This post is an information dump. My end date for contributing to this site is May 24th. (See my Notice pinned to the home page.)

Here’s a few research questions others might take up: (1) Moral (and intellectual) Myopia and, (2) What differences reside between “raising awareness”, propagandising, and coercion?

  1. Moral (and Intellectual) Myopia.

Throughout EDI-related discourse, you’ll find lines such as “through an EDI lens.” (Var. critical race lens, gender critical, intersectional lens)

Are those being encouraged to view EDI/critical race/gender through these lenses being encouraged to moral — and, intellectual — myopia? Why use “lens-talk”? What is the purpose of lens-talk? What are the autonomous effects of lens-talk?

There’s a little tension between these statements in the following brochure (perhaps “student programming” is an unfortunate phrase): 

"To incorporate all these [EDI-R lens] practices into student programming is to allow the student to have autonomy in their own learning. Institutions that prioritize western understandings of prestige force conformity amongst students of marginalized identities.(p 2)"

*See the entire brochure at the end of this post.

2. What differences reside between “raising awareness”, propagandising, and coercion?

The following entry is an incomplete rough draft.

Some say that EDI-related courses — e.g. Anti-Racism, Anti-Oppression — even mandatory courses, are not propaganda. Rather, they’re intended to raise “awareness” and to get people to “think critically about racism [privilege, oppression].” However, even saying that EDI-related/Anti-Racism courses are intended to “raise awareness” and “promote critical thinking” can itself be propaganda.

  • The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus. “Anti-Racism Awareness,” Faculty of Education, Professional Development & Community Engagement, https://pdce.educ.ubc.ca/anti-racism-awareness/, accessed August 14, 2023, accessed again 10 May 2024

Of course, one doesn’t know what “think critically” means in EDI discourse. E.g. the ‘critical’ in Critical Race Theory refers to a school of theory, not critical thinking. Hence equivocations are rife in EDI discourse.

*The highlighted text is rough draft notes. I leave them here in case they’re helpful to another researcher.

The road from propaganda to coercion.

But adding a ‘mandatory’ requirement does something else. It starts that propaganda on the road to its becoming coercion rather than merely a mode of persuasion.

Punishment for not espousing the propaganda.

In fact in some cases punishment is meted out to those who do not complete mandatory EDI/Antiracism training.

Example: University of Guelph

Smith reports on the 2020 implementation of EDI/Antiracism training at U of Guelph,

“Students are expected to compete the training by the end of this semester. There is no penalty for not completing it, but students will not be able to participate in any university-sponsored activities until it’s done.”

If Smith has reported correctly, then:

a) “There is no penalty for not completing it”
b) “students will not be able to participate in any university-sponsored activities until it’s done” 

(b) is punishment, and so falsifies (a)

Note that to complete the test, you have to give the correct answers.

Khan reports,

 “Participants are required to pass a quiz after they complete the training module.”

Here’s my worry.

If a student must give correct answers to pass the mandatory exam, she is being compelled to espouse an orthodoxy. How is she being compelled? Being barred from participating in any university-sponsored activities can be an impediment to a student’s eligibility for certain scholarships on which she might depend to fund her education, and might negatively impact her CV and future education and career prospects. She is effectively blacklisted. Aka, excluded.

Indeed, at the perhaps unfortunately named Principles of Belonging: Anti-Oppression & Anti-Racism Training Module, University of Guelph is the following statement: 

“This module is mandatory for Students. Students who wish to apply or join University supported employment and volunteer activities including but not limited to student Athletics, Student Affairs’ student staff positions, and volunteer student activities including the Peer Helper Program, must show they have completed the module. For the purpose of this module, “Student” means new incoming undergraduate students, any undergraduate varsity student athletes or student executives of teams in the Gryphon Clubs program, any undergraduate student employed through Student Affairs, and any undergraduate student participating in Student Experience programs and/or volunteer activities, such as Peer Helpers. Questions regarding this module should be directed to the Office of Diversity and Human Rights”

Here’s another worry.

If by critical thinking is meant searching for evidence and counter-evidence, considering arguments and counter-arguments, and disagreeing where one must honestly disagree, then a student at Guelph may be faced with answering the questions on the exam dishonestly or perhaps refusing to take the exam. Of course it’s possible one’s epistemic labour might lead her to agree with the ‘correct’ answers. Or she might be perfectly happy to say whatever she needs to say to pass without expending one iota of her intellect on the matter.

In any event, the U of Guelph mandatory exam with its mandatory correct answers on pain of exclusion from community participation promotes moral and intellectual dishonesty. And this dishonesty is not a good brand for a university.

Note and note well that it does not follow that because someone refuses mandatory training she is unaware of or opposed to EDI/Anti-Racist efforts tout court. She may oppose illiberal and anti-intellectual approaches such as the University of Guelph mandate. 

Example:

Jonathan Haidt says, “So I’m going to resign from SPSP [Society for Personality and Social Psychology] at the end of this year [2022], when my membership dues run out, if the policy on mandatory statements stays in place for future conventions.”

And he says, “I believe that anti-racism has a place at SPSP, and I said so to King. Let there be speakers, panels, and discussions of this morally controversial and influential idea at our next conference! But to adopt it as the official view and mission of SPSP and then to force us all to say how our work advances it, as a precondition to speaking at the conference? I thought this was wrong for two reasons:…” 

how-to-build-student-programming-through-an-edi-r-lensDownload