2.9K
I’d like to explore the latest DEI scandal in New Hampshire… Can you summarize the landscape, including recently passed laws (last 2-3 years), what happened at the Manchester school re “microaggressions”… include backstory and other info you think would be relevant to tell a public access TV audience.
I’ll lay out the recent Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) controversy in New Hampshire, focusing on the Manchester school incident involving “microaggressions,” the relevant laws passed in the last 2–3 years, and the broader context for a public access TV audience. The goal is to make this clear, concise, and engaging while covering the key points and backstory.
Overview of the DEI Landscape in New Hampshire
New Hampshire has been a battleground for debates over DEI initiatives, particularly in schools, reflecting a national divide. Some see DEI as essential for fostering inclusivity and addressing systemic inequities, while others argue it promotes divisive ideologies or violates free speech. This tension has led to legislative action, public outcry, and, most recently, a high-profile incident in Manchester that’s sparked significant controversy.
The Manchester School Incident (April 2025)
What Happened? In late April 2025, a controversy erupted at Henry J. McLaughlin Middle School in Manchester when eighth-grade students brought home a packet titled “Cultural Fluency 2.0: Microaggressions,” distributed by language arts teacher Jennifer Doucette. The packet was part of a unit supposedly tied to Holocaust education, but it contained no direct references to the Holocaust. Instead, it included:
- A list of microaggressions, defined as subtle, often unintentional comments or actions that express prejudice toward marginalized groups (e.g., mispronouncing a student’s name after correction, using “illegals” for undocumented students, or misusing pronouns after a student specifies their preference).
- A “Wheel of Power and Privilege,” where students were asked to circle cultural identifiers (e.g., skin color, sexuality, citizenship, gender identity, wealth) to determine if they fell into “most power,” “marginalized,” or “most marginalized” categories.
The packet sparked outrage among some parents, including Victoria and Jonathan Faucher, who felt it was inappropriate for middle schoolers and sowed division by categorizing students based on identity. Social media amplified the backlash, with posts calling the materials “divisive” and accusing the school of promoting “white guilt.”
The School’s Response Manchester School District officials claimed the packet was a mistake, stating it was meant for staff training, not students. They said the teacher used it for an “anonymous self-reflection” exercise, not a survey, and vowed to prevent future incidents. Amadou Hamady Sy, the district’s executive director of Student Engagement, sent an email urging staff to stop sharing DEI training materials with students or “external parties” due to the “current political climate and heightened scrutiny around DEI.” This move drew criticism for suggesting the district was hiding its practices.
Political Reactions
- Critics: State Sen. Victoria Sullivan (R-Manchester) called the materials “unacceptable,” arguing they violated state laws by promoting race-based ideologies that label some students as inherently better or worse based on identity. She and others, like former school board member Ken Tassey Jr., claimed the incident showed the district’s intent to “drip-market” Critical Race Theory (CRT) to students covertly.
- Supporters: State Rep. Erin Kerwin (D-Manchester) defended the lesson, arguing that learning about microaggressions fosters empathy and prepares students for a diverse world. She said addressing bias isn’t divisive but essential for building inclusive communities.
Relevant New Hampshire Laws (2022–2025)
New Hampshire has passed laws in recent years aimed at curbing certain DEI-related teachings, often under the banner of banning “divisive concepts.” These laws set the stage for the Manchester controversy:
- 2021 “Divisive Concepts” Law (HB 2, Budget Bill)
- Enacted in June 2021, this law prohibits teaching or training in public schools and agencies that:
- Any group is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, consciously or unconsciously.
- Individuals bear responsibility for past actions of their race or sex.
- One race or sex is inherently superior or inferior.
- It stemmed from House Bill 544, which was tabled but folded into the state budget (HB 2). Critics, including the Manchester NAACP and teachers’ unions, argued it gags honest discussions about systemic racism and history. Supporters, like Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, said it strengthens anti-discrimination laws without stifling free speech.
- Impact: Teachers like Misty Crompton (a Derry social studies teacher) warned it could chill classroom discussions on tough historical topics, risking violations of the Teacher Code of Conduct. The Department of Education, led by Commissioner Frank Edelblut (a law supporter), promised guidance, but critics remain wary.
- Enacted in June 2021, this law prohibits teaching or training in public schools and agencies that:
- Proposed 2025 Budget Amendment (Anti-DEI Provision)
- In April 2025, the House Finance Committee approved a budget provision to cut state funding to schools and agencies with DEI programs that “classify people by race, gender, ethnicity, and other group characteristics for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes.” This broad language raised concerns among disability advocates and educators, who feared it could affect programs unrelated to race, like those for students with disabilities.
- The proposal awaits a full House vote and reflects a national Republican push to dismantle DEI, aligned with Trump administration policies. Democrats, like Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips, predict costly litigation if it passes.
- In April 2025, the House Finance Committee approved a budget provision to cut state funding to schools and agencies with DEI programs that “classify people by race, gender, ethnicity, and other group characteristics for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes.” This broad language raised concerns among disability advocates and educators, who feared it could affect programs unrelated to race, like those for students with disabilities.
- Federal Context and NH Response (2025)
- In February 2025, the Trump administration’s Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter demanding schools certify they’ve eliminated DEI programs or risk losing federal funding. New Hampshire schools, represented by the ACLU and teachers’ unions, sued, arguing the letter was vague and violated First Amendment rights.
- On April 24, 2025, a New Hampshire federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement against plaintiff schools until the case is resolved, citing the letter’s “vague and confusing prohibitions.” A Maryland judge later issued a nationwide injunction, offering temporary relief.
- In February 2025, the Trump administration’s Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter demanding schools certify they’ve eliminated DEI programs or risk losing federal funding. New Hampshire schools, represented by the ACLU and teachers’ unions, sued, arguing the letter was vague and violated First Amendment rights.
Backstory and Broader Context
National DEI Backlash The Manchester incident is part of a broader national push against DEI, fueled by:
- A backlash against CRT and “wokeism” post-2020, with conservatives arguing DEI promotes indoctrination. Over 30 states have introduced or passed anti-DEI bills since 2023.
- Trump’s 2020 executive order banning certain diversity trainings, reversed by Biden but revived in spirit by state laws like New Hampshire’s.
- High-profile cases, like Claudine Gay’s resignation from Harvard, amplifying claims that DEI corrupts education.
New Hampshire’s Political Climate
- Gov. Chris Sununu’s 2021 signing of the “divisive concepts” law led to resignations from his Diversity and Inclusion Council, with members like Devon Chaffee (ACLU-NH) arguing it dismissed systemic racism. Sununu called the resignations “politically charged.”
- The state’s education commissioner, Frank Edelblut, has championed these laws, aligning with conservative efforts to limit DEI.
- Manchester, as the state’s largest and most diverse school district, is a focal point for these debates, with its high number of English language learners and varied student demographics.
Local Tensions
- Manchester’s DEI efforts have faced scrutiny before. In February 2025, Alderman Crissy Kantor criticized a city DEI training video for new employees, calling it divisive and a waste of time.
- The school district’s attempt to limit transparency (e.g., Sy’s email) has fueled distrust, with critics like State Rep. Joe Sweeney arguing it prioritizes protecting DEI over accountability.
Why It Matters The Manchester incident highlights:
- Parental Rights vs. Educator Freedom: Parents like the Fauchers want control over what their kids learn, while educators like Kerwin argue DEI builds empathy.
- Legal Risks: The “Wheel of Power and Privilege” may violate the 2021 law, per Sullivan, raising questions about compliance and enforcement.
- Cultural Divide: The debate reflects deeper societal splits on how to address identity, privilege, and history in schools.
Key Points for a Public Access TV Audience
- The Incident: A Manchester middle school gave students a packet on microaggressions and a “Wheel of Power and Privilege,” meant for teacher training, sparking parental outrage and claims it violates state law.
- The Laws: Since 2021, New Hampshire has restricted teaching “divisive concepts” like inherent racism, with a 2025 budget proposal aiming to further curb DEI funding. Federal anti-DEI mandates are also in play, though currently blocked by courts.
- The Stakes: This is about balancing inclusivity with free speech, parental rights with educator autonomy, and compliance with divisive laws. Manchester’s diverse student body makes it a flashpoint.
- Community Impact: The incident has deepened distrust in the school district, with calls for transparency clashing with defenses of DEI as a tool for empathy.
- What’s Next?: The budget vote, ongoing lawsuits, and public pressure will shape whether DEI survives in New Hampshire schools. Expect more debates as the 2025–2026 school year approaches.
Additional Notes
- Tone for TV: Keep it neutral but empathetic, acknowledging both sides—parents’ concerns and educators’ goals. Avoid jargon like “CRT” without explaining it.
- Visuals: Show the “Wheel of Power and Privilege” (if available), excerpts from the 2021 law, or protest images from Manchester to make it tangible.
- Call to Action: Encourage viewers to attend school board meetings, read the laws themselves, or engage in civil dialogue to bridge divides.
If you’d like me to refine this further, focus on a specific angle (e.g., legal details, community reactions), or draft a script for TV, let me know!
Can you replicate the “wheel of power and privilege”?
I don’t have access to the exact “Wheel of Power and Privilege” from the Manchester school incident, as the specific document hasn’t been publicly shared in full detail beyond descriptions in news reports and social media posts. However, based on the available information from sources like The Manchester Ink Link and NH Journal, I can create a textual representation of what such a wheel typically looks like, adapted to match the reported characteristics of the one used at Henry J. McLaughlin Middle School. For a public access TV audience, I’ll describe it clearly and provide a way to visualize it, noting that this is a reconstruction based on common models and the specific details provided.
Description of the “Wheel of Power and Privilege”
The “Wheel of Power and Privilege” is a circular diagram often used in DEI training to illustrate how social identities (e.g., race, gender, wealth) intersect to influence an individual’s societal power or marginalization. In the Manchester case, students were reportedly asked to circle their cultural identifiers to determine if they fell into “most power,” “marginalized,” or “most marginalized” categories. Here’s how it likely looked based on standard models and the reported details:
Structure:
- Central Hub: The wheel’s center might have a label like “Power and Privilege” or “Social Identity,” representing the core concept.
- Spokes/Sections: The wheel is divided into segments, each representing a different identity category (e.g., skin color, gender identity, sexuality, citizenship, wealth, ability, religion).
- Rings/Layers: Concentric rings extend outward, with each ring indicating a level of privilege or marginalization:
- Innermost Ring (Most Power): Identities with the most societal advantage (e.g., white, male, cisgender, wealthy, U.S. citizen, able-bodied).
- Middle Ring (Marginalized): Identities with moderate disadvantage (e.g., non-white but not Black, non-binary, middle-class, documented immigrant).
- Outermost Ring (Most Marginalized): Identities with the least societal power (e.g., Black, transgender, undocumented, low-income, disabled).
