Asian students. But
I think thinking about how we challenge negative action, which
is direct discrimination against Asian students because of their race,
is different than affirmative action programs, because affirmative action programs
(37:36):
have actually shown to support the admission of lots of
folks who are Asian who are underrepresented, and so it
is we have to think differently about, you know, be
careful about how we have that conversation. The last caller
was talking about idly universities and some of it. Camille
raised this issue abou whether we're trying to get people
(37:57):
at better colleges and universities those who are just getting
into colleges and universities. And I think that's important too.
We shouldn't have a two tier system of higher education.
We know how important it is to have access to
Ivy League schools. Right the number of Supreme Court justices
that came from Yale or Harvard is meaningful and it
(38:18):
shows to us that within our system, access to the
most elite institutions is also important.
Speaker 6 (38:25):
We should have access to all of those levels.
Speaker 8 (38:28):
And then I think it was Joseph who talked about
getting rid of disparate impact, and I just had to
speak to that because we have to if we want
to fight racism, we have to fight racism in all
its forms and its manifestations. And disparate impact is one
of the ways that we get at racism.
Speaker 6 (38:44):
Because racism today.
Speaker 8 (38:46):
Is not bull connor with dieting dogs on black kids
trying to go to school. It manifests in different ways,
and disparate impact helps us get at that. And then
finally on the blind auditions. Piece was of interest to
me in you know, thinking and learning about those blind
auditions was that at first they there were many folks
(39:07):
who did not see differences with the blind auditions on gender.
They still had disproportionate numbers of men in orchestras and
it wasn't until they realized that they should carpet the
floor so you cannot hear the person walking in and
in auditions blind auditions where there was carpeted floor, you
(39:28):
saw more gender diversity than you did if it was uncarpeted,
and people suspect it's because you could hear the clicking
of high heels differently than other shoe wear.
Speaker 6 (39:40):
And so, you know, just to me shows that we.
Speaker 8 (39:43):
Have to keep stay vigilant because inequality and discrimination finds
its way into our systems.
Speaker 6 (39:50):
If we let down our guard, we're going.
Speaker 8 (39:52):
To be a resegregated country on many, many levels.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
You know, you say, it's not just bull Connor. There's
a there's a something in your book, a double archer
that I had never even thought about before, which is
your book of course about transportation. You write that if
you get a parking violation these days, you get a ticket.
If you jump a turnstile in a subway, you can
get arrested. And what you say is the people that
(40:19):
are going to jump the turnstile and get arrested or
maybe more often to be people of color rather than
they sort of like white collar crime of a parking ticket.
Speaker 8 (40:26):
Yeah, So there have been studies that show in public
transportation systems where a large percentage of the writer's majority
of writers are black and brown folks, that we're more
likely to bring the criminal legal system into that public
transportation system. So if you look at parking violations as theft, right,
you're not paying your meter, you get a ticket.
Speaker 6 (40:48):
You can pet at your leisure.
Speaker 8 (40:50):
You can get twenty tickets and still be able to park.
But if you jump a turnstyle in New York City,
the police are engaged, and it's different in public transportation
systems where the majority of writers and the old longing
enjorities writers are white.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Let's go to Stan, who's in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hi, Stan,
go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 10 (41:13):
If Trump got rid of DEI, who is that supposed
to help?
Speaker 1 (41:19):
Stan? Would you mind me asking your age? I am
fifteen fifteen awesome. I love it when we get I
love it when we are not under Okay, So his question,
Camille Foster, what do you think about that getting rid
of DEI? Who does that help?
Speaker 7 (41:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (41:38):
I know what.
Speaker 7 (41:39):
Two callers ago, someone was speculating about the motivations of
the Trump administration, and I think ascribing the worst possible
motivations to people's probably not the best idea. I also
think it's generally not the best idea to imagine that
most people are motivated by the worst possible thing. In general,
I suspect. Most of the people who are skeptical of
a lot of these programs are more like me. They
(42:02):
They generally have a sense that fairness and justice under
the law means that people are treated equally irrespective of
their particular background. And it's people like me who appreciate
that the dimensions of difference are illimitable, which is to
say that the number of ways that I could be
discriminated against in any context is not limited to my race,
(42:24):
or gender or ideology. It could be virtually anything. And
it's imperative that we not be so particular particularly consumed
with racial disparities and the notion of race, or gender
or even sexuality, that we can't see that maybe the
correlation between arrests and fair beating might have something to
(42:47):
do with the fact that there is more likely to
be criminality of various other sorts that's associated with fair
beating that is happening en mass whereas when we're talking
about a proliferation of parking tickets, you're not necessarily going
to see the same dynamic. It certainly could be the
case that race is driving these things. It's also the
case that the dynamics are far more complicated as they
(43:09):
usually are.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
So who does this.
Speaker 7 (43:11):
Help to get rid of these programs? It could help
any number of people who might be unfairly disadvantaged on
account of their birth. If you happen to be white
and you grew up in a household with a single parent,
and perhaps that single parent abused you sexually or something
else horrible, it doesn't matter that you're white. You didn't
have this sort of privileged upbringing that I did, two
(43:34):
parents who loved me profoundly and gave me every advantage.
And imagining that you can tell me a great deal
about people's history and their life circumstances simply by looking
at the color of their skin is not just wrong,
it is profoundly Unamerican. And I think that we have
unfortunately drifted to a place with the best of intentions
where we are more likely to do that sort of
(43:56):
generalizing and essentialist casting.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Of of people.
Speaker 7 (44:01):
And we're doing it with the best of intentions, but
I think it is to our disadvantage if we're not
seeing one another as individuals. I think it is fundamentally
true that we are failing to really see one another
at all.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
Let's go to Tony, who's in Durham, North Carolina. Hi, Tony,
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 16 (44:20):
How are we doing tonight?
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Good? Go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 16 (44:25):
Okay, First and foremost, benigh neglect has been going on
in the black community, and we received it from both
Democratic and Republican Party. It's funny to me how we're
talking about DEI and how we're supposed to address the
racial reckoning for George Floyd. But every group that you
(44:48):
could think of attached theirselves to this. We got an
Asian hate crime bill. I didn't see an Asian person
getting killed. Jewish community is already protected and I don't
have any bias against them. But our history is also documented.
It's just not documented on film. As you guys so
(45:10):
eloquently state about this issue. What I want to know
is why we can't get any real perspective from through
people who are indulged in our black community like Neelye.
