All the attention in Kansas politics is rightly on Governor Kelly’s vetoes of anti-trans and anti-abortion bills, and whether the legislature will overturn those vetoes.
So this is not exactly a palate cleanser, but something of an aside from the main fight. A controversial entree, if you will. It’s a dive into HB 2460, the anti-DEI bill.
Thanks for reading Know Your Place! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
We have this bill thanks to Rep. Steven Howe, of Salina, my hometown. Whether or not it will actually pass into law (it has passed the House), I can't say at the time of this writing, but its story and the videos of the House debate can teach us a few things.
Steven Howe: Profiles in Cringe
Steven Howe represents the 71st House District in Salina. I cannot tell you how much it shames me to confess this. Steven is the guy who generated surprised praise from some liberals this year when he penned a meandering piece for the Salina Post finally saying that Joe Biden is actually our legal President.
To be slightly fair, we do have a pack of unhinged folks here who would remove their own spleens if Trump told them to, so was technically a positive shift from a Republican, but Howe's essay never actually said the words "Trump lied to you, virtually all the prominent Republicans lied to you, the party has excommunicated everyone who told you it was a lie, and Trump should never again get close to the Presidency." He just said wimpy crap like, I won't vote for him a third time, and y'all should "examine the actions of the former President, and determine whether or not you think he exemplifies the virtues and values we hold dear as Americans."
Steven worked for Jerry Moran for seven years, then, lest anyone think he was too RINO, worked for Tim Huelskamp for another six. His other professional credential listed is "businessman," specifically, that he co-owns a dance studio with his wife, but I have to believe she's the driving force there, unless he has heretofore unrecognized skills. For reasons of self-care, I suggest that any time you see him in his official capacity you picture him performing a dance routine. In full costume.
So Steven introduced HB 2460, to crack down on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion requirements at state colleges. The bill would prohibit any public college from requiring applicants for jobs or admission from making statements about DEI or any other "ideology or movement" and would require them to ignore any ideology or movement or DEI views candidates might express of their own free will when making admission or hiring (or promotion, retention, etc.) decisions.
Initially, the bill slapped public colleges with $100K in penalties for each violation and didn't give them much wiggle room to respond to complaints, but it went to the Higher Education Budget Committee (chaired by Howe) and changes were hammered out. The penalty is now $10K per incident. There's a process involving the Board of Regents investigating the grievances. Colleges have the chance to respond and time to fix things, and if the Regents see no issue, the complainant can gripe directly to the attorney general. If the complaint is without basis, there's no cost to the complainant for wasting the Regents' and the university's time, labor, and money responding to it.
Amber Dickinson lambasted Howe's vagueness about what the hell’s wrong with DEI in this piece at The Reflector in February. And here's St. Louis' Washington University professor Adia Harvey Wingfield giving some history and practical rationales why DEI is valuable—and the insidious motives for its demonization.
I should hasten to add that the trendy vice signaling on the Right is to say that DEI stands for "Didn't Earn It," i.e., people who used to be called "affirmative action hires" ascend to positions they don't deserve "on the merits," and then proceed to ruin various things on their watch—as Prof. Harvey Wingfield notes these include Silicon Valley Bank, Alaska Airlines, and the Baltimore’s Key Bridge crash.
To read this dogwhistle plainly, lazy, shifty, unqualified Blacks, Browns, queers, and suchlike don't deserve admission to universities, or faculty positions, or jobs, but they get them either because they're "in" on some orthodox DEI conspiracy or because all the more meritorious conservatives get screened out because they refuse to go along with it.
The systemic reality is pretty much the opposite. If anyone "didn't earn it," it would have to be the folks who rose to power and wealth through the illegal, immoral, violent, and often murderous suppression of others on the basis of race, sex, and creed. Or, as Twitter user @AlexaVaughn noticed:
So let's cut to the tape, shall we? We open around 32:00 when Rep. Howe begins. You don't have to listen to the whole thing, but I do encourage you to suffer through for just a little while. The man is a master of the mic, a rhetorician of renown, a silver-tongued Solon nonpareil. Give it like, 3 minutes? (Seriously, I don’t know how to edit slices only, so if you don’t hit STOP on these clips, they’ll just play on for like an hour of pure torture.)
Okay, that's enough for anybody. Please understand something: this dude has a BS in Speech Communication from K-State. I am not shitting you. And he worked for politicians, presumably doing a lot of public speaking, for 13 years. Then campaigned for and won his seat in the Kansas house.
No wonder he wants vengeance on universities. KSU, bro, you failed my man Steven big-time.