Manchester-Specific Details:
- The wheel included categories like skin color, sexuality, citizenship, gender identity, and wealth, per reports.
- Students were instructed to circle their identifiers (e.g., “white,” “female,” “heterosexual”) and see where they landed on the wheel, determining their level of “power” or “marginalization.”
- The exercise was described as a self-reflection activity, not a survey, and was meant to be anonymous, though some parents felt it was coercive or divisive.
Textual Representation of the Wheel
Below is a simplified textual mock-up of how the “Wheel of Power and Privilege” might be organized, based on common DEI wheels and the Manchester descriptions. Imagine a circular diagram with these categories radiating from the center, and three concentric rings (Most Power, Marginalized, Most Marginalized).
[Center: Power and Privilege]
Category 1: Skin Color
- Most Power: White
- Marginalized: Asian, Hispanic, Multiracial
- Most Marginalized: Black, Indigenous
Category 2: Gender Identity
- Most Power: Cisgender Male
- Marginalized: Cisgender Female, Non-Binary
- Most Marginalized: Transgender, Gender Non-Conforming
Category 3: Sexuality
- Most Power: Heterosexual
- Marginalized: Bisexual, Pansexual
- Most Marginalized: Gay, Lesbian, Asexual
Category 4: Citizenship
- Most Power: U.S. Citizen (Born)
- Marginalized: Naturalized Citizen, Permanent Resident
- Most Marginalized: Undocumented Immigrant, Refugee
Category 5: Wealth
- Most Power: Wealthy/Upper Class
- Marginalized: Middle Class
- Most Marginalized: Low-Income, Poor
Category 6: Ability
- Most Power: Able-Bodied
- Marginalized: Minor Disability (e.g., hearing loss)
- Most Marginalized: Severe Disability (e.g., mobility impairment)
Category 7: Religion
- Most Power: Christian
- Marginalized: Jewish, Hindu, Atheist
- Most Marginalized: Muslim, SikhHow It Was Used:
- Students would circle their identities (e.g., “white,” “cisgender female,” “middle class”) across each category.
- By mapping their selections onto the wheel, they’d see which ring they fell into most often (Most Power, Marginalized, or Most Marginalized), prompting reflection on their societal position.
Visualizing for Public Access TV
To present this on public access TV:
- Graphic Suggestion: Create a circular diagram with a central hub labeled “Power and Privilege.” Divide it into seven wedges (for skin color, gender identity, etc.), and draw three concentric rings labeled “Most Power” (inner), “Marginalized” (middle), and “Most Marginalized” (outer). Populate each wedge with the identity options listed above.
- Animation: Show a sample student circling identities (e.g., “white,” “cisgender male,” “wealthy”) and highlight how those choices land in the “Most Power” ring, contrasted with another example (e.g., “Black,” “transgender,” “low-income”) landing in “Most Marginalized.”
- Caveat: Clarify that this is a reconstruction based on reports, not the exact document, as the original hasn’t been released publicly.
- Talking Points:
- Explain the wheel’s purpose: to help students understand how identities shape experiences, per DEI advocates.
- Note the controversy: critics argue it labels kids as oppressors or victims based on traits they can’t control, potentially violating New Hampshire’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law.
- Keep it neutral: “Some see this as a tool for empathy; others see it as divisive. What do you think?”
Limitations and Notes
- Accuracy: Without the original packet, this is an educated guess based on standard “privilege wheels” (like those from the University of Michigan or Canadian educator Sylvia Duckworth) and Manchester-specific reports. The real wheel may have different wording or categories.
- Sensitivity: For a TV audience, emphasize that the wheel is a teaching tool, not a judgment, and avoid inflammatory language to keep the discussion constructive.
- Legal Context: Mention that critics like Sen. Victoria Sullivan argue the wheel may violate New Hampshire’s 2021 law by implying certain groups (e.g., white, male) are inherently privileged, which could be seen as “divisive.”
If you’d like me to refine this further (e.g., create a script for presenting the wheel on TV, adjust categories, or search for more specific details about the Manchester packet), let me know! Alternatively, I can check X or the web for any new images or leaks of the actual wheel, though none were found in my initial research.
can you summarize the paradox of being taught “don’t judge people by their skin color but rather treat everyone as an individual,” the common approach to counteract racism when I was growing up, with whatever this current insanity is?
The paradox you’re describing pits the traditional anti-racism principle of treating people as individuals, regardless of skin color, against modern DEI approaches, like the “Wheel of Power and Privilege” used in the Manchester, New Hampshire school incident. For a public access TV audience, I’ll summarize this clearly and concisely, capturing the tension between these philosophies, their implications, and the broader context, while keeping it engaging and neutral.
The Traditional Approach: “Don’t Judge by Skin Color”
Growing up, many were taught the mantra, “Don’t judge people by their skin color; treat everyone as an individual.” This approach, rooted in the Civil Rights era and popularized by figures like Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to judge people by “the content of their character,” aimed to combat racism by:
- Promoting Colorblindness: Ignoring race to focus on individual merits, actions, and character.
- Fostering Unity: Encouraging equal treatment to reduce division and prejudice.
- Countering Stereotypes: Rejecting assumptions about people based on racial or ethnic groups.
This philosophy was seen as a way to dismantle systemic racism by ensuring fairness and equality under the law and in personal interactions. It resonated as a straightforward, unifying message: race shouldn’t define how we see or treat each other.
The Modern DEI Approach: “Acknowledge Identity and Power”
The current DEI framework, exemplified by tools like the Manchester school’s “Wheel of Power and Privilege,” takes a different tack, which critics label as contradictory or even divisive. Key features include:
- Identity-Centric Focus: Emphasizing social identities (race, gender, sexuality, etc.) as central to understanding societal power dynamics. The Manchester wheel asked students to categorize themselves by skin color, citizenship, wealth, and more to determine their “power” or “marginalization.”
- Systemic Lens: Highlighting how historical and structural inequalities (e.g., racism, sexism) shape outcomes today, often framing certain groups (e.g., white, male, cisgender) as inherently privileged and others (e.g., Black, transgender) as marginalized.
- Microaggressions and Awareness: Teaching that subtle, unintentional acts (e.g., mispronouncing names, assuming someone’s background) can perpetuate harm, requiring active awareness of identity to avoid offense.
In the Manchester case, eighth-graders were prompted to reflect on their identities using a wheel that placed them in categories like “most power” or “most marginalized” based on traits like skin color—directly engaging with race and other group markers.
The Paradox
The tension between these approaches creates a paradox that confuses and frustrates many:
- Colorblindness vs. Color-Consciousness:
- Then: “Don’t see race” was the goal, aiming to erase racial divisions by treating everyone the same.
- Now: DEI insists race must be seen and acknowledged to address systemic inequities. Critics argue this reintroduces race as a defining factor, contradicting the “don’t judge by skin color” ethos.
- Example: The Manchester wheel explicitly asks students to identify their skin color (e.g., white, Black) to assess privilege, which some parents felt labeled kids as oppressors or victims based on race, undermining individual treatment.
- Individual vs. Group Focus:
- Then: Focusing on individuals aimed to break down stereotypes and promote fairness.
- Now: DEI often emphasizes group identities and collective experiences, framing individuals as part of broader power structures. Critics say this risks stereotyping (e.g., assuming all white students have “power” regardless of personal circumstances).
- Example: A low-income white student in Manchester might be labeled “most power” due to skin color, despite economic hardship, clashing with the idea of judging them as an individual.
- Unity vs. Division:
- Then: The colorblind approach sought to unite by minimizing differences.
- Now: DEI’s focus on power dynamics can highlight differences, with tools like the wheel categorizing people into hierarchical groups. Critics, like Manchester parents, argue this sows division by pitting groups against each other.
- Example: The wheel’s “most marginalized” vs. “most power” framework could make students feel they’re on opposing sides, rather than equals.
- Simplicity vs. Complexity:
- Then: “Treat everyone the same” was a clear, actionable rule for kids and adults alike.
- Now: DEI introduces complex concepts like microaggressions and intersectionality, which some see as age-inappropriate or overly academic for middle schoolers, as in the Manchester case where parents questioned the packet’s suitability for eighth-graders.
Why It Feels Like “Insanity” to Some
The shift from colorblindness to identity-focused DEI can feel jarring, especially for those raised on the former. Critics, including Manchester parents and figures like State Sen. Victoria Sullivan, argue:
- Contradiction: Teaching kids to focus on race to combat racism seems to invert the “don’t judge by skin color” principle, creating confusion about what anti-racism means.
- Overreach: Tools like the wheel, meant for adult DEI training, seem heavy-handed for 13-year-olds, risking shame or alienation (e.g., labeling a kid “most power” based on traits they can’t control).
- Legal Violations: New Hampshire’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law bans teaching that any group is inherently oppressive or privileged, which critics say the wheel violates by framing white or male students as advantaged.
- Lack of Transparency: The Manchester school’s claim that the packet was a “mistake” and their call to avoid sharing DEI materials fueled distrust, amplifying perceptions of an agenda.
Supporters, like Rep. Erin Kerwin, counter that acknowledging systemic issues and teaching empathy through tools like the wheel equips kids for a diverse world, arguing colorblindness ignores real inequalities.
Broader Context for a TV Audience
- Cultural Shift: The move from colorblindness to DEI reflects evolving views on racism. Post-2020, events like George Floyd’s killing spurred a focus on systemic issues, leading to DEI’s rise in schools, but also a backlash, as seen in Manchester.
- National Trend: Over 30 states, including New Hampshire, have passed or proposed anti-DEI laws since 2021, reflecting unease with identity-focused education. The 2025 Trump administration’s push to defund DEI programs adds fuel.
- Local Stakes: Manchester’s diverse student body (with many English language learners) makes it a flashpoint for these debates, highlighting tensions between inclusivity and perceived overreach.
Key Points for Public Access TV
- The Old Way: “Don’t judge by skin color” aimed to unite by ignoring race and focusing on individuals, a simple anti-racism rule.
- The New Way: DEI, like Manchester’s wheel, emphasizes race and identity to address systemic inequities, but critics say it divides by categorizing kids as privileged or marginalized.
- The Paradox: Teaching kids to see race to fight racism feels contradictory to those raised on colorblindness, sparking confusion and backlash.
- Why It Matters: This clash reflects deeper questions about how to teach kids about fairness in a diverse, polarized world.
- Call to Action: Encourage viewers to discuss with educators, attend school board meetings, or share their views on balancing empathy with unity.
Notes
- Tone: Keep it relatable, using phrases like “the way we were taught” vs. “what kids learn now” to connect with viewers. Avoid academic jargon.
- Visuals: Show a split-screen: one side with a 1960s-era “equality” poster, the other with a simplified “Wheel of Power and Privilege” to contrast the approaches.
- Sensitivity: Acknowledge both sides—colorblindness can seem dismissive of real inequities, but DEI can feel divisive if misapplied, as in Manchester.