Foller Junior and Claude Anderson. Stop promoting athletes and entertainers
to represent us. We do have intellect in our community
(45:33):
and with that, I would like to hear your insight
on it.
Speaker 1 (45:37):
Devor Arthur, you want to respond to Tony.
Speaker 6 (45:41):
Yes, So.
Speaker 8 (45:44):
I think as Neil said, dynamics are complicated dynamics around
transportation infrastructure, dynamics around admissions to college and universities, dynamics
around how we have created inequality within our communities. And
if you erase the possibility that race is a factor,
(46:07):
we can't actually have an honest conversation about where we
are and how we got there. We'll never really solve
the problem because even in complicated dynamics, race can be
a factor, and erasing that from the discussion means we're
not really wrestling with everything. Right, So people will say, well,
we built the highway because of X, Y, and Z,
(46:30):
and these are the things we think about where we
build transportation infrastructure. And you may have thought about that too,
but there's a documented history that you also said you
wanted to use it to destroy a black community, to
remove a black community, to lock in segregation physically and
not just through policy. And unless that's part of the
conversation about how we create inequality, about how so many
(46:52):
black communities were walled off from opportunity physically, psychologically, economical,
then we're not really wrestling with the problem. We're not
going to build back better for everyone and for every
community and so I appreciate Tony's comments about how black
communities have been neglected and targeted, and I hope that
(47:15):
we can have real conversations about how those communities got
that way. It'll involve lots of factors, and one of
those factors is racism.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
Yeah. I only have about thirty seconds left, and I'm
sorry to do this to you, Camille, but I have
to ask Dever Archer because she is the president of
the ACLU. You guys have filed fifty three lawsuits against
the Trump administration just in the first one hundred days.
Which one do you think post is the biggest threat
to Americans? What are you most concerned about right now?
Speaker 8 (47:42):
Just briefly, Yeah, I'm concerned about the way that we
see this administration undermining the foundation of our democracy. All
of the checks and balances within our system, all the
ways that we hold power accountable are being undermined by
this administration. That includes a tax on the legal system
(48:03):
and the rule of law, a tax on judges, and
dismantling of du process and really weaponizing the First Amendment.
Speaker 1 (48:12):
Yeah. That is ACLU president and author of the new
book Dividing Lines, Debora Archer and We've also been speaking
with Camille Foster, editor at large at the non partisan
news outlet Tangle. Thank you so much to both of
you for joining us. Thank you for the conversation, and
don't forget. The Middle is available as a podcast in
partnership with iHeart Podcasts on the iHeart app wherever you
listen to podcasts, and coming to your feet in the
(48:32):
next few days an episode of our weekly podcast Extra
One Thing Trump Did. We're going to be looking this
week at attacks on public media very close to home,
and next week we'll be right back here asking if
a college education is worth the ever rising cost.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
As always, you can call in at eight four four
four Middle. That's eight four four four six four three
three five three, or you can reach out to listen
to The Middle dot com. You can also sign up
for our free weekly newsletter and support us with a
tax deductible donation.
Speaker 1 (48:58):
The Middle has brought to you by Longnok mediad by
Illinois Public Media and or Bana Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmeistas, John Barth, Ana Kadeshler,
and Brandon Condritz. We say goodbye this week to our
technical director Jason Croft. Thank you Jason for working late
for us and helping us get this show off the ground.
Every week, so much can go wrong in the live
radio show, and it has been so smooth people don't
(49:19):
even realize it's live sometimes. Thanks to our satellite radio listeners,
our podcast audience, and the more than four hundred and
thirty public radio stations that are making it possible for
people across the country to listen to the Middle I'm
Jeremy Hobson and I will talk to you next week.
Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, along with our
house DJ Tolliver, who is actually a DJ on the
radio version of this show, but not on the podcast
because we don't have the rights to play the music
on the podcast, and so I feel like I have
to occasionally remind listeners of that Tolliver in case they're
wondering what it is that you do here.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
I told you, man, I'll make a brand new soundtrack
for the Middle. Okay, don't play with me.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I'll come in and then we have the rights. Then
we would have the rights.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
So this hour we are jumping into the deep end
with a topic that can be tricky to talk about,
and that is DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. It has
been almost five years to the day since the murder
of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, an event
that shocked the world and led to widespread protests about
racial justice and reckoning in America. On an institutional level,
(00:54):
one of the biggest efforts we saw to acknowledge this
was the implementation of DEI measures across all levels of business, education,
and government. And while these efforts were designed with racial
healing in mind. They became divisive for some, with DEI
effectively turning into a dirty word for some Americans. One
of President Trump's first executive orders banned it from federal
(01:16):
programs and policies, and the President has pressured private companies
to do the same, and many of them have. So
our question is, if not DEI, then what can be
done to reckon with injustices of the past and ensure
equal opportunity for all Americans. We're taking your calls in
a moment at eight four four four middle That is
eight four four four six four three three five three.
(01:37):
But first last week on the show, we heard from
so many around the country about how the tariffs are
already affecting them. Here are some of the voicemails we
got after the show.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Hi, my name's Josephine Hall, and I live in Vermont
and I work for a jewelry company where we import
jewelry from China, and so all the tariffs have affected
our business and we have to pay three times the
price for all of the jewelry.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
My name is Daniel. I'm from Loveland, Colorado, currently the
VP of finance for a protein bar company. Consumers aren't
going to feel the pressure that's being put on prices
right now until probably almost the holiday DS, and I
think it's going to be really rough for everybody.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
Hey, my name is Maria Louise Smith and I'm calling
from Birmingham, Alabama. I'm a mom and I have a
kid who's going off to college, so we bought everything
that we thought he would need. And most of the
items that I picked up were made in China, so
I'm not sure what to expect, but we decided to
stalk up as if there's a storm coming. Well.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Thanks to everyone who called in, and you can hear
that entire episode on our podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts,
on the iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts.
It was one of the most eye opening episodes I
think we've ever done. So now to our question this hour.
If not DEI, then what tolliver? The phone number please.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three, or you can
write to us at Listen to the Middle dot com.
You can also comment on our live stream on YouTube.
I'm checking them all, okay, so hit me up. I'll
get you on the air.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
All right, joining us this hour. ACLU President Deborah Archer,
author of the new book Dividing Lines, How Transportation Infrastructure
reinforces Ratio. Great to have you on the show.
