You Can't Defend a Policy By Getting Angry at the Suggestion That It's Benefitted People
progressive diversity programs are caught in a hellish hall of mirrors
I’ve mentioned before that, during the 2024 election, I pitched an essay around that was a response to the accusation that Kamala Harris was a “DEI candidate.” That accusation, certainly, was ugly and unfair; the suggestion that Harris was unfit for the presidency because she was unqualified simply didn’t meet the facts. Indeed, I would argue that Harris was something of a symbol of the limits of qualifications: she had quite done well in all manner of prestigious environs, satisfied all of the meritocratic expectations of contemporary elite America, collected the degrees, passed the tests, gotten the laurels, reached for the brass rings…. And none of that changed the fact that she was a terrible candidate, a woman who had not been vetted in a national election at all, exemplified the incoherence of Democratic politics in the 2020s, and managed to combine generally business-as-usual Dem centrist policy with a radical reputation, leaving little for the base to cheer for and a lot for Republicans to attack. Many such cases.
No, I think attacking Kamal Harris’s credentials or accomplishments or qualifications was just about the stupidest way to go about it, and it’s a testament to the deep stupidity of mainline Republican analysis that this was what they went with. There’s no reason whatsoever to think that she didn’t fulfill her duties effectively as district attorney of San Francisco, attorney general of California, Senator, or Vice President; you might have disagreed with the values that were expressed in her leadership in those jobs, but that’s just politics. Likewise, her weakness stemmed from the fact that she was simply unpopular and the Democrats were unpopular and being in Congress forces you to take stances that will be controversial. The fact that Harris is something of a paragon of the bad incentives of contemporary American meritocracy is a much more interesting line of critique, though I admit it’s harder to put on a bumper sticker. And, anyway, it’s not like “DEI candidate” meant much beyond “undeserving & Black” in the vast majority of times the insult was hurled.
But, I said, let’s take the DEI accusation seriously anyway. Was it fair to suggest that Harris had been the beneficiary of diversity programs that help women and minorities in her life? I thought the answer was “probably,” given Harris’s history and the character of our elite institutions - and if so, that was an argument in favor of such programs. Getting to be the Vice President is proof that you aren’t incompetent, no matter how much conservative media wants that to be true. If Harris’s talents had been allowed to flourish thanks to a leg up earlier in life, that was evidence of diversity programs working the way they were intended to work. The whole idea of affirmative action, before Supreme Court decisions forced us to adopt the weak “being around diversity is good for you” justification, was that there are systemic impediments to the flourishing of people from minority backgrounds, and that with a little assistance they can reach their full potential. If someone like Harris received such assistance and went on to reach the height of status culture, it lends credence to that argument. And diversity programs could really use some positive examples; they’re deeply controversial, and not just opposed by Republicans or white people. The public perception of any policy or program, and thus its political defensibility, depends on visibility, on examples of the policy or program doing some good in the world.
But that’s where the pitch made its turn: progressives can’t point to examples of diversity programs working because it violates their internal culture. Holding up any individual person as a beneficiary of DEI (or affirmative action etc.) is considered offensive because it suggests that the person in question is undeserving and didn’t really secure their own accomplishments. And saying that diversity programs have worked in larger fields or industries violates the progressive norm of never admitting progress when it comes to issues of race or gender or sexual orientation. This came up awhile back with publishing - the entire publishing industry announced that it was dedicated to increasing the number of women in positions of power in the business and increasing the number of books being published by writers of color, they accomplished both goals, and yet if you acknowledge that this progress has happened, you’re called a reactionary. All of this leaves defenders of diversity programs in a very weird spot: they defend such programs in theory but react with deep rancor at the suggestion that they have helped anyone. And the point of the pitch was that this is bizarre, unsustainable, and a good example of liberalism eating itself. A little complex, a little abstruse, but a good idea for a piece and deeply relevant to the news cycle.
Well, lemme tell you! To say that the various editors I pitched the piece too were not receptive would be an understatement. They were uncomfortable with it in a way that suggested that they were afraid of blowback, more than anything. And I really think that hostility, that fear, says a lot about the underlying issues.