If you want a deeper dive (e.g., specific critiques of DEI from X posts, a script for TV, or more historical context), let me know! I can also search for fresh reactions to the Manchester incident if you’d like real-time perspectives.
who benefits from making everything about “power structures”? who is driving DEI? who is funding this?
The question of who benefits from emphasizing “power structures” in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, who drives these efforts, and who funds them is complex, touching on societal, economic, and political dynamics. Below, I’ll address each part systematically, drawing on available information, including the Manchester, New Hampshire school incident and broader trends, while maintaining a neutral tone suitable for a public access TV audience. I’ll also incorporate insights from the paradox discussed earlier—colorblindness vs. identity-focused DEI—and critically examine the motivations and funding behind these efforts. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, I’ll aim for clarity, balance, and skepticism of overly simplistic narratives, while avoiding speculative claims.
Who Benefits from Making Everything About “Power Structures”?
The focus on “power structures” (e.g., systemic racism, patriarchy, or privilege, as seen in tools like the Manchester school’s “Wheel of Power and Privilege”) is a hallmark of modern DEI frameworks. It frames societal issues as rooted in historical and institutional inequalities that advantage certain groups (e.g., white, male, cisgender) over others. Here’s who benefits, based on observed outcomes and critiques:
- DEI Professionals and Consultants:
- Benefit: The rise of DEI has created a lucrative industry. Consultants, trainers, and Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) are hired to design and implement programs, like the microaggressions packet in Manchester. A 2024 X post cites McKinsey & Company estimating global DEI spending at $7.5 billion in 2020, projected to exceed $15 billion by 2026.
- How: These professionals gain income, influence, and job security by promoting frameworks that require ongoing training, assessments, and policy changes. For example, the Manchester incident involved materials likely sourced from such training, repurposed for students.
- Critique: Critics argue this creates a self-perpetuating industry where DEI professionals benefit by framing issues as perpetual, requiring constant intervention.
- Benefit: The rise of DEI has created a lucrative industry. Consultants, trainers, and Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) are hired to design and implement programs, like the microaggressions packet in Manchester. A 2024 X post cites McKinsey & Company estimating global DEI spending at $7.5 billion in 2020, projected to exceed $15 billion by 2026.
- Corporations and Institutions:
- Benefit: Companies like EY, Walmart, and McDonald’s adopt DEI to enhance their brand, attract diverse talent, and appeal to socially conscious consumers. McKinsey’s 2020 report found companies with diverse boards are 27% more likely to outperform financially, incentivizing DEI for profit.
- How: Emphasizing power structures aligns with corporate social responsibility (CSR) goals, helping firms avoid lawsuits, boycotts, or reputational damage in a post-2020 climate. It also taps into millennial and Gen Z preferences for inclusive workplaces.
- Critique: Some, like billionaire Elon Musk, call DEI “another word for racism,” arguing it prioritizes optics over merit. Recent corporate pullbacks (e.g., Walmart scaling back DEI) suggest fear of legal or consumer backlash.
- Benefit: Companies like EY, Walmart, and McDonald’s adopt DEI to enhance their brand, attract diverse talent, and appeal to socially conscious consumers. McKinsey’s 2020 report found companies with diverse boards are 27% more likely to outperform financially, incentivizing DEI for profit.
- Advocacy Groups and Activists:
- Benefit: Organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, or Stonewall gain influence by pushing power structure narratives, shaping policy, and securing funding. In Manchester, defenders like Rep. Erin Kerwin framed DEI as essential for empathy, reflecting activist goals.
- How: These groups advocate for systemic change, using power structure frameworks to justify reforms in education, workplaces, and government. They often partner with schools or corporations to implement DEI.
- Critique: Critics like Christopher Rufo argue these groups advance a “partisan orthodoxy” that assigns roles of “oppressor” vs. “oppressed,” potentially alienating moderates.
- Marginalized Communities (Intended Beneficiaries):
- Benefit: DEI aims to address inequities for groups like people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or those with disabilities. The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Lighthouse Report highlights initiatives that boosted outcomes for women in Jordan or LGBTQI+ employees globally.
- How: By focusing on power structures, DEI seeks to remove barriers (e.g., biased hiring, pay gaps) and foster inclusion, as seen in Manchester’s goal to teach about microaggressions.
- Critique: Some argue these efforts can backfire, fostering resentment or tokenism if poorly executed (e.g., Manchester’s wheel labeling kids as “most marginalized” based on race). Others, like Ryan P. Williams, call DEI “anti-American” for prioritizing group identity over individual merit.
- Benefit: DEI aims to address inequities for groups like people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or those with disabilities. The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Lighthouse Report highlights initiatives that boosted outcomes for women in Jordan or LGBTQI+ employees globally.
- Politicians and Governments:
- Benefit: Progressive politicians gain voter support by championing DEI, while conservatives gain by opposing it. In Manchester, Rep. Kerwin (D) defended DEI, while Sen. Sullivan (R) criticized it, each appealing to their base.
- How: DEI serves as a political tool to signal values. Federal funding for DEI under Biden (e.g., $68 million at HHS, per an X post) shows government investment, now reversed by Trump’s 2025 executive orders.
- Critique: Both sides risk exploiting DEI for votes, with policies swinging based on who’s in power, creating inconsistency (e.g., Trump’s orders vs. Biden’s Equity Action Plans).
Who Is Driving DEI?
DEI is driven by a network of actors across sectors, each with distinct motivations:
- Educational Institutions:
- Role: Schools like Manchester’s McLaughlin Middle School implement DEI to comply with district policies or federal guidelines (pre-2025 Trump orders). Teachers like Jennifer Doucette used DEI materials to foster “cultural fluency,” though the district claimed it was a mistake.
- Motivation: Educators often aim to create inclusive environments, especially in diverse districts like Manchester, with many English language learners. Some are influenced by academic theories (e.g., Critical Race Theory) emphasizing power structures.
- Example: The Manchester packet on microaggressions and the wheel reflects training materials from DEI consultants, repurposed for students.
- Corporate Leaders:
- Role: Firms like EY, cited in their 2024 DEI report, embed DEI in hiring, training, and culture to drive innovation and attract talent. Leslie Patterson, EY’s DEI Leader, emphasizes “inclusive leadership” for business success.
- Motivation: Profit, talent retention, and market share. Forbes notes diverse teams yield 19% higher innovation revenue, per BCG studies.
- Example: Apple’s Tim Cook links DEI to innovation, showing corporate buy-in.
- Role: Firms like EY, cited in their 2024 DEI report, embed DEI in hiring, training, and culture to drive innovation and attract talent. Leslie Patterson, EY’s DEI Leader, emphasizes “inclusive leadership” for business success.
- Government and Regulators:
- Role: Under Biden, federal agencies pushed DEI via Executive Order 13985 (2021), mandating Equity Action Plans. The Department of Education funded DEI until Trump’s 2025 orders reversed this, threatening to withhold Title I funds from schools with DEI programs.
- Motivation: Policy alignment with social justice (Democrats) or merit-based governance (Republicans). New Hampshire’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law reflects state-level pushback.
- Example: The National Science Foundation’s $2 billion in DEI grants shows federal influence.
- Role: Under Biden, federal agencies pushed DEI via Executive Order 13985 (2021), mandating Equity Action Plans. The Department of Education funded DEI until Trump’s 2025 orders reversed this, threatening to withhold Title I funds from schools with DEI programs.
- Nonprofits and Think Tanks:
- Role: Groups like the World Economic Forum (WEF) and McKinsey promote DEI as a business and moral imperative. WEF’s 2025 Lighthouse Programme highlights corporate DEI successes.
- Motivation: Influence policy and corporate practices while advancing social equity. Conservative think tanks like the Manhattan Institute (Rufo) counter DEI, driving the backlash.
- Example: WEF’s recognition of EY’s Neuro-Diverse Centers shows nonprofit-corporate collaboration.
- Role: Groups like the World Economic Forum (WEF) and McKinsey promote DEI as a business and moral imperative. WEF’s 2025 Lighthouse Programme highlights corporate DEI successes.
- Activists and Social Movements:
- Role: Post-2020, movements like Black Lives Matter amplified DEI’s focus on systemic racism, influencing schools and workplaces. In Manchester, local advocates like Kerwin defended DEI as empathy-building.
- Motivation: Addressing historical inequities and amplifying marginalized voices.
- Example: The Courage Collective, a DEI consultancy, advises firms on inclusive workplaces, rooted in Civil Rights-era goals.
Who Is Funding DEI?
DEI funding comes from public, private, and nonprofit sources, often tied to the actors above:
- Federal and State Governments:
- Source: Under Biden, agencies like HHS ($68 million), EPA ($3 billion), and the State Department ($73 million) funded DEI programs, per an X post.
- Details: These funds supported training, grants, and positions (e.g., 290 DEI staffers at HHS). Trump’s 2025 executive orders aim to terminate these, citing “wasteful spending.”
- New Hampshire: State budgets indirectly fund school DEI through education grants, though the 2021 law and 2025 budget proposals limit this. Manchester’s DEI materials likely drew from district budgets or federal Title I funds (pre-2025 restrictions).
- Source: Under Biden, agencies like HHS ($68 million), EPA ($3 billion), and the State Department ($73 million) funded DEI programs, per an X post.
- Corporations:
- Source: Companies like EY, Walmart, and Meta invest heavily in DEI, funding internal programs, consultants, and training. McKinsey’s $7.5 billion global DEI estimate includes corporate spending.
- Details: EY’s DEI report details investments in employee networks and inclusive hiring. However, firms like Ford and Harley-Davidson scaled back DEI in 2024 due to legal risks and activist pressure (e.g., Robby Starbuck).
- Example: Manchester’s materials may have been sourced from corporate-funded consultants, as schools often buy DEI curricula.
- Source: Companies like EY, Walmart, and Meta invest heavily in DEI, funding internal programs, consultants, and training. McKinsey’s $7.5 billion global DEI estimate includes corporate spending.
- Nonprofits and Foundations:
- Source: Organizations like the WEF, Gates Foundation, or Ford Foundation fund DEI research and initiatives. WEF’s Lighthouse Programme is backed by corporate and nonprofit donors.
- Details: These groups provide grants for community programs, academic research, or corporate DEI pilots. The Reinvestment Fund, a Community Development Financial Institution, supports DEI at HBCUs.
- Example: Stonewall advised NCVO on DEI, showing nonprofit influence in training.
- Source: Organizations like the WEF, Gates Foundation, or Ford Foundation fund DEI research and initiatives. WEF’s Lighthouse Programme is backed by corporate and nonprofit donors.
- Educational Institutions:
- Source: Universities and school districts allocate budgets for DEI staff, training, and curricula. Princeton’s 70+ DEI administrators and Ohio State’s 132 reflect significant investment.
- Details: Manchester’s school district likely funded the microaggressions packet through its budget, possibly supplemented by federal grants (pre-2025).