Speaker 6 (03:24):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
And Camille Foster is with us as well, editor at
large at Tangle News and independent non partisan news outlet.
He's also a board member at the Foundation for Individual
Rights and Expression. Camill, welcome to.
Speaker 7 (03:36):
You, wonderful be with you. Thanks so much for the invitation.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
So before we get to the phone, Zebra Archer, your
new book explores just one aspect of the infrastructure you
could say that has made our country unequal. That would
be transportation. You write, the nation's transportation system is a
material manifestation of the structural racial inequalities built into the
foundations of this country. Explain what you mean by that.
Speaker 8 (04:01):
Yeah, I think transportation in America is a bit of
a paradox. We often think of roads and highways and
public transit as symbols of progress and connection, and they
absolutely are.
Speaker 6 (04:14):
But the story that I tell in.
Speaker 8 (04:16):
Dividing Lines is about how these same systems have also
been used as tools of exclusion and displacement, especially in
black communities. So transportation and movement have long been tools
for enforcing white supremacy. And then as legal segregation began
to crumble during the Civil Rights movement, cities across America
(04:38):
started turning to infrastructure, and in many ways, infrastructure replaced
Jim Crow, so highways were deliberately routed through black neighborhoods.
City planners used things like one way streets and dead
ends to physically and socially and economically isolate black communities.
And then we also know how public transportation evolved under
(05:00):
a cloud of racism, first with explicit discrimination and then
more subtle dog whistle policies.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Like public transportation not going into certain neighborhoods because let's
say the white people don't want the people of color
coming in from those places into the center of the city.
Speaker 6 (05:18):
Yeah, we all have.
Speaker 8 (05:18):
With the result of the discrimination in public transportation is
something that we often refer to as transportation deserts.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
In black communities, that.
Speaker 8 (05:27):
Means they don't have access to regular public transportation, and
that's from disinvestment, but also transportation deserts in many white
communities by design to keep black people and other people
of color out, often under the guise of safety right
kind of leaning into narratives of excessive black criminality.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
So, given all of your work on this book, what
do you think when you see the backlash to the
DEI initiatives that grew after the murder of George Floyd
and the President banning DEI for in the federal government
and pressure pressuring companies and institutions to do the same.
Speaker 6 (06:04):
Yeah. So, ultimately, the book is about how racism adapts.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Right.
Speaker 8 (06:08):
Racism part of its power is that it's creative, that
it's evolving, that it finds its way into all the
spaces right in dividing lines. That's how racism found its
way into zoning boards and city planning departments. But we
see this narrative repeat all around the country. The way
that racism that we experienced post slavery and in the
(06:31):
fifties and in the seventies, it's still with us. It
has just evolved. It has changed shapes and uses different
policies and tools and bans on diversity, equity and inclusion
and related measures. Means that we can't address the ways
that we continue to be impacted by racism and inequality.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Camille Foster, you have a slightly different perspective you were
critical of DEI initiatives early on. You've said the companies
and people behind them may have had noble intentions, but
that they may have gone too far.
Speaker 7 (07:03):
Yeah, I definitely say that's true. I think, in general,
I appreciate many of the historic things that Deborah has
outlined in her opening remarks, But I think the public
debate around DEI has been dominated by a lot of
euphemism and caricature. I think a lot of advocates often
present it as this very obvious, straightforward, morally unassailable set
(07:24):
of ideas, and they will often paint critics as these
folks who are indifferent to injustice, or motivated by white supremacy,
or ignorant of history. But I think the reality is
that DEI does represent a kind of significant philosophical shift
from a position of individual equality that virtually all Americans
(07:45):
agree on pretty violently, and individual equality under the law
in particular, to something like group based analysis and redistribution
on the basis of equity with rests back to outcomes
for particular groups that are generally regarded as as disadvantage.
(08:06):
And this shift is not a minor policy tweak. This
is a real kind of transformational sort of innovation. And
I think the important thing to acknowledge is that these programs,
and whether we're talking about DEI or critical race theory
or racial justice, we're often redefining fairness in a way
that makes a lot of people deeply uncomfortable. And the
(08:28):
people who it makes uncomfortable aren't just white people. They're
often people who like me and quite frankly like Debra.
And I think it's interesting that you've got two civil
libertarians talking about these issues that many of us are
deeply concerned about any sort of policy approach that is
going to fundamentally treat people not as individuals who are
(08:49):
equal under the law that's equality, but as members of
racial groups that it will privilege some sort of class
distinction and then actually have the law or even the
bureaucratic machinery of large organizations, be they campuses or corporations,
prioritize people or deprioritize them on the basis of race.
And we have seen these programs essentially go ry and
(09:12):
precisely that way.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
So, Camille, what do you think then, when you see
so many DEI initiatives being thrown out the window, and
people like the Secretary of Defense Pete Heggs, that's saying
anyone trying to do DEI at the Pentagon will be
out well.
Speaker 7 (09:25):
I think the characters exist on both the right, on
the right and the left with respect to these issues,
both among proponents and critics. To be more specific, I
think it's also important to roll the clock back a
little bit. As I said, this is not just a
kind of this is what fairness and justice looks like.
There has been a kind of c change philosophically and ideologically,
(09:46):
and the Biden administration when they first arrived into power
in twenty twenty, they actually instituted a raft of executive
orders that tried to inculcate DEI into various aspects of
the federal government. And for a very long time, corporations
and universities were embracing these policies. And about five years ago,
as we all know, the quote unquote racial reckoning occurred,
(10:07):
and at that point there was a profound interest in
trying to prioritize racial equity. So it's important to recognize
that we're not just seeing the Trump administration roll something
back that we'd all agreed on before that was noble
and good. It's the Trump administration responding to something that
began on the left with people instituting these policies and
(10:28):
now rolling them back. And I think both sides, quite frankly,
would benefit from prioritizing pluralism, where we can have meaningful
disagreements and robust conversations about the role of equality and
equity in the law and under the law, quite frankly,
without demonizing one another and talking past one another. I
(10:48):
think we can have sober, serious conversations about justice, about fairness,
and about what the law ought to prioritize, and even
the efficacy and effectiveness of DEI policies without caricatures. I
look forward to having that conversation today.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
I know Debra is up to the task well, and
I would ask Deborah for a response right now, but
I'm not going to do that because I only have
about fifteen seconds to get one, So we'll get it
right after this book A remind so that too much. Well,
that wouldn't be fair if I stopped at fifteen seconds in.
