Trump’s Diversity Trolling

If Donald Trump has one natural talent it’s for trolling. I take trolling to be a kind of performative speech act akin to an insult, a use of language that succeeds by provoking a response in its very utterance. A good troll manages just enough truth to demand a response while exploiting context to create an outrageously misleading impression. When done well, this provokes so much exasperation, rage, and disgust that the troll’s victims are reduced to ineffectual sputtering that seems to confirm his outlandish insinuations. Once embroiled, the victim can reverse things only with an expenditure of time and energy that exceeds the troll’s by orders of magnitude. 

Trump’s recent executive order on diversity training may be one of the last things of significance he manages as president. Without explicitly saying so, the order targets Critical Race Theory and more radical sorts of Feminist Philosophy, and everyone knows it was a political stunt driven entirely by his desperate desire to be re-elected. Predicated on anecdotal reports from a highly biased source, the order was issued without even the pretense of an independent investigation of the targeted training’s prevalence, its full content, or its actual outcomes. Taken as response to the ideas it targets, the order is as convincing as guidelines on the use of fetal tissue based on The Center for Medical Progress’ Youtube channel.

That said, it is hard not to marvel at the order as a bit of trolling. Rather than naming the schools of thought and targeting them directly, the order enumerates a series of ‘divisive concepts’ that are now forbidden to be taught as fact in training programs used by government agencies, or by businesses with which the government contracts. The list of forbidden concepts is worth quoting in full: 

  1. one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; 
  2. the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; 
  3. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; 
  4. an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; 
  5. members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; 
  6. an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; 
  7. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; 
  8. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or 
  9. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race…

The litany is designed to, and quite effectively does, put progressives on the spot and makes an effective response very difficult. 

On their face, the ‘divisive concepts’ are just that, and they certainly look to be pernicious. Someone not well versed in the controversies surrounding things like CRT, to use it as an example, might well wonder why such ideas ever would be part of ‘diversity’ training, and why we should not be happy to see such training go if they are. Are those who voted for Biden hoping he will publicly endorse the idea that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex” and reverse the order? Can Biden undo things without explaining why it is ok to for someone to be “discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex”?

The defender of CRT could try to turn the tables on Trump, and agree that the divisive concepts are pernicious and have no place in diversity training. They need only to deny that they’re endorsed by CRT in the first place. But CRT does see race as an essential analytical category that implicates the role of individuals in maintaining institutional racism according to their race. Of course its defenders will be quick to add that the generalizations it relies on do not tie different traits to supposed biological differences, and that the responsibility for racism CRT assigns to white people in general is very different from what accrues to likes of David Duke and doesn’t warrant the same kind of moral blame. But spelling all this out takes time and only an already sympathetic audience—or at least an intellectually open and curious audience—will hear a word. The troll and those he’s convinced are already long gone.

Caught in this bind, Trump’s opponents have largely responded in just the ways a troll loves—lots of righteous indignation, outlandish and inaccurate claims of their own (‘he’s outlawing CRT!’), and mischaracterizations (‘it’s just racial sensitivity training!’). A particularly interesting case is the response just released by the American Philosophical Association (and endorsed by the Middle East Studies Association and Society of Architectural Historians).

The APA statement objects to the executive order because it poses “threats to academic freedom.” This is an odd reading, as the principles of academic freedom do not apply to training programs used by government administrative offices and business contracting with the government. Aside from a single line in the order that permits teaching about CRT and the like in academic settings, the principles of academic freedom are not relevant here. What is more interesting, however, are the claims the APA seems to be committing itself to. 

In order to get some traction with the idea that academic freedom is at stake, the APA leadership is forced to assert that the ‘divisive ideas’ listed in the order reflect the “evidence-based research and teaching of highly regarded scholars.” Again, these ideas include such gems as:  “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex”, and “an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.”

The APA officers plainly do not believe there is evidence in support for the first of these claims when made by true racists. Nor, I trust (as a dues paying member), do they endorse the normative ideal of the second. Some APA members these officers represent will deny that academic freedom protects research into the question of racial differences based on underlying average genetic differences, never mind the presentation of such research as resting on solid empirical evidence and sound scholarship. And from the highest levels on down the organization is committed to fighting discrimination based on gender in the world of academic philosophy. Reassuringly, the statement refers to the divisive ideas as a “caricature” of CRT and is trusting that their audience will know how to properly unpack the claims targeted by the order and make the necessary mental adjustments.

At the same time, however, the legal force of the EO turns on the what it actually says, not on what it caricatures. That the EO is an unfair representation of CRT or currently fashionable feminist philosophy is simply beside the point. Whatever their intentions, the APA officers are now on record as opposing the proscription of the listed ideas as they are stated. The troll wins again. President-elect Biden, I fear, will walk into the same trap if he reverses the executive order on taking office.