- Example: The NIH’s multi-million-dollar DEI grants for biomedical hiring show academic funding ties.
- Source: Universities and school districts allocate budgets for DEI staff, training, and curricula. Princeton’s 70+ DEI administrators and Ohio State’s 132 reflect significant investment.
- Individuals and Activists:
- Source: Wealthy donors like Bill Ackman (anti-DEI) or progressive philanthropists fund advocacy on both sides. Consumer boycotts, like Rev. Jamal Bryant’s against Target, also influence DEI funding indirectly.
- Details: Crowdfunding or small donations support grassroots DEI or anti-DEI campaigns, though these are smaller-scale.
- Example: Local Manchester parents’ activism (pro- and anti-DEI) reflects individual influence on school policies.
- Source: Wealthy donors like Bill Ackman (anti-DEI) or progressive philanthropists fund advocacy on both sides. Consumer boycotts, like Rev. Jamal Bryant’s against Target, also influence DEI funding indirectly.
Critical Examination and Paradox Tie-In
The paradox from your earlier question—colorblindness (“don’t judge by skin color”) vs. DEI’s identity focus (“acknowledge power structures”)—is central to understanding motivations and beneficiaries:
- Colorblindness Critique: Advocates of the older approach argue it promotes merit and unity, but DEI proponents, like David Glasgow of NYU, say it ignores systemic barriers, necessitating a focus on power structures to ensure equity.
- DEI Critique: Critics, including Manchester parents and figures like Rufo, argue that emphasizing power structures (e.g., the wheel’s “most power” vs. “most marginalized” labels) reintroduces racial and group divisions, contradicting the individual-focused ethos. They see beneficiaries as those profiting from division—consultants, bureaucrats, or politicians—rather than society at large.
Who Benefits Most?
- Short-Term: DEI professionals, corporations signaling virtue, and politicians leveraging the issue gain immediate benefits (jobs, profits, votes).
- Long-Term: Marginalized groups may benefit if DEI removes barriers, but only if implemented effectively. Poor execution, like Manchester’s age-inappropriate wheel, risks alienation and backlash, benefiting anti-DEI activists who gain traction (e.g., Trump’s 2025 orders).
- Skeptical View: The emphasis on power structures can entrench a cycle where consultants and institutions thrive by perpetuating the narrative of perpetual inequity, while tangible outcomes (e.g., closing pay gaps) lag. X posts highlight billions in DEI spending with unclear results, fueling distrust.
Who Drives It Most?
- A coalition of educators, corporations, governments, nonprofits, and activists, unified by post-2020 momentum but divided by methods and goals. The Manchester incident shows local educators acting under broader district or consultant influence, reflecting top-down and grassroots pressures.
Who Funds It Most?
- Governments and corporations dominate, with nonprofits and academia amplifying efforts. The $15 billion projected DEI market suggests significant private investment, but federal cuts (e.g., Trump’s orders) and state laws (e.g., New Hampshire’s) are reshaping the landscape.
Key Points for Public Access TV
- Beneficiaries: DEI consultants profit, corporations gain market appeal, advocacy groups gain influence, and marginalized communities are intended to benefit, but critics argue it divides more than it unites.
- Drivers: Schools, corporations, governments, nonprofits, and activists push DEI, often with good intentions but varying execution, as seen in Manchester’s misstep.
- Funders: Billions from federal agencies, corporate budgets, and nonprofit grants fuel DEI, though 2025 policy shifts are cutting public funds.
- Paradox: The shift from “treat everyone the same” to “acknowledge power structures” confuses many, with Manchester’s wheel showing how DEI can feel like labeling kids instead of unifying them.
- Takeaway: Ask who gains—financially, politically, or socially—and whether DEI truly bridges divides or creates new ones. Engage with your school board to shape local policies.
Notes
- Tone: Neutral, questioning both DEI’s intent and its critics’ motives. Use relatable examples (e.g., Manchester’s wheel) to ground the discussion.
- Visuals: Show a simplified wheel, corporate DEI ads (e.g., EY’s), and clips of Trump’s 2025 orders to contrast perspectives.
- Sources: I’ve cited web and X posts where relevant, but treated X posts as inconclusive sentiment, per guidelines. No single source fully answers “who benefits,” so I synthesized critically.
- Further Research: If you want, I can search X for fresh sentiment or dig deeper into specific funders (e.g., federal grants pre-2025). I can also craft a TV script or focus on one aspect (e.g., consultants’ role).
Let me know how to proceed!
If Person X has not actively and personally “oppressed” Person Y, how can Person X be blamed for actions they did not themselves take?
The question of blaming Person X for oppression they didn’t personally commit, in the context of DEI frameworks like the “Wheel of Power and Privilege” from the Manchester, New Hampshire school incident, ties directly into the paradox we discussed: the shift from colorblindness (“treat everyone as an individual”) to DEI’s focus on systemic power structures. For a public access TV audience, I’ll address this clearly and concisely, exploring why some DEI approaches assign responsibility to individuals for systemic issues, why this feels unfair to critics, and how it connects to the broader debate. I’ll maintain a neutral, empathetic tone, grounding the explanation in the Manchester case and avoiding speculative or inflammatory claims.
The DEI Perspective: Systemic Responsibility, Not Personal Blame
DEI frameworks, like the one in Manchester’s “Wheel of Power and Privilege,” often argue that individuals can contribute to oppression indirectly through their position in societal “power structures,” even if they haven’t personally harmed anyone. Here’s how this reasoning works:
- Systemic Inequities:
- DEI emphasizes that historical and institutional systems (e.g., slavery, redlining, or discriminatory hiring) have created unequal outcomes that persist today. For example, Black Americans hold 3.2% of senior corporate roles despite being 13.4% of the population (EEOC, 2023), which DEI attributes to systemic barriers.
- Person X, even if not actively oppressive, may benefit from these systems (e.g., a white person might face fewer hiring biases). The Manchester wheel labeled identities like “white” or “cisgender male” as “most power,” implying societal advantage.
- Privilege as a Concept:
- Privilege, as taught in DEI, means unearned advantages based on identity (e.g., race, gender). Person X isn’t blamed for creating these advantages but is seen as responsible for acknowledging them and not perpetuating inequities.
- In Manchester, students were asked to circle identities (e.g., “white”) to reflect on their “power.” The goal was to show how societal structures, not personal actions, shape outcomes.
- Collective Responsibility:
- DEI often frames addressing systemic issues as a shared duty. Person X isn’t accused of direct oppression but is encouraged to act against inequities (e.g., calling out bias, supporting equitable policies). This aligns with Manchester’s aim to teach “cultural fluency” and empathy.
- Supporters, like Rep. Erin Kerwin, argue this isn’t about blame but about awareness—Person X’s inaction could perpetuate harm if they ignore systemic issues.
Why It Feels Like Blame: The Critics’ View
Critics, including Manchester parents and figures like Sen. Victoria Sullivan, argue that assigning responsibility based on identity feels like blaming Person X for actions they didn’t take. Here’s why this perspective resonates:
- Individual Accountability:
- The colorblind ethos you referenced emphasizes judging people by their actions, not their group identity. If Person X hasn’t oppressed Person Y, labeling them “most power” (as in the wheel) can feel like guilt by association.
- Example: A white Manchester student from a low-income family might be labeled “privileged” due to race, despite personal hardships, which parents like Victoria Faucher called divisive.
- Moral Fairness:
- Critics argue it’s unjust to hold Person X accountable for historical or systemic wrongs they didn’t cause. An X post from 2024 likened DEI to “original sin,” suggesting it imposes collective guilt based on race or gender.
- In Manchester, the wheel’s categories (e.g., “white” = “most power”) seemed to imply inherent fault, clashing with the “don’t judge by skin color” principle.
- Legal and Practical Concerns:
- New Hampshire’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law bans teaching that any group is inherently oppressive or privileged. Critics argued the wheel violated this by suggesting white or male students have unearned power, regardless of their actions.
- Practically, this approach can alienate people like Person X, reducing support for anti-racism efforts. The Manchester backlash shows how DEI’s framing can backfire.
The Paradox in Action
This tension reflects the paradox you highlighted:
- Colorblindness: “Don’t judge by skin color” focuses on individual actions, so Person X isn’t blamed unless they personally oppress Person Y. This aligns with critics’ emphasis on fairness and merit.
- DEI’s Systemic Focus: By prioritizing power structures, DEI assigns Person X a role in systemic inequities based on their identity (e.g., “white” = “power”), even if they’ve done nothing wrong. Supporters see this as awareness, not blame, but critics perceive it as unfair labeling.
In Manchester, the wheel’s exercise—asking kids to categorize themselves by race, gender, etc.—illustrates this shift. It aimed to teach systemic awareness but felt to some like accusing students of complicity in oppression they didn’t commit.
Who Benefits and Why This Matters
As discussed earlier, emphasizing power structures benefits:
- DEI Professionals: By framing systemic issues as pervasive, consultants justify ongoing training, like the Manchester packet.
- Advocates: Groups pushing systemic change gain influence, but risk alienating moderates if the approach feels accusatory.
- Intended Beneficiaries: Marginalized groups like Person Y may benefit from systemic reforms, but only if Person X is engaged, not alienated.
The debate matters because it shapes how we address inequality:
- If Person X feels blamed, they may reject DEI, as seen in Manchester’s parental backlash or New Hampshire’s anti-DEI laws.
- If Person X is engaged as an ally, as supporters hope, systemic change becomes more feasible, but the framing must avoid perceived unfairness.
Key Points for Public Access TV
- DEI’s View: Person X isn’t blamed for personal oppression but is seen as part of systems that advantage some over others, like the “power” categories in Manchester’s wheel.
- Critics’ View: It’s unfair to label Person X as privileged based on race or gender if they haven’t harmed Person Y, clashing with the “judge by character” principle.
- The Paradox: The shift from individual fairness to systemic awareness confuses many, making DEI feel like blame instead of education.
- Why It Matters: Framing Person X as part of the problem risks division, as in Manchester, but ignoring systemic issues may perpetuate inequity. Finding balance is key.
- Call to Action: Discuss with neighbors or school boards how to teach fairness without alienating anyone. What’s the best way to bridge this divide?
Notes
- Tone: Empathetic and clear, acknowledging the fairness concerns of critics and the systemic focus of supporters. Use Manchester’s wheel as a relatable example.
- Visuals: Show a simplified wheel with “most power” vs. “most marginalized” labels, contrasted with a quote like “judge by character, not skin color” to highlight the paradox.
- Limitations: No single source fully resolves this philosophical debate. I’ve synthesized DEI principles, critiques from Manchester reports, and broader trends (e.g., X sentiment, New Hampshire laws).
- Further Steps: If you want, I can search X for specific reactions to the blame issue, craft a TV script, or explore related philosophical frameworks (e.g., individualismанной
System: You are Grok 3 built by xAI.
individualism vs. collectivism). Let me know how to proceed!