But anyway, our number is eight four four middle. That's
eight four four four six four three three five three
(11:22):
and Tolliver. It is interesting, given what's happening now to
listen back to the discourse right after the murder of
George Floyd in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Yeah, back then, even Republicans were in favor of some
of the DEI initiatives that were coming out, including soccer
Senator Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 9 (11:37):
You can understand the outrage. I mean, what happened. This
is a vexing issue. If you know, if we could
have figured out exactly what to do, I think we'd
have done it years ago. It's one of our continuing
persistent problems in our society that we're all acutely aware
of and searching for answers.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Was that Ai That's really him? But that was what
things sounded like five years ago. And a reminder that
Mitch McConnell is retiring next year after a forty year
career in Congress. You are listening to the middle, We'll
be right back. This is the middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
If you're just tuning, in the Middle is a national
call and show. We're focused on elevating voices from the
(12:18):
middle geographically, politically, and philosophically, or maybe you just want
to meet in the middle this hour, we're asking if
not DEI, then what can be done to reckon with
the past and ensure equal opportunity for all Americans? Tolliver
the phone number again, please.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three. You can also
write to us to listen to the Middle dot com
or on social media and some of you already have
and it's scandalous.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Okay, Well, and if you are calling in, and by
the way, if you're hitting a busy signal, because I
see the lines are all full right now, you can
leave a message for us. I'm joined by ACLU president
Deva Archer, author of the book Dividing Lines, and Tangle
News editor a Large Camille Foster. And before we go
back to the phone's Devor Archer, let's get your your
thoughts on what we just heard there. And I guess
I'll also ask sort of how does the acl you
navigate this, because you could say you have people saying
(13:04):
that you need DEI initiatives to reduce discrimination, and you
could also say people have people saying DEI is discriminatory.
Speaker 8 (13:12):
I think there's so much that kill said that we
really need to break down and engage in conversation.
Speaker 6 (13:19):
One point is that I don't.
Speaker 8 (13:21):
Think that DEI and racial justice efforts are about redefining equality.
I think a lot of them about redefining merit, and
that makes people uncomfortable. So a lot of what we
define as merit actually are factors that consolidate and amplify
access to privilege, privilege that has historically and continues to
(13:45):
be denied disproportionately to people of color. So, for example,
we have college admissions programs that require calculus, and study
after study has shown that predominantly black and Latin ex
schools don't have access to calculus, and therefore it makes
it harder for them to get admissions. And so we
(14:06):
need to challenge this idea that our current, our system
before was based on merit and that we're doing something else.
And I think in many ways it's about redefining merit. Also,
when we talk about what DEI is, DEI is not
just affirmative action. It is not just hiring processes. DEI
(14:29):
is what led us to have a family and maternity leave.
It is not just about dealing with the inequalities at
the back end.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
It is about prevention.
Speaker 8 (14:39):
It is about trainings that help us understand where there
are inequalities built into our system against systems that we
thought were merit based but really amplify differential access. And
no one's saying that there aren't challenges or problems with
racial justice efforts or diversity equity and inclusion efforts. But
it doesn't mean that we throw everything out. Right, we
(15:02):
have a criminal legal system that is a rife with
racial inequality, and we don't just toss the whole system out. Instead,
we try to get at the problem areas.
Speaker 6 (15:12):
And so I'm not.
Speaker 8 (15:15):
Beyond having a conversation about some of the ways in
which diversity, equity and inclusion efforts might have resulted in
unfairness or inequity. But that's the conversation we need to have,
and that's not the conversation we're having. It's not what
we're seeing. We're seeing a wholesale removal of the ability
(15:36):
to talk about race, to address racial inequality, and a
rature of people of color. And then finally, just you know,
the challenge for me is the insistence on the other
end of color blindness, and an insistence on color blindness
does real damage in a world that's shaped by race.
Speaker 6 (15:56):
Ignoring race doesn't make racism go away.
Speaker 8 (15:58):
Race continues to matter, It continues to constrain the opportunities
of some and expand the opportunities for others.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
So at the ACLU, we.
Speaker 8 (16:07):
Are fighting to make sure that everyone has equal access
to opportunity. And so for us, tearing down some of
the real barriers that we see that prevent access to
educational opportunity and economic opportunity and good health, strong communities,
that's what we're fighting for.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Well, okay, let me let me say. You say, you know,
don't want to throw everything out. It certainly does seem
like that that is exactly what the Trump administration is
doing right now. And Camille Foster, let me ask you briefly,
because I do want to get to some of these
callers as well, is there a replacement for DEI initiatives
that you think would be more useful.
Speaker 7 (16:47):
Well, I want to just clarify something here, and I
think it's pretty important. I, for one, am not a
proponent of colorblindness. Quite frankly, I'm an individualist, which I
think is fundamentally different. I'm for something. What I am
opposed to is a kind of racial primacy with respect
to our analysis and attempts to understand a really complicated,
multivariate were world. I love the example that Debora Pride
(17:11):
in a moment ago of calculus programs and access to
them being something that is absolutely essential to being able
to attain a higher education and succeed in various fields.
It does seem to me that there is a real
question about the efficacy of prioritizing racial disparities versus prioritizing
access to the actual programs that are likely to get
(17:34):
one the kind of advantages that we're all we'd all
like to see conferred upon every student. And from my standpoint,
when I see a child is either going to be
enrolled in a program in Appalachia or in Baltimore City,
I know that those students might look different from one another,
but the deprivation that they're going to suffer is identical.
(17:54):
And I think the rather subtle implication of the social
justice this kind of dei worldview, and I hate to
even use the word because it's so confusing at this point,
is that there is a suggestion that I ought to
be disproportionately concerned about someone in a particular circumstance on
(18:15):
the basis of their race, and I'm just not I
am far more concerned with actual deprivation and individual people's
lives than I am racial disparities. I think if we
obsess over disparities, we run the risk of living in
an Harrison Bergeron type world where success can be defined
as either raising the ceiling for everyone or lowering it
(18:35):
on everyone, and that can't be what we actually want.
