President Donald Trump recently spoke at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, where he was asked about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The question came from ABC News correspondent Rachel Scott. Trump responded by questioning Vice President Kamala Harris’ racial background and expressed skepticism about DEI initiatives. In watching him answer the question I kept think about the man’s biography, how he was born in 1946 in Queens, New York City, which means that he have had a ringside seat to the Civil Rights Movement, and would surely have understood that at the heart of the struggle was ending de jure racial discrimination and segregation. He would also have an older view on the question of race. In many ways that’s a good thing. Scott was born in 1993, almost thirty years after Jim Crow was overthrown. Her world is DEI.
The Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 was passed, and subsequent programs like affirmative action designed to address the historical injustices and systemic discrimination faced by black Americans due to the legacy of chattel slavery and Jim Crow segregation. These laws and policies (and court decisions, as well) aimed to dismantle legalized racial segregation and discrimination, promote equality, and create opportunities for those who had been systematically marginalized. The CRA of ’64 outlawed discrimination based on race, ended segregation in public places and places of accommodation, and banned employment discrimination. Affirmative action policies followed, aiming to correct the effects of past discrimination by providing better access to education and employment opportunities for underrepresented groups, particularly black Americans. These measures were part of a broader effort to promote racial justice and equality in the United States, recognizing the profound and lasting impact of slavery and segregation on black communities.
In contrast to affirmative action program, DEI is the environment Scott is steeped in as an employee of the super-woke Disney Corporation. DEI is a broader and more holistic approach that encompasses a wider range of initiatives and practices aimed at creating a more equitable environment for all individuals, who are seen in terms of racial and other identities. DEI goes well beyond merely addressing past discrimination to fostering a culture of inclusion and belonging within organizations and society as a whole. Obviously Trump knows what DEI means, but his philosophy does not include DEI programming as a necessary part of his business. He would not have asked for a definition of DEI per se, but rather in what way would DEI explain Kamala Harris’s career path. As is frequently the case with Trump, he found a way to give the mass media soundbite to make him look like he screwed up the answer to the question. It sounds bad, I know, especially when the curator of the interaction is MSNBC; MSNBC’s editors and producers are the masters of making Trump look bad. Here’s the propaganda version of the controversy.
What actually happened? If one practices charity, you can sort it out. Trump touched the poo because they asked him to. I will explain. It’s not fair to assume that saying somebody is a DEI hire is racist (why would it be?), not clean up the assumption, then pivot to, “Will you tell your supporters to stop calling Harris a DEI hire?” That’s not a question, that’s an ask. That’s MSNBC headline. How does one “falsely question” whether somebody is black? That’s a weird way of putting it. Race is a social construct. We conjure race into existence by talking about it and performing it (see Barbara and Karen Fields’ concept of “racecraft”). If MSNBC were charitable, and striving for some semblance of objectivity, would they have reported, in an attempt to answer whether Harris was a DEI hire, clarification for which Trump sought but did not enjoy, the possibility that the President assumed the answer might depend on her ethnic and racial identity. Because it does.
Putting racial classification to one side (that’s the poo), if the ethnicity question were to be answered in any concrete way, it would require determination of ancestry. As Richard Lewontin famously noted, people confuse race for ancestry. While race is a social construct, ancestry is genetically and geographically determined (unless you’re a race realist, in which case they are the same things). A person can think anything about herself, but to whom she is born is a material fact. (Ask Rachel Dolezal.) Unlike race, which is typically associated with phenotypic characteristics, ethnicity refers to a category of people who identify with each other based on shared ancestral, cultural, historical, or social characteristics. This often includes common language, heritage, religion, and traditions. Because humans are culture bearers, they take their culture with them when they move. The culture into which they move modifies their ethnicity as they become assimilated to the new society.
Harris was born in 1964 to a mother of South Asian ancestry (Shyamala Gopalan is a Tamil Indian immigrant, naturalized in America, therefore Asian America) and a father of Afro-Caribbean ancestry (Donald Harris was descended from the white slaveowner Hamilton Brown, who was of Irish descent). Since she was born in America, and neither parent is African, she is not African American. To be African American you have to have been born in Africa, immigrate to the America, and become a naturalized citizen. (An example of a prominent African American is Elon Musk.) What is more, I understand that Harris’ mother is listed as “Caucasian” on Kamala’s birth certificate. How did this happen? Because Indians are, according to racial theory (and factor analysis of the geographic distribution of phenotypic traits suggests this conclusion), Caucasian. (So are Arabs and Persians, by the way). It was 1964, so the physical anthropological classification system was still used in many places.