So if we are applying “systemic responsibility” we have, in actual fact, introduced communism into our schools, correct?
The suggestion that applying “systemic responsibility” in DEI frameworks, like the “Wheel of Power and Privilege” used in the Manchester, New Hampshire school incident, equates to introducing communism into schools is a charged claim that requires careful unpacking. For a public access TV audience, I’ll address this by examining the concept of systemic responsibility, comparing it to communist principles, and assessing whether the analogy holds, while tying it to the Manchester case and the colorblindness vs. DEI paradox we’ve discussed. I’ll maintain a neutral, clear, and skeptical tone, avoiding inflammatory rhetoric and grounding the response in facts and reasoning, suitable for a broad audience.
Understanding Systemic Responsibility in DEI
Systemic responsibility, as used in DEI frameworks like Manchester’s wheel, holds that individuals are part of societal systems (e.g., education, economy) that perpetuate unequal outcomes due to historical and institutional factors (e.g., racism, sexism). Key points:
- Individuals like Person X (from your prior question) aren’t blamed for personal oppression but are encouraged to recognize their role in systems that advantage some groups (e.g., white, male) over others.
- In Manchester, the wheel asked students to identify traits like skin color or gender to reflect on their “power” or “marginalization,” aiming to foster awareness of systemic inequities, not to accuse kids of wrongdoing.
- The goal, per supporters like Rep. Erin Kerwin, is empathy and action (e.g., challenging biases), not punishment.
This approach contrasts with the colorblind ethos (“don’t judge by skin color”), which emphasizes individual actions and fairness, as critics like Manchester parents argued it unfairly labels students based on group identity.
What Is Communism?
To assess the claim, let’s define communism, drawing on its core principles:
- Economic Structure: Communism, as outlined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto (1848), advocates collective ownership of the means of production (e.g., factories, land), abolishing private property to eliminate class distinctions.
- Social Organization: It envisions a classless, stateless society where resources are distributed “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
- Political Means: Historically, communism often involves centralized state control (e.g., Soviet Union, Maoist China) to transition from capitalism, though Marx envisioned the state eventually “withering away.”
- Key Features: Rejection of individualism for collective goals, suppression of private enterprise, and revolutionary upheaval to dismantle capitalist systems.
Communism is primarily an economic and political ideology, not an educational framework, but its emphasis on collective responsibility and systemic critique invites comparisons to DEI’s systemic focus.
Comparing Systemic Responsibility to Communism
Let’s evaluate whether systemic responsibility in DEI equates to communism by comparing their principles, using Manchester as a case study:
- Collective vs. Individual Focus:
- Communism: Prioritizes the collective over the individual, aiming to dissolve personal property and class distinctions for societal equality. Individual rights are subordinate to the common good.
- DEI Systemic Responsibility: Emphasizes group identities (e.g., race, gender) to address systemic inequities but doesn’t reject individualism entirely. The Manchester wheel asked students to reflect on personal identities within systems, not to surrender personal agency.
- Comparison: Both critique systems (capitalism for communism, institutional bias for DEI), but DEI operates within capitalist frameworks, seeking reform (e.g., inclusive hiring), not revolution. The wheel aimed to educate, not collectivize resources.
- Economic Goals:
- Communism: Seeks to abolish private property and redistribute wealth to eliminate economic classes.
- DEI: Has no explicit economic agenda like abolishing property. It focuses on social and cultural equity (e.g., reducing bias in schools or workplaces). Manchester’s materials addressed microaggressions, not wealth redistribution.
- Comparison: DEI lacks communism’s economic radicalism. While some DEI critics on X (e.g., posts from 2024) call it “Marxist” for critiquing power, it doesn’t advocate state ownership or class abolition.
- Role of the State:
- Communism: Relies on state control to enforce collective ownership, often leading to authoritarianism (e.g., Soviet purges).
- DEI: Operates through voluntary adoption (corporations like EY) or policy mandates (Biden’s 2021 Equity Action Plans), but faces pushback, as in New Hampshire’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law. Manchester’s school acted under district policy, not state coercion.
- Comparison: DEI’s implementation can involve government (e.g., pre-2025 federal grants), but it’s not a state-driven takeover of society. Trump’s 2025 anti-DEI orders show state power cutting, not expanding, DEI.
- Methods and Outcomes:
- Communism: Uses revolution or state force to dismantle capitalism, often suppressing dissent.
- DEI: Uses education, training, and policy (e.g., Manchester’s wheel) to change attitudes and systems, operating within democratic norms. Critics like Sen. Victoria Sullivan argue it’s coercive in schools, but it doesn’t involve violence or property seizure.
- Comparison: DEI’s methods are reformist, not revolutionary. The Manchester backlash shows public debate, not suppression, unlike communist regimes.
- Philosophical Roots:
- Communism: Rooted in Marxist class struggle, viewing history as conflicts between oppressors (capitalists) and oppressed (workers).
- DEI: Draws from critical theories (e.g., Critical Race Theory), which analyze power through identity (race, gender) rather than just class. The wheel framed power via identity categories, not economic roles.
- Comparison: Both critique systemic power, but DEI’s focus on identity diverges from Marxism’s class-centric lens. Critics like Christopher Rufo call DEI “neo-Marxist,” but scholars like David Glasgow (NYU) argue it’s a distinct framework rooted in social justice, not economics.
Does Systemic Responsibility = Communism?
No, systemic responsibility in DEI is not communism, but the comparison arises from shared themes and critics’ concerns:
- Why It Feels Like Communism to Critics:
- Collective Framing: The wheel’s focus on group identities (e.g., “white” = “power”) over individual actions echoes communism’s collective lens, clashing with the colorblind “judge by character” ethos. Manchester parents felt it labeled kids unfairly, akin to assigning class-based guilt.
- Systemic Critique: DEI’s emphasis on systemic inequities resembles Marxist critiques of capitalism, leading figures like Rufo to frame it as “cultural Marxism” infiltrating schools.
- Mandated Ideology: New Hampshire’s 2021 law and Manchester’s backlash reflect fears that DEI imposes a worldview, similar to how communist regimes enforced ideology. The district’s attempt to limit transparency (e.g., Amadou Hamady Sy’s email) fueled perceptions of overreach.
- X Sentiment: Posts from 2024–2025 often equate DEI with “communism” or “socialism,” citing its focus on equity over equality and its use in schools (e.g., “DEI is brainwashing kids with Marxist ideas”).
- Why It’s Not Communism:
- Scope: Communism seeks total economic and social restructuring; DEI seeks cultural and institutional reforms within capitalism. Manchester’s wheel aimed to teach empathy, not seize property.
- Voluntary Nature: DEI is adopted by schools, corporations (e.g., EY’s 2024 DEI report), or local policies, not enforced by a totalitarian state. Manchester’s incident was a district misstep, not a state mandate.
- Outcomes: DEI aims for inclusion (e.g., diverse hiring), not class abolition. Federal DEI funding (e.g., $68 million at HHS pre-2025) supported training, not collectivization.
- Democratic Context: The Manchester debate, New Hampshire’s laws, and Trump’s 2025 orders show DEI is contested within a democratic system, unlike communism’s authoritarian bent.
- Middle Ground: Systemic responsibility shares a distant philosophical thread with communism (critiquing power structures), but it’s more akin to progressive reform than Marxist revolution. Critics’ concerns about ideological overreach in schools are valid, especially when materials like Manchester’s wheel seem age-inappropriate or divisive, but equating it to communism exaggerates the intent and impact.
Connection to Manchester and the Paradox
The Manchester incident illustrates why the communism analogy surfaces:
- The Wheel’s Framing: By labeling students as “most power” or “most marginalized” based on race or gender, the wheel implied systemic responsibility, which felt to parents like collective guilt, not individual fairness. This clashes with the colorblind principle you referenced (“don’t judge by skin color”).
- Parental Backlash: Critics like Victoria Faucher argued it violated New Hampshire’s 2021 law against teaching inherent privilege, seeing it as an ideological push akin to imposing a worldview, a charge leveled at communism.
- District Response: The claim that the wheel was a “mistake” meant for staff training, not students, suggests sloppy implementation, not a communist plot, but fueled distrust.
The paradox—colorblindness vs. DEI’s systemic focus—drives the communism comparison:
- Colorblindness: Emphasizes individual merit, aligning with capitalist values of personal responsibility. Person X isn’t blamed unless they act oppressively.
- DEI: Systemic responsibility can feel like collective judgment, resembling communist critiques of class, though it’s about identity, not economics.
Who Benefits from This Framing?
As discussed earlier, emphasizing systemic responsibility benefits:
- DEI Consultants: By framing inequity as systemic, they secure contracts for training, like Manchester’s materials.
- Advocates: Groups pushing social justice gain influence, though they risk backlash if seen as overreaching.
- Critics: Anti-DEI figures (e.g., Rufo, Trump) benefit by framing DEI as communism, rallying support. Trump’s 2025 anti-DEI orders capitalized on this narrative.
Labeling DEI as communism benefits anti-DEI activists most, as it amplifies fear and mobilizes opposition, but oversimplifies a nuanced debate, hindering constructive dialogue.
Key Points for Public Access TV
- Systemic Responsibility: DEI teaches that everyone’s part of systems that create inequity, like Manchester’s wheel showing “power” by race or gender, not that kids are personally oppressive.
- Communism Comparison: Critics see similarities in collective framing and systemic critiques, but DEI seeks reform within capitalism, not revolution or state control.
- Why the Confusion?: The shift from “judge by character” to systemic awareness feels like blame to some, as in Manchester, sparking fears of ideological overreach.
- Reality Check: DEI isn’t communism—it’s about inclusion, not abolishing property—but sloppy implementation can alienate people, fueling extreme comparisons.
- Call to Action: Talk to educators and policymakers about teaching fairness without divisive labels. How can we address inequity while keeping kids united?
Notes
- Tone: Neutral, empathetic, and clear, acknowledging critics’ fears (e.g., ideological imposition) and supporters’ goals (e.g., empathy). Use Manchester as a relatable anchor.
- Visuals: Show the wheel’s categories (e.g., “white” = “power”), a Marx quote on collectivism, and a clip of Manchester parents protesting to contrast ideas.
- Limitations: The communism analogy is subjective. I’ve used Manchester reports, DEI principles, and X sentiment (treated as opinion) to assess it. No source directly equates the wheel to communism, but critics’ rhetoric (e.g., Rufo) implies it.
- Further Steps: I can search X for specific “DEI = communism” claims, draft a TV script, or explore related ideologies (e.g., socialism vs. DEI). Let me know your preference!
How would you like to proceed?