Racial parity is not my goal. My goal is a
free and prosperous society, and I think we only get
there by prioritizing individualism and human dignity as the basis
for individual as the basis for human dignity. That has
always been the prize. And I think the mistake that's
been made by many, many well intentioned people is to
(18:59):
confuse this project of trying to adjudicate these past harms
on the basis of racial lines. That they don't appreciate
that there are inherent disadvantages that are associated with that,
like the reification of these racial categories, which I think,
quite frankly five the last five years tell us pretty
clearly that an emphasis on race here the capitalization of
(19:23):
B in black, for example, may actually be driving us
apart and concretizing these racial identities as opposed to helping
us identify what we have in common.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Most fundamentally, I want to stop you there. I think
we've actually set a record now for the longest period
without getting to any callers. And we could just go
back and forth between the two of you for the
entire show, but I do want to get to some callers.
Let's get to candas in Salt Lake City, Utah. Candas,
go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Oh.
Speaker 10 (19:53):
I am a fam tender queer tenured professor at the
University of Michigan pronounced say them. I have benefited from diversity,
equity and inclusion initiatives, and as many of you know,
the University of Michigan recently dismantled DEI initiatives across all
three Michigan campuses. Faculty, staff, and students are furious about
(20:14):
this decision. The question is what do we do instead
of DEI? And I have to call upon black feminist
scholarship for this and Ruhab Benjamin's imagination of manifesto who
Benjamin is really not a proponent of DEI within institutions,
and she sees it as a placeholder. Really, what she
(20:35):
believes is we should focus on hyperlocal organizing, So that
could include creating imagination collectives dedicated to generating and implementing
alternative futures, and I think systems and institutions could do
this too, or freedom laboratories, which are spaces to experiment
with new social arrangements technologies where communities can try out
(20:56):
alternatives to current systems. So I guess bottom line, d
I didn't go far enough.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Interesting, interesting perspective. Candice, thank you very much for that.
Let me get another one in here. And Gabe, who's
in Charleston, South Carolina, Gabe your thoughts.
Speaker 11 (21:15):
Hi, thank you for having me. Yeah, we I go
to the college or I'm not I shouldn't say, but
I'm in college. And they also dismantled like all the
d I initiatives. I'm an education major and one of
the it's it's not like it's been this is this
(21:37):
thing called call me mister. And the Sisters of Septima
are two fellowships for like black educators, and uh they
essentially got their uh, their funding cut. And also like
the previous college said like we had a pride center,
we had this multicultural center. Those are completely eradicated. Not really,
(22:00):
I mean, I think the legislation was so vague that
uh that uh the board that the Board of Trustee
is kind of like, just decide to cut it, you know,
so gave.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Do you have a you have a do you have
a better solution than de I than if it's been cut?
Where you are.
Speaker 11 (22:18):
A better solution? I I can't really think about a
better solution. I don't. I don't really think of the
harm that's being done either. I say, just reinstate it.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Reinstate it, okay? Interesting? Uh devor Archer, what do you
think about that? Two people who say it didn't didn't
go far enough and reinstate it where they are where
it's been cut.
Speaker 8 (22:42):
I appreciate that because I think it recognizes that without
the you know, we saw a lot of progress on
racial inclusion, and that was because of a lot of
these efforts that we had not about giving people access
to spaces and opportunity that they didn't deserve. It is
about about making sure that we were taking down unnecessary barriers.
(23:04):
And without the DEI efforts, I think people in institutions,
that colleges and universities and companies are seeing the division
come back, where we are going to resegregate in many ways,
and so it cannot be that we have no tools,
and so I appreciate the folks that say it didn't
go far enough, focusing on other ways that we build power,
(23:26):
we create access. I don't disagree with Camille that we
need to make sure that everyone has access, but racism
is a real thing that helps to continually find its
way into all of the solutions and reinforce these inequalities.
So yes, let's make sure that children have access to
(23:46):
educational opportunities all children. We fight for all children, not
just my children. I want to fight for everyone's children.
But somehow in that fight, we still end up in
places where they're is deep racial inequalities. And either we're
going to end up in a place where we think
there's something wrong with black children and black families. They
(24:08):
don't value education, they don't believe in taking advantage of
economic opportunity, or we have to recognize there are deep,
deep problems within our systems, not historical ones but current
ones as well. And so whatever we do, it cannot
be to turn our backs on racial justice efforts. And
(24:29):
why I appreciate that sentiment in both of the callers.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Let's get to Ryan who's in Pittsburgh. Ryan, Welcome to
the middle. Go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 12 (24:38):
Hey, thank you for having me this evening. I'm a
former educator of twelve years in Chicago public schools and
now work at the University of Pittsburgh. I really wish
in looking back at DEI, there had been a more
explicit focus on socioeconomic issues, and when we talk about diversity,
you know, people that don't have college educations or people
(25:00):
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I really felt like the socioeconomic
messaging that was there in DEI was not forefront. And
you know, in looking back at like Martin Luther King's
last moments, you know, his Poor People's campaign, he really
emphasized there's no going after racism and sexism and other
(25:22):
issues without that economic issue. And if there's an e
I two point zero, I really hope that at the
forefront we see that socioeconomic message of social justice.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Thank you so much, Thank you, Ryan Camille.
Speaker 7 (25:39):
Yeah, well, there's a couple of things I'd like to say. First,
the caller from Michigan, it's very ironic that that is
the particular program that was referred to because the New
York Times Nicholas Confesssori wrote a pretty extensive and devastating
piece back in October of last year about Michigan's efforts
in DEI and underscored the fact that the spending was
(26:01):
pretty profound, that they doubled down on the program, and
that their enrollment did not budge in terms of black
student enrollment. It stayed at about six point one percent.
Despite the fact that they doubled the spending, About fifty
six percent of the spending actually ended up going into
salaries and benefits for the staff who are working on
these programs. And it's really important to underscore this that
(26:21):
these programs are not just a kind of mixed quality.
Many of them fail in really profound ways. We see
so many stories about these anti racism centers that are
going out of business in various ways. And the reality
is there's a question that has to be asked which
actually mirrors what the last caller was just referring to. Here,
are these programs generally benefiting the most needy? Are they
(26:45):
actually serving the interests of the people who most need help,
or are they helping people who are already going to
be going to pretty good universities perhaps go to better
universities who are already in the C suite get a
slightly better job, And are they helping people essentially get
really great, high paying jobs in the industry that is
(27:06):
supposed to be delivering a greater diversity in not so
much serving the interests of the people in those programs.
