DEI at Amherst

The abolition of race begins not with our ability to ignore its presence but rather to imagine its absence. With this statement, I hope to soften the blow of this damning document — by damning, I express concern over how those who read this piece will interpret my character, both morally and ethically. Nevertheless, I stand both adamant and forthright in my mission to one day create a nation where our arbitrary characteristics bear significance only if we grant them such, and where such characteristics neither confer inalienable disadvantages nor advantages. With that said, let us begin.

Reflecting on DEI — diversity, equity, and inclusion — I find that it, as a tool, merely perpetuates a line of thought analogous to racism — and by racism, I merely mean the belief that there exists some set of a priori characteristics that define us before birth until death. As I understand it, DEI policies — specifically in their racial connotation — seek to create a racially diverse “coalition” so as to ensure equitable representation between all racial groups. Subsequently, such policies advance the belief, knowingly or not, that there exists some intractable difference — whether it be how one thinks, the conclusions one comes to, etc. — between I, as a Black person, and you, the reader, as perhaps a member of some other race. Yet, does this not perpetuate the very racial ideology that we seek to abolish and that we hold as the original sin of this nation in the first place?

Naturally, I imagine my detractors would urge me to consider that there are, in fact, such differences, which I alluded to earlier; however, I find this to be the weakest — if not outright most racist — argument that one may advance. There are, however, better arguments that I will address. Perhaps one might postulate that, in the absence of intractable differences, there are intractable experiences, such as racism, which differentiate us historically and presently and not biologically. I find this to be the most attractive argument one may offer, though it too falls short in defense of racial DEI. Am I to believe, truly and honestly, that I, as an individual who so happens to be “Black,” possess an inalienable understanding of the “Black experience” and that only individuals of “my” particular coalition possess the ability to understand such experiences? Perhaps, though, I’d suggest we’d still run into a biological aspect of racism. For example, if I, as a Black American, interpret what may be an instance of “racism” as not racist, and another Black American were to disagree, who would be right? Would one of us be less “Black” than the other? What does it mean to be Black? What defines it, and by proxy, what does it exclude? Can Black Americans not be racist? But I thought racism was merely a belief or intention: is it not possible for anyone to hold any set of beliefs or intentions?

If anything, it seems that racial DEI presents more questions than answers. What does it mean to represent a particular group — and I mean racially, not based on shared interests? If I disagree with said group, should I find and consider myself alien to it, as though I’m a heretic in a house of worship? Should I believe that I am somehow less Black — though, for those who know what I look like, it would be quite difficult for one to see me as not Black. Nonetheless, the thought that one individual of a particular interest group is vested both with the power and responsibility to represent the entirety of their group merely fabricates the same racial ideology — if only reversing itself — that we should, indeed, we must seek to abolish. DEI, if anything, should concern itself with a diversity of thought — something our school lacks. Though we find ourselves abound with racial diversity, our school lacks individuals who seek to be outside of themselves to pursue truth, even those truths we find ourselves uncomfortable admitting. If anything, Amherst’s only commitment is to mix together individuals of various “groups” — some who hate each other, and others who barely tolerate one another in the naive and foolish hope that such groups will learn to “love” each other — to exist in community with one another. Yet, such childish and idealistic thinking owes its origins to those who’ve yet to see the world as it is — to those who’ve yet to come into the world as it is. If Amherst wishes to make true its commitment to intellectual diversity in the pursuit of truth, then DEI must find itself concerned with individuals and their thoughts, not with their racial categorization. What we offer to this world and each other is our ability to detach ourselves from what came before in the hope that we may create something new — defining ourselves, for ourselves, and by ourselves.