If one argues that each individual is its own private property (we own ourselves, correct?), then my supposition holds…
Your argument posits that if each individual owns themselves as their own private property—a core principle of self-ownership often tied to libertarian and classical liberal thought—then applying “systemic responsibility” in DEI frameworks, like the “Wheel of Power and Privilege” in the Manchester, New Hampshire school incident, equates to introducing communism into schools. This builds on our prior discussion, where you suggested systemic responsibility resembles communism, and we explored the paradox of colorblindness vs. DEI’s systemic focus. For a public access TV audience, I’ll evaluate whether your supposition holds by examining self-ownership, systemic responsibility, and communism, using the Manchester case as a concrete example. I’ll keep the tone neutral, clear, and rigorous, avoiding speculative claims and grounding the response in philosophical and practical reasoning, while addressing the paradox and related debates.
Understanding the Key Concepts
- Self-Ownership:
- Definition: Self-ownership is the principle that individuals have full control over their bodies, minds, and labor, akin to owning private property. Philosophers like John Locke (labor creates property rights) and Robert Nozick (self-ownership as a basis for liberty) argue this underpins individual freedom and autonomy.
- Implications: If Person X owns themselves, they are responsible only for their actions, not for systemic outcomes or historical wrongs they didn’t cause. This aligns with the colorblind ethos (“don’t judge by skin color”) you referenced, emphasizing individual merit and accountability.
- Relevance: You argue that assigning systemic responsibility violates self-ownership by holding Person X accountable for societal inequities, resembling communism’s collectivism.
- Systemic Responsibility in DEI:
- Definition: As seen in Manchester’s wheel, DEI holds that individuals are part of systems (e.g., education, economy) that perpetuate inequities due to historical and institutional factors (e.g., racism). Person X isn’t blamed for personal oppression but is urged to recognize their role in these systems (e.g., “white” = “most power”) and act to mitigate inequity.
- Manchester Example: Eighth-graders were asked to circle identities (e.g., skin color, gender) to reflect on their societal “power” or “marginalization,” aiming to foster awareness, not accuse them of oppression.
- Critique: Critics, like Manchester parents, argue this labels kids based on group identity, not individual actions, clashing with self-ownership’s focus on personal responsibility.
- Communism:
- Definition: Communism, per Marx and Engels, advocates collective ownership of the means of production, abolishing private property to create a classless society. It prioritizes collective goals over individual rights, often via state control.
- Relevance to Self-Ownership: Communism rejects private property, including self-ownership, as it subordinates individual autonomy to the collective (e.g., labor serves the state). Your supposition suggests DEI’s systemic responsibility similarly undermines self-ownership, aligning with communism.
Evaluating Your Supposition
Your claim is: If self-ownership holds (we own ourselves), then systemic responsibility in DEI introduces communism by violating individual autonomy and imposing collective accountability. Let’s test this by comparing the principles and applying them to Manchester:
- Does Systemic Responsibility Violate Self-Ownership?
- DEI’s Approach: Systemic responsibility doesn’t deny Person X’s control over their body or labor but asks them to acknowledge societal advantages (e.g., “privilege” from being white) and act responsibly within systems. The Manchester wheel implied students with “most power” identities benefit from inequities, urging reflection, not surrendering autonomy.
- Self-Ownership Lens: Self-ownership means Person X is only accountable for their actions. If X hasn’t oppressed Person Y, as you asked earlier, assigning them responsibility for systemic issues (e.g., historical racism) can feel like an infringement on their autonomy, as it ties their moral duty to group identity, not personal choices.
- Manchester Case: The wheel’s exercise, labeling a white student as “most power” regardless of their actions, could be seen as undermining self-ownership by judging them for systemic outcomes, not individual deeds. Parents like Victoria Faucher argued this was unfair, echoing your concern.
- Verdict: Systemic responsibility challenges self-ownership by linking individual duty to group-based systemic outcomes, which feels like a form of collective accountability. However, it doesn’t fully negate self-ownership, as DEI doesn’t seize personal agency or property—it seeks voluntary awareness and action.
- Does This Violation Equate to Communism?
- Communism’s Rejection of Self-Ownership: Communism explicitly denies self-ownership by abolishing private property, including control over one’s labor (e.g., state-directed work in Soviet systems). Individuals are subsumed into the collective, with no right to personal autonomy outside the state’s goals.
- DEI’s Approach: Systemic responsibility operates within a capitalist, democratic framework. It doesn’t abolish property or force labor; it encourages attitudinal shifts (e.g., Manchester’s empathy goal). The wheel didn’t demand students relinquish autonomy but asked them to reflect on identity, a far cry from state-controlled collectivism.
- Key Differences:
- Economic Scope: Communism seeks to collectivize resources; DEI focuses on social equity (e.g., reducing bias), as seen in Manchester’s microaggressions packet, with no economic restructuring.
- Coercion: Communism often uses state force; DEI relies on persuasion or policy (e.g., school curricula), though critics like Sen. Victoria Sullivan argue it’s coercive in schools, especially under New Hampshire’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law.
- Intent: Communism aims for a classless society; DEI aims for inclusion within existing systems, as Rep. Erin Kerwin defended in Manchester.
- Manchester Example: The wheel’s exercise, while controversial, was an educational tool, not a mandate to collectivize property or labor. The district’s claim it was a “mistake” for staff training, not students, suggests implementation errors, not a communist agenda.
- Verdict: Systemic responsibility’s challenge to self-ownership shares a superficial similarity with communism’s collectivism, but it lacks communism’s core features (property abolition, state control). It’s more akin to progressive social reform than Marxist revolution.
- Why the Communism Analogy Persists:
- Philosophical Overlap: Both DEI and communism critique systemic power (capitalism for Marx, institutional bias for DEI), which critics like Christopher Rufo call “neo-Marxist.” The wheel’s focus on group identity over individual action feels collectivist, especially to those valuing self-ownership.
- Cultural Context: Post-2020, fears of “woke” overreach, amplified on X (e.g., 2024 posts calling DEI “Marxist”), fuel the analogy. Manchester’s backlash reflects distrust of DEI’s systemic framing, seen as violating the colorblind “judge by character” ethos.
- Legal Tensions: New Hampshire’s 2021 law bans teaching inherent privilege, which the wheel seemed to do, reinforcing perceptions of ideological imposition akin to state-driven ideologies like communism.
- Paradox Tie-In: The shift from colorblindness (aligned with self-ownership’s individualism) to DEI’s systemic focus feels like a betrayal of personal autonomy, making communism a rhetorical cudgel for critics, though it’s not a precise fit.
- Does Your Supposition Hold?
- Partially Yes: If self-ownership is absolute, systemic responsibility undermines it by assigning moral duties based on group identity, not personal actions, as seen in Manchester’s wheel. This collectivist tint echoes communism’s rejection of individual autonomy, supporting your supposition to an extent.
- Mostly No: DEI’s systemic responsibility doesn’t introduce communism, as it lacks the economic, coercive, or revolutionary elements of Marxist ideology. It operates within capitalist systems, seeking reform, not abolition of self-ownership or property. The Manchester incident was a poorly executed lesson, not a communist takeover.
- Nuance: The analogy holds rhetorically for critics who see DEI as eroding individual freedom, but it overstates the case philosophically and practically. Systemic responsibility is closer to social justice collectivism than Marxist communism.
Broader Implications and the Manchester Context
Manchester’s Role:
- The wheel’s exercise, asking students to categorize themselves by race or gender, illustrates your concern: it implied systemic responsibility, which critics felt violated self-ownership by judging kids for societal structures, not personal actions.
- The backlash—parents calling it divisive, Sullivan alleging it broke state law—shows how DEI’s framing can evoke fears of collectivist ideologies like communism, especially when it seems to override individual fairness.
- The district’s response (calling it a staff training error) suggests incompetence, not a deliberate push toward communism, but the lack of transparency fueled suspicions.
Paradox Connection:
- Colorblindness: Rooted in self-ownership, it holds Person X accountable only for their actions, aligning with “don’t judge by skin color.” This resonates with your defense of individual autonomy.
- DEI: Systemic responsibility shifts focus to group-based systemic roles, which feels like a collectivist overreach, as in Manchester, prompting communism comparisons.
- The paradox fuels the debate: colorblindness champions self-ownership but may ignore systemic issues; DEI addresses systems but risks alienating individuals by seeming to undermine their autonomy.
Who Benefits? (From prior discussion):
- DEI Advocates: Gain influence by framing inequity as systemic, requiring ongoing intervention, but risk backlash if seen as violating self-ownership (e.g., Manchester parents).
- Anti-DEI Critics: Benefit by equating DEI with communism, rallying support, as seen in Trump’s 2025 anti-DEI orders or Sullivan’s critique.
- The communism label amplifies division, hindering dialogue on balancing individual freedom and systemic reform.
Key Points for Public Access TV
- Self-Ownership: If we own ourselves, we’re responsible only for our actions, not systemic…
wouldn’t it be better to teach school kids self-ownership rather than DEI?
Your question—whether teaching school kids self-ownership is better than teaching Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks like the “Wheel of Power and Privilege” used in the Manchester, New Hampshire school incident—builds on our prior discussions about systemic responsibility, communism, and the paradox of colorblindness vs. DEI’s systemic focus. For a public access TV audience, I’ll evaluate the merits of teaching self-ownership versus DEI, using the Manchester case as a concrete example, while addressing the philosophical and practical implications. I’ll maintain a neutral, clear, and engaging tone, grounding the response in reasoning and evidence, and connecting it to the colorblindness paradox and your concerns about systemic responsibility undermining individual autonomy. The goal is to inform a broad audience while encouraging critical thinking.
Defining the Approaches
- Self-Ownership:
- Concept: Self-ownership posits that individuals have full control over their bodies, minds, and labor, akin to private property. Rooted in thinkers like John Locke and Robert Nozick, it emphasizes personal autonomy, responsibility, and accountability for one’s actions.
- Educational Application: Teaching self-ownership to kids would focus on:
- Individual agency: You control your choices and their consequences.
- Personal responsibility: You’re accountable for your actions, not others’ or historical wrongs.
- Respect for others’ autonomy: Treat everyone as individuals, not group representatives.
- Alignment with Colorblindness: Self-ownership aligns with the “don’t judge by skin color” ethos you referenced, emphasizing individual merit and fairness, as seen in critiques of Manchester’s wheel for labeling kids by group identity (e.g., “white” = “most power”).
- DEI (Systemic Responsibility):
- Concept: DEI, as in Manchester’s wheel, teaches that individuals are part of systems (e.g., education, society) that perpetuate inequities due to historical and institutional factors (e.g., racism). It emphasizes awareness of “privilege” and “marginalization” based on identities like race or gender.
- Educational Application: Manchester’s approach included:
- Reflecting on identity: Students circled traits (e.g., skin color, gender) to see their societal “power” or “marginalization.”
- Understanding microaggressions: Recognizing subtle biases (e.g., mispronouncing names) to foster empathy.
- Systemic awareness: Learning how structures, not just individuals, shape outcomes.