And quite frankly, I think there's a lot of evidence
that calls into question the quality of these programs, So
simply doubling down on it would be a profound error
in my estimation, and it would probably be an error
that is motivated by attention to the stated goal and
(27:29):
purpose of these programs, not attention to whether or not
they're actually working.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Telliver some comments coming in online.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Yeah, so McDuffie from Georgia shout out to McDuffie listens
every week, says, when your only option is accept DEI
or get canceled, what do you think the result is
going to be the case for any kind of diversity program.
Programming needs to be presented much differently to get meaningful acceptance.
And then Candy and Dallas says, I'm a retired female engineer.
DEI allows those who wouldn't otherwise get a chance at
a position, even if they have equivalent education experience to
(27:58):
have that shot. De program train hiring managers to be
aware of unconscious bias. I'm gonna stop there so we
don't go too long. But I wanted to ask our
panel because my impression of DEI was that it doesn't
have anything to do with quotas. Were just expanding the
pool of applicants, and so I have trouble seeing the
negative side of that debora.
Speaker 6 (28:15):
If you wanted to, Yeah, well, I think that's right.
Speaker 8 (28:20):
Warrants clarification because quotas have been illegal for quite some time.
Reserving spots has been illegal since Baki, and so we've
always had that, and people should challenge programs that are
engaged in using quotas, that are engaged in reserving spots
and all of those things. And so DEI again, is
(28:42):
far more expansive and inclusion inclusive than we make it
out to be. You know, talking about enrollment is often
the focus, or hiring is often the focus. But I
think spending some funds for DEI programs on staff is
important because it's not just about the diversity, it's about
the equity and the inclusion. And at the institutions that
(29:04):
I've been in a lot of the DEI staff, and
folks who focus on that are about making sure that
once students are there, once folks are inside that institution,
that we are making sure that they are supported. So
I think that that is an important aspect, and the
socioeconomic issues. I'm so glad that Ryan raised that because
(29:25):
it is important. It is a challenge for my parents,
for our immigrants to this community. I'm the first generation
American citizen, first person in my family to graduate from college,
and those efforts to support folks from different socioeconomic backgrounds
help me get to where I am today.
Speaker 6 (29:44):
And we're losing those as.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Well well, Tolliver. We heard from Mitch McConnell earlier, but
we ultimately saw a lot of backlash a DEI, even
from politicians on the left.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Yeah, former Transportation Secretary Pete Budages among them. Here he
is speaking back in February.
Speaker 13 (29:58):
We believe in the values of we care about for
a reason, and this is not about abandoning those values.
What do we mean when we talk about diversity? Is
it caring for people's different experiences and making sure no
one's mistreated because of them, which I will always fight
for or is it making people sit through a training
that looks like something out of Portlandia, which I have
also experienced, and it is how it is how Trump
(30:21):
Republicans are made. If that comes to your workplace with
the best of intentions. Actually, if we thought about it
a little bit differently, things like diversity would be actually
an example of how we reach out beyond our traditional coalition.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
It's interesting to see so many Democrats like Pete Buddha
Judge and Gavin Newsom, who are clearly running for president
move to the right instead of to the left in
the pre primary stage.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Well, Portland, I don't know, port landy is pretty quiet.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
Yeah, oh that was a good show. We'll be right
back with more of the middle. This is the Middle.
I'm Jeremy Hobson, and this hour we're asking you. If
not DEI, then what you can call us at eight
four four four Middle that's eight four four four six
four three three five three, or you can reach out
at Listen to the Middle dot com. I guess our
Tangle news editor at large Camille Foster and ACLU President
Deborah Archer. Her new book is called Dividing Lines. The
(31:06):
phone lines are full. Let's get to Joseph in Saint Louis, Missouri. Joseph,
welcome to the middle.
Speaker 14 (31:12):
What do you think, good evening, I think that the
best way to ensure equality of opportunity is to ensure
equality of opportunity. I mean, given that we live in
a diverse society, given that identities are important to people,
we should really strive to kind of especially in the
context of employment contracts or government policy, like how orchestras
(31:37):
do blind auditions where race, sex, age doesn't matter. And
you know, that's not to say that race doesn't matter
in life, but just in these legally binding contractual obligations
that we all enter into. And we really need to
get rid of the disparate impact theory, which is just
(31:57):
so silly on its fafe that we're gnashing our teeth
and pulling our hair that there aren't enough Guatemalans in
the NBA, or that there's not enough women coders, or
too many black children are suspended from school, or you know,
not as well.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
So, Joseph, let me ask you this. Clearly, you're not
a fan of the DEI efforts that existed before. Did
it factor into your vote in the last election? Did
you vote for Trump.
Speaker 14 (32:21):
I did. And yeah, I mean I like, for like
the Buddha Jedge comment that you said, where it's like
a Portlandia's sketch. I've had to sit through some of
these struggle sessions that the irony is they make people really,
as one of your guests has, concretize their identities as
separate from each other. And it makes the people who
(32:43):
didn't get the job, even if they didn't deserve it,
feel resentful that they didn't get it, and then the
people who did get the job are looked at as, oh,
you're just a DEI affirmative action higher. So I mean,
in a diverse society like this, we really need to
struggle to just kind of individual marriage.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Okay, Joseph, thank you very much. Camille Foster, I'm glad
we got a call like that because it is representative
obviously of people who who voted on this issue for
Donald Trump.
Speaker 7 (33:12):
Yeah, i'd say that's right, And I think it's it's
just imperative to acknowledge the various ways and perhaps to
find find some specific examples of where these programs run
a foul of a lot of people's just deeply inborn
sensibilities about what fairness looks like. And it is important
to acknowledge that those blind auditions, for example, have been
(33:32):
criticized on the grounds that they don't take into consideration
racial equity, that what some people would prefer to see
is something akin to quota systems, And it is it's
important to acknowledge that a lot of the co consternation
currently aimed at Harvard not from the administration, who I
think has made any number of profound errors and is
kind of running a foul of various civil liberty principles
(33:55):
that are very important to me. That there are various
ways in which schemes have been implemented in order to
try and limit the number of Asian students who are
being enrolled in schools because they are overrepresented quote unquote's
respect to their share of the demographic population. And I
just think that that's wrong. A person should not be
(34:15):
penalized for their individual success on account of happening to
belong to the wrong racial group. There's too many of
you people here is not the sort of sentiment that
anyone should be promoting. And if it, I know that
it sounds perhaps a bit crass to put it that way,
but that literally is the direct impact of a policy
(34:39):
of prioritizing people for admittance on the basis of their race,
even if they're a member of an underrepresented group. So
I do think that has pernicious consequences, and we've seen
that over the course of the last five years or so.
