2 weeks Ago
Congress of Racial Equality members march from the Municipal Auditorium to Union Bethel A.M.E.
Church, S. Liberty at Thalia Sts. Dec.
14, 1961, after the Schiro administration got a court order to prevent their use of the auditorium. Martin Luther King addressed the crowd at the church. Rev.
Avery Alexander led the march. [Note: Oretha Castle-Haley or Doris Jean Castle Scott may be the woman in the front row.] (Photo by Terry Friedman, The Times-Picayune archive) Facebook Twitter WhatsApp SMS Email Print Copy article link Save A recent letter attacking diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory is so full of inaccuracies and misleading or illogical statements that it requires rebuttal.
The writer characterizes DEI programs as “anti-White discrimination.” Not so. DEI programs are designed to correct intentional or unintentional discrimination.
Diversity programs originated in business in the 1980s in response to workforce demographic changes that continue today. CRT was not its “original source.” CRT is a scholarly legal theory taught predominantly in law schools, not in K-12 education.
Until recent political attacks, few people had even heard of it. The governor's executive order banning the teaching of CRT in K-12 schools was grandstanding and a waste of paper. CRT does not say that White men should be shamed and punished, or that any living person should feel guilty for decisions of the past (e.
g., redlining, denial of GI benefits to Black veterans, discrimination in agricultural loans) in which they had no part. CRT does encourage examining how past political decisions and structures have systematically disadvantaged less powerful groups.
Women were not legally permitted to vote until 1920. That led to the underrepresentation of women in Congress and judgeships. Women could be denied credit cards in their names until 1974 and discriminated against in business loans until 1988.
Special entrepreneurship opportunities aimed at women are designed to correct that disadvantage. Men have had these opportunities all along. If 25% of people support something, it does not follow that 75% are against it.
(Many “don’t know.”) Several lawsuits challenging DEI have been thrown out for “lack of standing” or decided against the challengers. On one point I do agree with the letter writer: “No Louisiana agency should be allowed to use taxpayer funds to discriminate against its citizens.
” That is a topic for a different conversation. ROSEMARY HAYS-THOMAS New Orleans.