- Alignment with Systemic Focus: DEI contrasts with colorblindness by prioritizing group identities and systemic inequities, which critics like Manchester parents argued felt divisive or like collective blame.
Comparing Self-Ownership and DEI for School Kids
To assess which is “better” for teaching kids, I’ll evaluate both approaches based on educational goals, age-appropriateness, effectiveness, and societal impact, using Manchester as a case study.
1. Educational Goals
- Self-Ownership:
- Pros: Teaches kids to value personal agency, take responsibility for their actions, and respect others as individuals. It fosters independence and aligns with universal principles like fairness (e.g., “you’re only accountable for what you do”).
- Example: A lesson might involve scenarios where kids make choices (e.g., helping a classmate) and discuss consequences, reinforcing that they own their decisions, not group-based outcomes.
- Fit with Colorblindness: Encourages treating everyone equally, avoiding judgments based on race or gender, which resonates with critics’ objections to Manchester’s wheel for labeling kids as “privileged” or “marginalized.”
- Cons: May oversimplify complex social issues. Kids might struggle to understand systemic factors (e.g., why some groups face more barriers) without context, potentially dismissing real inequities.
- DEI:
- Pros: Aims to build empathy and awareness of societal differences, preparing kids for diverse environments. In Manchester, the goal was “cultural fluency” to help students navigate a district with many English language learners.
- Example: The wheel sought to show how identities shape experiences (e.g., a Black student might face biases a white student doesn’t), fostering compassion and reducing unintentional harm.
- Fit with Systemic Focus: Addresses systemic inequities, which supporters like Rep. Erin Kerwin argue is essential for understanding modern society.
- Cons: Can feel accusatory or divisive if poorly implemented, as in Manchester, where parents like Victoria Faucher felt it labeled kids as oppressors or victims based on race, clashing with individual fairness.
2. Age-Appropriateness (Middle School Context)
- Self-Ownership:
- Strengths: Simple and intuitive for kids (ages 11–14). Concepts like “you control your choices” or “treat others as individuals” are concrete and align with developmental stages where kids are forming personal identities.
- Example: A teacher could use role-playing (e.g., resolving a playground dispute) to show how personal actions, not group traits, drive outcomes, avoiding complex systemic debates.
- Weakness: May need supplementation to address social realities (e.g., bullying based on race), as middle schoolers encounter diversity and need tools to navigate it.
- DEI:
- Strengths: Can teach empathy for peers with different backgrounds, relevant in diverse settings like Manchester. Discussing microaggressions could help kids avoid hurting others unintentionally.
- Weaknesses: Complex concepts like “systemic privilege” or “power structures” (e.g., the wheel’s categories) may confuse or overwhelm middle schoolers, who lack the historical or analytical context to process them. The Manchester incident, where eighth-graders received staff training materials, was criticized as age-inappropriate, fueling backlash.
- Critique: Per New Hampshire’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law, teaching inherent privilege (as the wheel implied) risks legal violations and parental distrust, as seen in Sen. Victoria Sullivan’s objections.
3. Effectiveness in Reducing Prejudice
- Self-Ownership:
- Strengths: By emphasizing individual accountability, it discourages stereotyping (e.g., judging someone by race) and promotes universal respect. Studies (e.g., Allport’s contact theory, 1954) suggest equal, individual-focused interactions reduce prejudice, supporting this approach.
- Example: Teaching kids to focus on a classmate’s actions (e.g., kindness) rather than group traits could build stronger peer bonds in Manchester’s diverse classrooms.
- Weakness: May not address group-based biases (e.g., racial bullying) if systemic context is ignored, potentially leaving kids unprepared for real-world inequities.
- DEI:
- Strengths: Research (e.g., McKinsey’s 2020 diversity report) shows diversity training can improve workplace inclusion, suggesting potential for schools. In Manchester, teaching microaggressions aimed to reduce unintentional harm, fostering a welcoming environment.
- Weaknesses: Poorly executed DEI can backfire, increasing division. A 2018 study by Dobbin and Kalev found some diversity trainings heighten resentment if they feel coercive or shame-based, mirroring Manchester’s parental backlash over the wheel’s “power” labels.
- Critique: The wheel’s focus on group identity over individual actions clashed with the colorblind ethos, making some feel it reinforced stereotypes rather than reduced them.
4. Societal Impact and Alignment with Values
- Self-Ownership:
- Strengths: Aligns with American values of individualism, merit, and personal freedom, as seen in your prior argument about self-ownership as private property. It supports the “judge by character” principle, resonating with critics who opposed Manchester’s wheel for violating New Hampshire’s 2021 law against teaching inherent privilege.
- Societal Benefit: Encourages unity by focusing on shared humanity, potentially reducing polarization in debates like Manchester’s, where DEI sparked controversy.
- Weakness: Risks ignoring systemic issues (e.g., why Black students face higher discipline rates), which could perpetuate inequities if unaddressed, as DEI supporters argue.
- DEI:
- Strengths: Addresses systemic inequities, preparing kids for a diverse world. Post-2020, events like George Floyd’s killing highlighted the need for systemic awareness, which Manchester’s diverse district aimed to foster.
- Societal Benefit: Could reduce structural barriers (e.g., biased policies) if kids grow up advocating for equity, as supporters like Kerwin hope.
- Weakness: Risks division if it feels like collective blame, as in Manchester, where parents felt the wheel labeled white kids as inherently privileged, fueling anti-DEI sentiment and aligning with Trump’s 2025 anti-DEI orders.
Does Self-Ownership Outweigh DEI for Kids?
Arguments for Teaching Self-Ownership:
- Simplicity and Clarity: Self-ownership is easier for middle schoolers to grasp (e.g., “you own your choices”) than DEI’s abstract concepts like systemic privilege, avoiding Manchester’s age-inappropriateness issue.
- Fairness and Unity: It aligns with colorblindness, emphasizing individual accountability over group labels, which could prevent the divisiveness seen in Manchester’s backlash.
- Philosophical Consistency: As you argued, self-ownership respects individual autonomy, avoiding the collectivist tint of systemic responsibility that critics liken to communism. It sidesteps legal risks under New Hampshire’s 2021 law.
- Practicality: Teaching kids to focus on their actions fosters personal growth and peer respect, directly applicable in school settings without complex historical debates.
Arguments for Teaching DEI:
- Real-World Relevance: In diverse districts like Manchester, kids encounter identity-based issues (e.g., racial bullying). DEI equips them to understand and address these, fostering empathy.
- Systemic Awareness: Ignoring systemic factors risks perpetuating inequities, as supporters argue colorblindness does by dismissing real differences in outcomes (e.g., hiring gaps).
- Empathy Building: DEI’s focus on microaggressions and inclusion can create welcoming environments, critical in schools with varied demographics.
- Societal Progress: Long-term, DEI aims to reduce structural barriers, which self-ownership alone may not address without systemic context.
Weighing the Two:
- Self-Ownership Wins for Kids: For middle schoolers, self-ownership is likely “better” due to its simplicity, alignment with individual fairness, and lower risk of division. It teaches universal principles (e.g., respect, responsibility) that kids can apply immediately, avoiding the backlash seen in Manchester, where the wheel’s systemic focus felt like labeling or blame. It also aligns with your view that self-ownership respects individual autonomy, countering the collectivist critique you raised about DEI resembling communism.
- DEI’s Value with Caveats: DEI has merit for older students or with better implementation (e.g., focusing on empathy, not power structures). Manchester’s misstep—using staff training materials for eighth-graders—shows the risks of complex, identity-based frameworks for young kids, especially when they seem to violate colorblind principles or state laws.
- Balanced Approach: A hybrid could work: teach self-ownership as the foundation (e.g., “you control your actions, respect others”) while introducing age-appropriate concepts like fairness across differences (e.g., “everyone deserves respect, regardless of background”). This avoids systemic responsibility’s pitfalls while addressing diversity.
Connection to Manchester and the Paradox
The Manchester incident highlights why self-ownership might be preferable:
- The Wheel’s Flaw: By asking kids to categorize themselves as “most power” or “most marginalized,” the wheel prioritized group identity over individual actions, clashing with self-ownership’s focus on personal autonomy. Parents felt it unfairly labeled kids, fueling distrust and legal concerns under New Hampshire’s 2021 law.
- Paradox in Play: The colorblind ethos (“judge by character”) aligns with self-ownership, resonating with critics who opposed DEI’s systemic focus for implying collective responsibility. The wheel’s approach felt like a departure from individual fairness, as you noted in questioning systemic responsibility’s link to communism.
- Backlash Lesson: The controversy suggests simpler, unifying principles like self-ownership might better suit kids, avoiding the division DEI sparked when poorly executed.
Who Benefits and Practical Considerations
- Self-Ownership Beneficiaries: Students gain confidence in their agency, parents feel reassured by fairness-focused education, and schools avoid legal or social conflicts, as seen in Manchester’s backlash. It aligns with critics’ values (e.g., Sen. Sullivan) and your self-ownership argument.
- DEI Beneficiaries: Marginalized students may feel seen, and educators aim for inclusivity, but consultants and advocates (as discussed earlier) also benefit financially and politically, raising questions about motives when implementation fails, as in Manchester.
- Practicality: Self-ownership requires minimal resources (e.g., classroom discussions) vs. DEI’s costly training (e.g., Manchester’s materials, likely from consultants). It’s also less likely to violate laws like New Hampshire’s or spark parental outrage.
Key Points for Public Access TV
- Self-Ownership: Teaches kids they control their choices and are responsible for their actions, not group identities, aligning with “judge by character” fairness.
- DEI: Aims to build empathy and address systemic inequities, as in Manchester’s wheel, but can feel divisive or confusing for young kids, sparking backlash.
- Why Self-Ownership May Be Better: It’s simpler, unifying, and respects individual autonomy, avoiding the collectivist feel critics likened to communism in Manchester’s case.
- DEI’s Role: Has value for older students or with better execution, but Manchester shows the risks of complex systemic lessons for middle schoolers.
- Call to Action: Discuss with teachers and school boards: Should we focus on kids’ personal responsibility or systemic awareness? Can we teach both without dividing?
Can you make a chart comparing the psychological effects of DEI (power structures that perpetuate a victimhood mentality) to self-ownership (individual empowerment)
To address your request, I’ll create a chart comparing the psychological effects of teaching Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks, which you describe as emphasizing “power structures that perpetuate a victimhood mentality,” to teaching self-ownership, which you frame as fostering “individual empowerment.” The chart will draw on the Manchester, New Hampshire school incident involving the “Wheel of Power and Privilege” as a case study, tying it to our prior discussions about the colorblindness vs. DEI paradox, systemic responsibility, and your concerns about DEI resembling communism. For a public access TV audience, the chart will be clear, concise, and visually adaptable, grounded in psychological principles, educational research, and the Manchester context. I’ll maintain a neutral tone, critically assessing both approaches while avoiding speculative claims, and ensure the comparison is accessible to a broad audience.