As noted by Rachel Mipro at a link above, Howe didn't write the bill he's talking about; he got it from FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an increasingly right-wing "campus free speech" outfit that selectively targets left-leaning students while ignoring right-wing threats and in fact advancing right-wing agendas thanks in part to a long list of evil right-wing funders filling their coffers.
But my thing here is that there's a good chance he didn't even write his own speech, or at least it was built around talking points he probably got from FIRE, so how hard could it have been to do a decent job reading it? What, you couldn't practice? You've been flogging this thing for two years, Steve-O. You know it's going to pass the house. There's no downside. I mean, you're the villain, but don't we deserve a non-pitiful villain?
"Instead of a merit-based approach, universities have chosen to embrace ideologies which discriminate against people that do not hear to their orthodoxy."
Steven meant to say "adhere," but ignore his illiteracy and focus on how he's slandering every state college in Kansas, since they allegedly require DEI statements and he equates this with the complete jettisoning of merit.
Here's Dickinson, the political scientist, calling Howe a liar on this very score almost a month previous:
A DEI statement is a part of the process, but Howe’s claims that these schools are not using merit-based approaches to hiring is patently false. Institutions require applicants to provide official college transcripts, data-driven teaching evaluations completed by students, letters of recommendation, teaching philosophies, research and publication records, and extensive campus visits typically spanning 2-4 days. These visits include interviews not only with search committees but with students, other faculty members in various departments, and administration. Surely entire groups of people are not working together to discriminate against whatever ideology Howe is concerned with.
Do not allow this political scare tactic to lead you to believe something nefarious is happening on our college campuses in Kansas. The idea of political indoctrination or ideological-based discrimination is a blatant attempt to discredit educators who have no real incentive or desire to indoctrinate anyone. The goal of DEI initiatives is to ensure a variety of voices are heard and valued — not to create institutional barriers to employment based on personal beliefs.
To be fair, Howe obviously doesn't read much or well, so it's probably unfair to expect him to know the lie he tells to his colleagues in the Kansas house was called out a month prior with simple facts showing it to be a lie, but no one in opposition calls attention to this either, though lying will get a bit of attention later on.
Gawkin’ at Hawkins
Let's continue.
After Howe proudly soils himself, we get to hear from the Speaker of the Kansas House himself, the Hon. Dan Hawkins, representing the 100th District out of Wichita. After fluffing Howe and the bill as an exemplar of compromise, at the 36:32 mark, he tells us that all the amendments to the original measure brought the various university presidents…
"…on board to a neutral status. None of the presidents are ever going to be supportive. They're not going to come out and say I support this. They are truly neutral in this situation and they believe we have struck a proper balance in this bill. They believe this is something that each of their universities can work with and can actually be proud of what they do."
Okay, this is gibberish. The presidents do not support the bill. They're never going to be supportive. But they are neutral on it? What does that even mean, Mr. Speaker? That they won't marshal the troops of sophomores at their command and wage war on the statehouse? Wait--they believe you've struck a proper balance? That they can work with it and be proud? Wouldn't that mean…they support it? Except they don't, so, WTF are you babbling about? Why do you even exist, Mr. Speaker? Please sit TF down.
Sorry, that bit just annoyed the hell out of me. Plus, Howe just called all the university presidents liars since they presumably told him and Hawkins that merit is very much still alive in Kansas admissions and job searches and has not been replaced by DEI, but these guys don’t care.
Woodard: Allegations of Lying, Tepid Opposition
Next up at 37:45 is Brandon Woodard, a Democrat from Johnson County's 30th District, who alleges that one of the people who gave testimony before the committee lied. Because I could not bear to watch the committee proceedings, I can't ID the person, but Rachel Mipro's article suggests Woodard may be referring to
Sarah Green, a University of Kansas student, spoke in support of the bill during the committee hearing. She said she was required to take DEI training at her student job and believed this requirement to be an infringement on her right to free speech. She cited having to use people’s preferred pronouns as one portion of the training.
“I was required to acknowledge that I need more DEI training and education and in addition to that I’m required to use inclusive language,” Green said. “This can include swapping out ladies and gentleman for folks, including people’s pronouns in my email signature, in my syllabus.”
Tempest in a teapot? It'll come back later.
Regardless, Woodard ends with the following stirring battle cry to strike down this bad bill:
"Some of us think it's unnecessary, some of you think it doesn't go far enough, and sometimes that's what you get with compromise, so I'll leave it to the will of the body."
That'll show 'em!