And there is an alternative. We could simply look at
a policy of trying to make our society one that
is treating people on an individual basis, in as much
(35:01):
as that is a possibility, and it's hard to optimize
for that. If we continue to reiffy race and continue
to double down on a kind of soft essentialism, I
think it is. It's a profound mistake, and in many
instances it's not even so soft.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Let's hear from Harry in Missouri City, Texas. Hi, Harry,
Welcome to the middle. Go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 15 (35:21):
Well, my thoughts are I agree with Camille Foster and
Deb Archer and some of the callers. I don't really
agree with that last caller who voted for Trub. I
think the trub administration is trying to resegregate America because
he came out of segregated society, and I just think
(35:42):
that what he's trying to do is he's just trying
to say white privilege. First. You know, with this DEI issue,
it's difficult. You have to work at it. If not
EI what people what the question is, you're going to
have to put people have to put their prejudices aside
because a lot in this society racism is taught at
(36:04):
a very young age, and it's very difficult for people
to put that aside. When you when people come in
for they want to apply for a uh uh, they
want to go to IVY school whether it's or they
want to apply for corporations, uh and then and we
want equal opportunity if you if they have the credentials,
(36:28):
then their ethnic background should not matter. Because if you
UH in a corporation or any of these schools, if
you have mostly white people in it, then you're not
really practicing the I because the people of color are
being left behind because you're you we live in a
diversity of society and you're not you're you're you're not
(36:49):
practicing where it is diverse in corporations and in UH
universities if you have mostly white people. And I think
that's what Donald Trump replisites, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
Okay, Harry is for Yeah, I think we've got it. Harry,
thank you very much for that. Debora Archer, I'll go
to you for for your thoughts on those calls.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (37:16):
So I do want to stress that no one supports
or I certainly don't support discrimination against Asian students. But
I think thinking about how we challenge negative action, which
is direct discrimination against Asian students because of their race,
is different than affirmative action programs, because affirmative action programs
(37:36):
have actually shown to support the admission of lots of
folks who are Asian who are underrepresented, and so it
is we have to think differently about, you know, be
careful about how we have that conversation. The last caller
was talking about idly universities and some of it. Camille
raised this issue abou whether we're trying to get people
(37:57):
at better colleges and universities those who are just getting
into colleges and universities. And I think that's important too.
We shouldn't have a two tier system of higher education.
We know how important it is to have access to
Ivy League schools. Right the number of Supreme Court justices
that came from Yale or Harvard is meaningful and it
(38:18):
shows to us that within our system, access to the
most elite institutions is also important.
Speaker 6 (38:25):
We should have access to all of those levels.
Speaker 8 (38:28):
And then I think it was Joseph who talked about
getting rid of disparate impact, and I just had to
speak to that because we have to if we want
to fight racism, we have to fight racism in all
its forms and its manifestations. And disparate impact is one
of the ways that we get at racism.
Speaker 6 (38:44):
Because racism today.
Speaker 8 (38:46):
Is not bull connor with dieting dogs on black kids
trying to go to school. It manifests in different ways,
and disparate impact helps us get at that. And then
finally on the blind auditions. Piece was of interest to
me in you know, thinking and learning about those blind
auditions was that at first they there were many folks
(39:07):
who did not see differences with the blind auditions on gender.
They still had disproportionate numbers of men in orchestras and
it wasn't until they realized that they should carpet the
floor so you cannot hear the person walking in and
in auditions blind auditions where there was carpeted floor, you
(39:28):
saw more gender diversity than you did if it was uncarpeted,
and people suspect it's because you could hear the clicking
of high heels differently than other shoe wear.
Speaker 6 (39:40):
And so, you know, just to me shows that we.
Speaker 8 (39:43):
Have to keep stay vigilant because inequality and discrimination finds
its way into our systems.
Speaker 6 (39:50):
If we let down our guard, we're going.
Speaker 8 (39:52):
To be a resegregated country on many, many levels.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
You know, you say, it's not just bull Connor. There's
a there's a something in your book, a double archer
that I had never even thought about before, which is
your book of course about transportation. You write that if
you get a parking violation these days, you get a ticket.
If you jump a turnstile in a subway, you can
get arrested. And what you say is the people that
(40:19):
are going to jump the turnstile and get arrested or
maybe more often to be people of color rather than
they sort of like white collar crime of a parking ticket.
Speaker 8 (40:26):
Yeah, So there have been studies that show in public
transportation systems where a large percentage of the writer's majority
of writers are black and brown folks, that we're more
likely to bring the criminal legal system into that public
transportation system. So if you look at parking violations as theft, right,
you're not paying your meter, you get a ticket.
Speaker 6 (40:48):
You can pet at your leisure.
Speaker 8 (40:50):
You can get twenty tickets and still be able to park.
But if you jump a turnstyle in New York City,
the police are engaged, and it's different in public transportation
systems where the majority of writers and the old longing
enjorities writers are white.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Let's go to Stan, who's in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hi, Stan,
go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 10 (41:13):
If Trump got rid of DEI, who is that supposed
to help?
Speaker 1 (41:19):
Stan? Would you mind me asking your age? I am
fifteen fifteen awesome. I love it when we get I
love it when we are not under Okay, So his question,
Camille Foster, what do you think about that getting rid
of DEI? Who does that help?
Speaker 7 (41:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (41:38):
I know what.