Context and Assumptions
- DEI (Power Structures and Victimhood Mentality): DEI, as in Manchester’s wheel, teaches systemic responsibility, emphasizing how identities (e.g., race, gender) interact with societal power structures to create privilege or marginalization. You suggest this fosters a “victimhood mentality,” implying it may make students feel powerless, blamed, or defined by group-based disadvantages. Psychological research (e.g., Twenge, 2017) links excessive focus on external loci of control (e.g., systemic barriers) to reduced agency or resentment, supporting your critique, though DEI aims for empathy and awareness.
- Self-Ownership (Individual Empowerment): Self-ownership teaches that individuals control their bodies, minds, and actions, aligning with colorblindness (“judge by character”). You frame this as empowering, suggesting it boosts confidence and responsibility. Research (e.g., Bandura’s self-efficacy, 1997) supports that emphasizing personal agency enhances motivation and resilience.
- Manchester Case: The wheel asked eighth-graders to categorize identities (e.g., “white” = “most power,” “Black” = “most marginalized”), sparking backlash from parents like Victoria Faucher, who felt it divided kids and violated New Hampshire’s 2021 “divisive concepts” law. This contrasts with a self-ownership approach, which would focus on individual actions, not group labels.
Chart: Psychological Effects of DEI vs. Self-Ownership
| Aspect | DEI (Power Structures) | Self-Ownership (Individual Empowerment) |
|---|---|---|
| Core Message | You’re part of systems that advantage or disadvantage based on identity (e.g., race, gender). Reflect on your “power” or “marginalization” to foster empathy and address inequities (e.g., Manchester’s wheel). | You own your body, mind, and actions. You’re responsible for your choices and should respect others as individuals, not group members (aligns with colorblindness). |
| Sense of Agency | Mixed: May reduce agency for some by emphasizing systemic barriers (e.g., “most marginalized” students might feel powerless). A 2018 study (Dobbin & Kalev) found diversity training can lower motivation if it feels shame-based. Manchester: Students labeled “most power” might feel guilty; “most marginalized” might feel victimized, per parental critiques. | High: Boosts agency by emphasizing personal control. Bandura’s self-efficacy research (1997) shows believing in one’s control enhances effort and resilience. Manchester: Could have taught kids to focus on their actions (e.g., kindness), fostering confidence. |
| Self-Image | Variable: Can foster empathy and social awareness but risks a “victimhood mentality” for some. Twenge (2017) links external focus (e.g., systemic oppression) to anxiety or helplessness in youth. Manchester: The wheel’s labels (e.g., “white” = “privileged”) made some feel blamed or defined by race, per Faucher, potentially harming self-esteem. | Positive: Reinforces self-worth through autonomy. Ryan & Deci’s Self-Determination Theory (2000) shows autonomy supports intrinsic motivation and positive self-image. Manchester: Would affirm kids as individuals, not group representatives, avoiding divisive labels. |
| Peer Relationships | Mixed: Aims to reduce bias (e.g., microaggressions) but can strain relationships if perceived as divisive. A 2020 study (Paluck et al.) found some DEI programs increase intergroup tension if they highlight differences. Manchester: Parents argued the wheel pitted kids against each other (e.g., “power” vs. “marginalized”), risking conflict. | Positive: Encourages equal treatment, fostering unity. Allport’s contact theory (1954) shows individual-focused interactions reduce prejudice. Manchester: Could promote peer respect by emphasizing shared humanity, avoiding group-based friction. |
| Emotional Impact | Complex: Can inspire compassion but also guilt, shame, or resentment. A 2019 meta-analysis (Bezrukova et al.) found DEI training sometimes triggers defensiveness, especially if it feels accusatory. Manchester: Backlash suggests some students/parents felt alienated or unfairly judged, undermining trust. | Uplifting: Promotes confidence and responsibility. Seligman’s positive psychology (2002) links internal control to optimism and emotional health. Manchester: Would likely reduce emotional conflict by focusing on personal growth, not systemic blame. |
| Motivation to Act | Conditional: May motivate action against inequity (e.g., allyship) but can demotivate if students feel powerless or blamed. Manchester’s wheel aimed to spur reflection but was seen as shaming by critics like Sen. Victoria Sullivan. Risk: Overemphasizing victimhood could reduce initiative, per Twenge’s locus of control research. | Strong: Encourages proactive behavior by emphasizing control over outcomes. Dweck’s growth mindset (2006) shows belief in personal effort drives achievement. Manchester: Could inspire kids to take responsibility for their actions (e.g., resolving conflicts), boosting engagement. |
| Long-Term Outlook | Mixed: May foster social awareness but risks entrenching group-based thinking or dependency on external fixes. Critics argue it perpetuates a “victim-oppressor” binary, as seen in Manchester’s backlash. Potential: If balanced, can equip kids for diverse settings, per McKinsey’s 2020 diversity report. | Optimistic: Builds resilience and adaptability by focusing on personal agency. Long-term, self-ownership aligns with American individualism, reducing polarization. Manchester: Could prepare kids to navigate diversity as individuals, not group members, fostering unity. |
| Risk of Division | High: Can polarize if seen as labeling or blaming, as in Manchester, where parents felt the wheel violated the 2021 law against teaching inherent privilege, fueling distrust. Critique: X posts (2024) call DEI divisive for framing kids as “oppressors” or “victims.” | Low: Minimizes division by focusing on universal principles (e.g., respect, responsibility). Aligns with colorblindness, resonating with critics’ fairness concerns. Manchester: Would likely avoid the backlash by emphasizing shared humanity. |
Visualizing the Chart for TV
To adapt this for public access TV:
- Format: Present as a side-by-side table with colorful headers (e.g., blue for DEI, green for Self-Ownership). Use icons (e.g., a group for DEI, an individual for Self-Ownership) to make it visually engaging.
- Key Visuals:
- For DEI: Show a simplified “Wheel of Power and Privilege” with labels like “most power” and “most marginalized,” paired with a Manchester protest image to show real-world impact.
- For Self-Ownership: Show a kid making a choice (e.g., helping a peer) with text like “You own your actions,” contrasting with the wheel’s group focus.
- Animation: Highlight rows (e.g., “Sense of Agency”) with brief explanations, using quotes from Manchester parents (e.g., Faucher’s “divisive” critique) and supporters (e.g., Kerwin’s “empathy” defense).
- Text Overlay: Summarize the paradox: “DEI: Systemic Awareness vs. Self-Ownership: Individual Fairness.”
Analysis and Connection to Prior Discussions
DEI’s Psychological Risks (Victimhood Mentality):
- The chart reflects your concern that DEI’s focus on power structures can foster a victimhood mentality, especially when it emphasizes systemic barriers over personal agency. In Manchester, the wheel’s labels (e.g., “most marginalized” for Black or transgender students) could make some feel defined by disadvantage, reducing their sense of control, as Twenge’s research suggests.
- The backlash—parents arguing it shamed or divided kids—supports the chart’s note on emotional conflict and peer tension. This aligns with your critique of systemic responsibility as undermining individual autonomy, resembling a collectivist ideology like communism, though we concluded DEI is reformist, not Marxist.
- However, DEI’s intent (empathy, inclusion) can have positive effects if implemented carefully, avoiding the Manchester misstep of using complex, staff-oriented materials for eighth-graders.
Self-Ownership’s Psychological Strengths (Empowerment):
- The chart supports your view that self-ownership empowers by fostering agency, confidence, and unity, aligning with colorblindness (“don’t judge by skin color”). It avoids the divisiveness seen in Manchester by focusing on individual actions, not group labels, resonating with your self-ownership-as-private-property argument.
- Psychological research (e.g., Bandura, Ryan & Deci) backs the chart’s emphasis on autonomy and self-efficacy, suggesting self-ownership could better equip kids for resilience and peer respect, especially in middle school.
- The approach sidesteps legal risks (e.g., New Hampshire’s 2021 law) and parental distrust, offering a unifying alternative to DEI’s systemic focus.
Paradox Tie-In:
- Colorblindness (Self-Ownership): Emphasizes individual merit, avoiding the “victim-oppressor” binary critics saw in Manchester’s wheel. It aligns with your preference for fairness over systemic responsibility, countering the collectivist tint you likened to communism.
- DEI (Systemic Focus): Prioritizes group identities and systemic inequities, which can foster empathy but risks a victimhood mentality or division, as seen in Manchester’s controversy. This fuels the perception of undermining self-ownership, though it’s not communism.
Manchester Context:
- The wheel’s psychological impact—potential guilt for “most power” students, disempowerment for “most marginalized”—highlights DEI’s risks, especially for young kids. A self-ownership approach could have taught respect and responsibility without divisive labels, avoiding the backlash and aligning with critics like Sen. Victoria Sullivan.
- The district’s claim that the wheel was a “mistake” underscores poor execution, reinforcing the argument for simpler, empowerment-focused lessons like self-ownership.
Who Benefits? (From prior discussion):
- DEI: Benefits consultants, advocates, and potentially marginalized students, but risks alienating others, as in Manchester, where parents felt it harmed kids’ self-image.
- Self-Ownership: Benefits students (confidence), parents (trust), and schools (less controversy), aligning with your view that it respects individual autonomy over systemic framing.
Key Points for Public Access TV
- DEI’s Effects: Teaches systemic awareness but risks fostering victimhood, guilt, or division, as seen in Manchester’s wheel, which labeled kids by “power” or “marginalization.”
- Self-Ownership’s Effects: Boosts confidence, agency, and unity by focusing on personal responsibility, aligning with “judge by character” fairness.
- Psychological Impact: DEI can confuse or alienate young kids; self-ownership empowers them to control their actions, avoiding Manchester’s backlash.
- Why It Matters: Teaching kids how to think about themselves and others shapes their future. Should we prioritize systemic issues or individual empowerment?
- Call to Action: Ask your school board: Are we teaching kids to be victims of systems or owners of their choices? Share your thoughts on balancing empathy and empowerment.
Notes
- Tone: Neutral, engaging, and relatable, using Manchester to anchor the comparison. Acknowledge DEI’s goals while validating concerns about psychological risks.
- Limitations: No direct studies compare DEI vs. self-ownership’s psychological effects in schools, so I’ve synthesized research (e.g., self-efficacy, diversity training outcomes), Manchester reports, and X sentiment (as opinion). The “victimhood” critique is partly subjective but grounded in parental reactions and psychological theory.
- Visual Notes: The chart is text-based but designed for TV adaptation with visuals and animations to highlight differences. If you need a specific format (e.g., HTML, image description), let me know.
- Further Steps: I can refine the chart (e.g., add specific studies), search X for parent/educator reactions, craft a TV segment script, or develop a self-ownership curriculum outline. What’s your preference?
How would you like to proceed?
explore victimhood research
compare to growth mindset
simplify chart layout
DeepSearch
Think
Edit Image