I know it's got to be exhausting and dispiriting to be a semi-intelligent human in the Kansas legislature, and believe me, this is going to get much, much worse, but damn, Democrats, could we isolate the actual threat being posed here and put up a goddamn fight, please? I know you're going to lose—I've lived here my entire life, and if you're not used to getting shellac'd, you must be new here—but you put up a fight because you can't do otherwise.
Conservatives Used to Say Words Mean Things
So let's lay this out. Rep. Tom Sawyer's going to do this on the floor when he gets up to speak, but FFS, we have to crack dictionaries again, because conservatives are terrible.
1: the fact of many different types of things or people being included in something; a range of different things or people: Does television adequately reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country?
2: the fact that there are many different ideas or opinions about something:
There is a wide diversity of opinion on the question of unilateral disarmament.
3: the act or practice of including students with disabilities with the general student population
Inclusion refers to a variety of integration approaches, but the goal is to blend special education students into the traditional classroom.
—Suevon Lee
—sometimes used before a noun
an inclusion classroom/school
4: the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded (as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability)
Here's how McGill University in Montreal explains all three terms, specifically in the university context:
Equity, unlike the notion of equality, is not about sameness of treatment. Equity denotes fairness and justice in process and in results. Equitable outcomes often require differential treatment and resource redistribution so as to achieve a level playing field among all individuals and communities. This requires recognizing and addressing barriers to to provide opportunity for all individuals and communities to thrive in our University environment. Several variations on the images shown below are sometimes used to illustrate the meaning and implications of equity.
Three images side by side: first, three people of different heights try to watch a baseball game through a wooden fence. Second, the two shorter people stand on boxes so they can all see the game. Third, the fence is changed to chain-link so everyone can see the game without needing to stand on boxes.
Two images side by side: first, one taller person, one shorter person, and one person in a wheelchair try to watch a baseball game through a wooden fence, with the person in the wheelchair's view completely blocked. Second, the shorter person is standing on boxes to help them see and the person on the wheelchair has a ramp to help them see.
Diversity describes the presence of difference within any collection of people. In discussions of social equity, diversity addresses differences in social group membership related, for example, to race, Indigenous identity, class, gender identity or expression, sexuality, ability, ethnicity, and religion. Discussions about diversity linked to access and equity require knowledge and understanding of historical and contemporary experiences of oppression and exclusion.
It’s important to think of diversity as uniting rather than dividing. Diversity means appreciating our differences but also our interconnectedness, recognizing systemic and institutionalized discrimination, and building relationships across our differences. That can be challenging, but it’s worth it. While appreciating social difference is important, a commitment to diversity should prompt us also to acknowledge all the things that connect us.
Inclusion refers to the notion of belonging, feeling welcome, having a sense of citizenship, and the capacity to engage and succeed in a given institution, program, or setting. Inclusion calls for recognizing, reducing, and removing barriers to participation and belonging, sometimes entailing the change or reimagination of such institutions, programs, or settings. Inclusion means welcoming and valuing all members of our University community.
And here's how Ferris State U (I'd never heard of them either) in Big Rapids, Michigan (with a satellite campus in Grand Rapids) puts it:
Diversity is the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical values system, national origin, and political beliefs.
Inclusion is involvement and empowerment, where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized. An inclusive university promotes and sustains a sense of belonging; it values and practices respect for the talents, beliefs, backgrounds, and ways of living of its members.
Equity refers to fair and just practices that ensure access, resources, and opportunities are provided for all to succeed and grow.
Belonging is feeling valued, respected, supported, and empowered in your professional, educational, and personal endeavors.
What a hellscape, huh? People feeling valued, their human dignity recognized, their contributions heard and appreciated, their backgrounds respected. Pure dystopian nightmare, this DEI.
Most Bowel Movements are More Politically Threatening Than DEI
Text of Howe’s 2460
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Three words do not an ideology make, people. Even Marx and Engels needed a whole-ass book to just kick-start one, and since The Communist Manifesto was published, their adherents haven't stopped bickering among themselves about what communism entails for as much as five minutes. Even Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! is 13 words.
As for a "movement," the political science student I once was is rolling over in his grave in the corner of my autobiography. Civil Rights or the Black Freedom Struggle -- that was a movement. Vietnam opposition in the sixties. Women's Suffrage. Environmentalism. Gay Rights. Stonewall was a Riot, folks. You don't see hordes of pantsuit-wearing Admissions Officers from state colleges chucking bricks at cops, now do you?
You want an ideology? One that’s relevant to today? To this debate? Might I suggest this suggestive entry from Heather Cox Richardson. The Confederacy never really went away, folks. It’s spirit of supremacy and the moral rot of fascism that underlies its ranking of human beings as worthy/unworthy, valued/valueless is still with us, and conservatives have absolutely chosen the wrong side. Hell, they want to let more Confederates into Kansas colleges.