As noted above, historically, discrimination in America after the CRA of ’64 (affirmative action, DEI), has been focused on addressing the situation of blacks primarily (which would include Hispanic blacks). So, Trump’s response, while obnoxious in isolation and always perilous for a white man, was really an in-artful way of trying to get clarification on what being a DEI hire means in Harris’ case, since he presumed it would depend on whether she was Indian or black, and whether she identifies as either depends on her campaign strategy. Contrary to what the corporate media are saying, there is a record of Harris using one or the other ethnic identity at different times. The question is whether Harris is black is a historical question concerning whether Harris is descended from those of African descent enslaved in the United States. I understand that the word “black” does not appear on Harris’ birth certificate.
We are almost ready to answer the question that worked as the assumption in the reporter’s confrontational ask (it was also a loaded question). Harris is not a DEI hire unless we presume that her Indian and Jamaican heritage puts her in a historically marginalized group in America. The fact that Indians and Jamaicans do very well in the United States (and in the United Kingdom) suggests they are not marginalized communities. Therefore it would follow that if Harris were a DEI hire it would be based on an assumption about her identity. Biden did say he was going to choose a black woman for Vice-President (and for the Supreme Court).
Trump’s problem is that navigating this minefield requires expertise in the areas of anthropology, natural history, and sociology that Trump doesn’t have or is even interested in having. I teach the sociology of race and ethnicity, so I know how difficult this subject can be. The best Trump could have done with the question is to say, “Others are free to say what they say. What I will say is that Republican Party believes in hiring and promoting people based on accomplishment, hard work, initiative, and talents, not on the basis of their racial or ethnic identity.” If you hear that in your head in his voice, it’s a solid response. He would then be standing on principle that he knows some in the room disagree with, but it is still principle. He also gets a message out—if the media reports it. Instead he entered the minefield with no metal detectors. And he stepped in the poo.
Trump likely will have no do-over here. The corporate state media won’t allow it. They thought they got him this time (time will tell), but the moment seems to be fading the more people see that the audience was really enjoying themselves and when the entire thing is watched, one can see how antagonistic the ABC reporter was the Trump. What Trump might have considered doing in the moment, which I suggested at the time, was apologizing—something like, “I was a tired and irritable yesterday and I provided less than an optimal answer to a question put to me, and I regret that. What I should have said was that the Republican Party believes in hiring and promoting people based on accomplishment, hard work, initiative, and talents, not on the basis of their racial or ethnic identity. In America everybody is created equal and enjoys equality under the law. If there is evidence that Harris was hired or promoted on the basis of ethnicity or race, then she is a DEI hire.” This is why he wanted the reporter to define DEI. Responding by simply identifying the terms the acronym stands for is not defining anything. But this is what she did (the clip in context):
Is this bad for Trump? Yes, mainly because the corporate state media is crucifying him for it and they control the narrative. Racial thinking lies at the heart of the tribal logic of progressivism; there is no charity to be found among journalists, editors, and producers when it comes to Trump, a rich white man. They wait to pounce on the things he says, wrench them out of context, and lay them in the worst light. This is why he should not have accept an invitation to speak at this event (there are other more charitable black audiences he can speak to) and he should probably not debate Kamala Harris, although Fox News has extended an invitation to debate on their network, which Trump has accepted. (How is that is not a losing proposition?) At the same time, as the moment fades into the past, it almost provides a sort of stress inoculation, where the average viewer just expects these Trumpism and begins to focus more on policy and who Harris really is.
We heard calls for Trump to drop out of the race. That is the last thing that should happen. Here’s why. A Kamala Harris presidency will be disastrous for America in much the same way Hillary Clinton would have been disastrous for America. I voted for Clinton in the 2008 primaries in an attempt to deprive Obama of that primary win. This was before Clinton became Secretary of State and I got to see how truly sociopathic she is. At one point during her tenure, I turned to my wife and said, you remember Stephen King’s The Dead Zone, where Johnny Smith awakens from a five-year coma with psychic abilities—he can touch objects or people and see into their past or future—and he shakes hands with Greg Stillson, an ambitious politician campaigning for a seat in the US House of Representatives, and foresees Stillson instigating a nuclear war? (She said, “No.”) Well, Clinton is the real world Stillson. While Harris brings that authoritarian vibe, she possesses nothing like Clinton’s intellect (which is surprising given that Harris’ mother was a professional scientist and father a professional economist, both with PhDs and university posts). Trump did the nation a great service in 2016 defeating Clinton. And he needs to do the same in 2024. If Trump were to drop out, Harris would win, and America would be in a world of poo. But he doesn’t look like he is. After all, he took a bullet and stood up and rallied the crowd. This dude ain’t quitting.
freedom and reason 