Speaker 7 (41:39):
Two callers ago, someone was speculating about the motivations of
the Trump administration, and I think ascribing the worst possible
motivations to people's probably not the best idea. I also
think it's generally not the best idea to imagine that
most people are motivated by the worst possible thing. In general,
I suspect. Most of the people who are skeptical of
a lot of these programs are more like me. They
(42:02):
They generally have a sense that fairness and justice under
the law means that people are treated equally irrespective of
their particular background. And it's people like me who appreciate
that the dimensions of difference are illimitable, which is to
say that the number of ways that I could be
discriminated against in any context is not limited to my race,
(42:24):
or gender or ideology. It could be virtually anything. And
it's imperative that we not be so particular particularly consumed
with racial disparities and the notion of race, or gender
or even sexuality, that we can't see that maybe the
correlation between arrests and fair beating might have something to
(42:47):
do with the fact that there is more likely to
be criminality of various other sorts that's associated with fair
beating that is happening en mass whereas when we're talking
about a proliferation of parking tickets, you're not necessarily going
to see the same dynamic. It certainly could be the
case that race is driving these things. It's also the
case that the dynamics are far more complicated as they
(43:09):
usually are.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
So who does this.
Speaker 7 (43:11):
Help to get rid of these programs? It could help
any number of people who might be unfairly disadvantaged on
account of their birth. If you happen to be white
and you grew up in a household with a single parent,
and perhaps that single parent abused you sexually or something
else horrible, it doesn't matter that you're white. You didn't
have this sort of privileged upbringing that I did, two
(43:34):
parents who loved me profoundly and gave me every advantage.
And imagining that you can tell me a great deal
about people's history and their life circumstances simply by looking
at the color of their skin is not just wrong,
it is profoundly Unamerican. And I think that we have
unfortunately drifted to a place with the best of intentions
where we are more likely to do that sort of
(43:56):
generalizing and essentialist casting.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Of of people.
Speaker 7 (44:01):
And we're doing it with the best of intentions, but
I think it is to our disadvantage if we're not
seeing one another as individuals. I think it is fundamentally
true that we are failing to really see one another
at all.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
Let's go to Tony, who's in Durham, North Carolina. Hi, Tony,
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 16 (44:20):
How are we doing tonight?
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Good? Go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 16 (44:25):
Okay, First and foremost, benigh neglect has been going on
in the black community, and we received it from both
Democratic and Republican Party. It's funny to me how we're
talking about DEI and how we're supposed to address the
racial reckoning for George Floyd. But every group that you
(44:48):
could think of attached theirselves to this. We got an
Asian hate crime bill. I didn't see an Asian person
getting killed. Jewish community is already protected and I don't
have any bias against them. But our history is also documented.
It's just not documented on film. As you guys so
(45:10):
eloquently state about this issue. What I want to know
is why we can't get any real perspective from through
people who are indulged in our black community like Neelye.
Foller Junior and Claude Anderson. Stop promoting athletes and entertainers
to represent us. We do have intellect in our community
(45:33):
and with that, I would like to hear your insight
on it.
Speaker 1 (45:37):
Devor Arthur, you want to respond to Tony.
Speaker 6 (45:41):
Yes, So.
Speaker 8 (45:44):
I think as Neil said, dynamics are complicated dynamics around
transportation infrastructure, dynamics around admissions to college and universities, dynamics
around how we have created inequality within our communities. And
if you erase the possibility that race is a factor,
(46:07):
we can't actually have an honest conversation about where we
are and how we got there. We'll never really solve
the problem because even in complicated dynamics, race can be
a factor, and erasing that from the discussion means we're
not really wrestling with everything. Right, So people will say, well,
we built the highway because of X, Y, and Z,
(46:30):
and these are the things we think about where we
build transportation infrastructure. And you may have thought about that too,
but there's a documented history that you also said you
wanted to use it to destroy a black community, to
remove a black community, to lock in segregation physically and
not just through policy. And unless that's part of the
conversation about how we create inequality, about how so many
(46:52):
black communities were walled off from opportunity physically, psychologically, economical,
then we're not really wrestling with the problem. We're not
going to build back better for everyone and for every
community and so I appreciate Tony's comments about how black
communities have been neglected and targeted, and I hope that
(47:15):
we can have real conversations about how those communities got
that way. It'll involve lots of factors, and one of
those factors is racism.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
Yeah. I only have about thirty seconds left, and I'm
sorry to do this to you, Camille, but I have
to ask Dever Archer because she is the president of
the ACLU. You guys have filed fifty three lawsuits against
the Trump administration just in the first one hundred days.
Which one do you think post is the biggest threat
to Americans? What are you most concerned about right now?
Speaker 8 (47:42):
Just briefly, Yeah, I'm concerned about the way that we
see this administration undermining the foundation of our democracy. All
of the checks and balances within our system, all the
ways that we hold power accountable are being undermined by
this administration. That includes a tax on the legal system
(48:03):
and the rule of law, a tax on judges, and
dismantling of du process and really weaponizing the First Amendment.
Speaker 1 (48:12):
Yeah. That is ACLU president and author of the new
book Dividing Lines, Debora Archer and We've also been speaking
with Camille Foster, editor at large at the non partisan
news outlet Tangle. Thank you so much to both of
you for joining us. Thank you for the conversation, and
don't forget. The Middle is available as a podcast in
partnership with iHeart Podcasts on the iHeart app wherever you
listen to podcasts, and coming to your feet in the
(48:32):
next few days an episode of our weekly podcast Extra
One Thing Trump Did. We're going to be looking this
week at attacks on public media very close to home,
and next week we'll be right back here asking if
a college education is worth the ever rising cost.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
As always, you can call in at eight four four
four Middle. That's eight four four four six four three
three five three, or you can reach out to listen
to The Middle dot com. You can also sign up
for our free weekly newsletter and support us with a
tax deductible donation.
Speaker 1 (48:58):
The Middle has brought to you by Longnok mediad by
Illinois Public Media and or Bana Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmeistas, John Barth, Ana Kadeshler,
and Brandon Condritz. We say goodbye this week to our
technical director Jason Croft. Thank you Jason for working late
for us and helping us get this show off the ground.
Every week, so much can go wrong in the live
radio show, and it has been so smooth people don't
(49:19):
even realize it's live sometimes. Thanks to our satellite radio listeners,
our podcast audience, and the more than four hundred and
thirty public radio stations that are making it possible for
people across the country to listen to the Middle I'm
Jeremy Hobson and I will talk to you next week.
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Betrayal: Season 4
Karoline Borega married a man of honor – a respected Colorado Springs Police officer. She knew there would be sacrifices to accommodate her husband’s career. But she had no idea that he was using his badge to fool everyone. This season, we expose a man who swore two sacred oaths—one to his badge, one to his bride—and broke them both. We follow Karoline as she questions everything she thought she knew about her partner of over 20 years. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-3 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.