DEI, in itself, is an empty signifier into which conservatives read all sorts of spooky bogeyman content. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, American conservatism found itself lacking a unifying enemy to vilify and demonize. They were the dog that caught the car and didn't know what to do next. So conservatives just switched to hating liberals. Anything that could be associated with the evil libs became suspect, became part of their sinister "ideology."
I mean, conservatives were already halfway there. Ever since the Democrats embraced civil rights in the 1960s, opponents of racial equality have moved into the GOP fold. And it's not like Phyllis Schlafly or Anita Bryant were progressives.
But now, major media figures and think-tank grifters field test various hot-button signifiers to see what will stick with conservatives to get them riled up with hatred toward the vicious libs, and DEI is a big one for 2024. Thank Christopher Rufo and his ilk. He was also the guy who gave us the panic about Critical Race Theory that animated so many batshit school-board mouth-foamers the other year.
Absolutely none of this brings jobs to our communities or fixes our roads, but by god, it sure lights a fire underneath those with poor critical thinking skills who get all their political analysis from Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, OAN and the usual lunatics.
We Can't Have Nice Things Because…We Outlawed Them
So DEI by itself means nothing bad. Zero, zilch, zip. Like, literally, the number of Bible passages Trump knows by heart.
DEI can refer to a corner of the consulting industry, a certification niche within education meant to train people to enter the field of DEI work either in the public or private sector, a kind or category of initiative or policy or program an organization or institution implements, or a handy catch-phrase to refer to the general inclusion efforts organizations make, whether or not they even have anything officially named "DEI."
Thank you for reading Know Your Place. This post is public so feel free to share it.
What HB 2460 is about, however, is the practice of soliciting or requiring or using DEI statements or pledges. It's not a weird thing. And it's certainly not an "ideology or movement."
But Steven Howe's bill has just defined it as one: law is taking very normal descriptions most people associate with healthy, vibrant, welcoming communities and making them into crimes.
It's like defining "Have a nice day!" as something a dictator commands.
You get ready to leave work, your boss tells you to have a nice day, and you slap that bastard with a $10,000 complaint for trying to impose his dictatorial vision of the good life on you. Your precious freedoms have been trampled by this odious infringement on your rights to have a truly shitty day, which is your God-given prerogative. How dare The Man presume to tell you how your day should go! Where does he get off thinking he knows whether "nice" is better than, say, shit-the-bed awful? It's just another subtle and insidious way the libs insinuate their worldview on people, and it makes me mad as hell.
The practice of requiring DEI statements is not an ideology; it's just an essay question. It asks applicants (or whomever) to address the question of how, in their work or study, they see their labors impacting a college community's efforts to be more diverse, more fair and just, and more welcoming of all. There is no meaningful difference between that question and any other question you might be asked at a job or admission interview.
"What do you hope to accomplish in five years?"
Well, I hope to build a still and make my own high-octane hooch in the breakroom.
"Um, we're an accounting firm, Mr. Howe.”
"Tell me how you work with people different from you."
I hate Black people and I prefer to wall myself off from all the Jews.
"Um, yeah, that's probably not going to work for us, Steven."
In other words, your vision of your role in the work community has to fit. Only idiots don’t understand this. Only bad-faith actors who think they are entitled to be in any community no matter what their motives are, no matter what the community’s rules and norms are, pretend not to understand this.
Employers and admission officials have a legitimate interest in fostering a college community that's not full of assholes and mass shooters and misanthropes and incels. It's in the interests of all members of the college community--for safety and a vibrant learning environment--to try to favor people who, well, aren't Nazis.
Say we have two candidates for admission or a faculty position. One says he believes women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen at all times, should remain silent in public, should not hold public office and not have the franchise, should not be allowed to drive, should provide sex on demand to any available man who demands it, and should be legally punishable by beatings by any man who witnesses them transgress these rules. The other candidate says such ideas are fucking monstrous.
Howe's bill literally commands colleges to be absolutely, strictly, and legally neutral in deciding between these two candidates. Those are just personal beliefs, "viewpoints," after all. It's not a college's job to pick and choose which one is preferable as they stock the pond that is a university community. And if such viewpoints are offered voluntarily, this bill says they cannot serve as the basis for making an admission or hiring decision.
Part 2 to follow soon, where we’ll wrap up the shambles of the debate and weep for Kansas democracy.
Thanks for reading Know Your Place! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
