Who Needs DEI?

Black college athletes do, according to the NAACP. The NAACP is urging black athletes not to go to college in Florida:

The NAACP asked Black student-athletes to reconsider their decisions to attend public colleges and universities in the state of Florida, in response to the University of Florida and other state schools recently eliminating their diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

In a letter sent to NCAA president Charlie Baker and addressed to current and prospective student-athletes Monday, NAACP president and CEO Derrick Johnson wrote, “This is not about politics. It’s about the protection of our community, the progression of our culture, and most of all, it’s about your education, and your future.”

The idea that black athletes at major sports schools like Florida and Florida State need DEI departments to…what? Prevent them from being discriminated against? The idea is laughable, as is the NCAAP’s apparent suggestion that DEI bureaucrats are somehow helpful to a student’s education.

My guess is that not a single black athlete who otherwise wants to play for Florida, Florida State or any other public Florida college will be deterred by the NCAAP’s advice. What this episode really shows is how useless the once-relevant NCAAP has become. And also, how Florida has taken the lead in adopting common-sense policies that have put the state in the Left’s cross-hairs.

Are All DEI Officers Bigots?

I think the answer to that question is Yes. In reality, the whole point of DEI is bigotry, so the fact that its exponents keep getting outed as haters is not at all coincidental. The latest case comes from Johns Hopkins, where the Chief Diversity Officer at Johns Hopkins Medicine has resigned following a hateful outburst:

The Chief Diversity Officer at Johns Hopkins Medicine resigned on Tuesday after criticism stemming from her distribution of a list of groups she believes have “privilege.”

As Campus Reform reported, Dr. Sherita Golden sent the list of groups in a January email sent to staff members, which defined “privilege” as “a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group.”

Of course she wasn’t referring to welfare recipients, public employees or beneficiaries of political influence like “greens” or DEI officers.

Golden went on to name nine groups in the country that have been “granted” privilege “at the expense of members of other groups.”

According to Golden, these “privileged” groups are: “White people,” “Able-bodied people,” “Heterosexuals,” “Cisgender people,” “Males,” “Christians,” “Middle or owning class people,” “Middle-aged people,” and “English-speaking people.”

Doesn’t that cover almost everyone in the United States? The only “non-privileged,” apparently, are crippled, gay, female, Muslim illegal immigrants below the age of 40 who just arrived and haven’t yet learned English. That is a niche constituency, to say the least. It includes maybe three people.

“Privilege is characteristically invisible to people who have it. People in dominant groups often believe they have earned the privileges they enjoy or that everyone could have access to these privileges if only they worked to earn them. In fact, privileges are unearned and are granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their stated intent,” she claimed.

The privilege fairy just hands them out. Work is superfluous.

Golden resigned as Chief Diversity Officer on Tuesday, but remains on the faculty at Johns Hopkins. After her email caused controversy, she apologized:

The “privilege” list was retracted shortly after it was sent out, and Golden said she “deeply” regretted her definition of privilege, adding it “did not meet [the] goal” to “inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins. . . . In fact, because it was overly simplistic and poorly worded, it had the opposite effect of being exclusionary and hurtful to members of our community.”

Her email wasn’t “poorly worded,” but it certainly was “exclusionary.” Actually, it set out the DEI ideology very clearly, and exclusion of politically disfavored people is the whole point of DEI. But sometimes people notice, and a liberal needs to be sacrificed. So our condolences go out to Sherita Golden: she said what the Democratic Party believes, not poorly but too well.