Reining in the excesses of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion programs may be called for, but Alabama's newly signed law banning DEI programs in state institutions -- including schools -- seems like a case of legislating with a hammer when perhaps a scalpel is the more appropriate tool.
The bill passed by the state Legislature and signed into law this week by Gov. Kay Ivey will, as summarized , "prohibit universities, K-12 school systems and state agencies from sponsoring DEI programs, defined under the bill as classes, training, programs and events where attendance is based on a person's race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation."
Already, this seems confusing. If indeed biological sex is a real thing, as opponents of "gender identity" ideology often stress, might there not be situations where certain programs are best geared toward one or the other sex? For example, sexual harassment training?
The bill also bans any training session "that advocates for or requires assent" to any of eight "divisive concepts," including, according to the text of the bill, the idea that "any individual should accept, acknowledge, affirm, or assent to a sense of guilt, complicity, or a need to apologize on the basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
This seems straightforward enough. Original sin, after all, is a religious concept, and state institutions shouldn't be in the business of promoting a secularized version of it.
Other concepts banned as divisive, however, seem open to debate. One is the idea people might be "inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously."
Agree or disagree with that claim, it is at least an empirical statement: It's either true or it's not, which sets it apart from the idea people deserve either blame or praise for the actions of their ancestors. Not all things lumped under the umbrella of DEI are created equal.
Some things included in the DEI ban law don't have anything to do with DEI at all, but instead press other culture war buttons.
The law contains a bathroom provision, requiring that colleges and universities ensure people use restroom facilities that correspond with their biological sex at birth and not simply their present gender identity. How would this even be enforced? Will officers be stationed outside restroom facilities and be empowered to peek inside the pants of anyone who needs to go? What about transgender people who have undergone reassignment surgery?
This seems like a provision that will mostly lead to lawsuits and/or punitive measures taken against the state's colleges.
Just because it seems an easy matter -- and a no-brainer -- to keep biological males from participating in girls school sports, doesn't mean it's just as easy to monitor restroom use.
In substance, the anti-DEI law seems a mixed bag. In practice, it may be impossible to enforce. Ultimately, the state Legislature seems ill-equipped to fight most of these cultural battles.