DEI: a Trojan Horse for Critical Social Justice in Science

“As a result, the time has come for scientists to place themselves on the right side of history and reject Critical Social Justice in science as well as its Trojan Horse, DEI as it is currently justified and conceived.”

This essay is for academic scientists. It is for scientists who believe that no one qualified should be prevented from contributing to the scientific enterprise on the basis of skin color, sex, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or any characteristic outside of his or her control. It is for scientists who want to be on the right side of history in this regard and who are scared that they may, somehow, not be. It is for scientists who want to believe in the cause of diversity, equity, and inclusion in science but for whom prescriptions proposed seem contradictory to science itself—not to mention to equality. Finally, it is for scientists afraid to consider that possibility.

At this point, most scientists are familiar with the notion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). DEI is typically described as a way to bring a wider variety of “voices” into science, particularly the voices of historically oppressed identities (women, blacks, transgendered, and others). This is the polished and laudable aim of DEI and its initiatives. If this were the only thing that DEI initiatives proposed and implied, then I would not be penning this essay. The truth is, however, that behind these laudable aims lurks an anti-science, anti-scientific worldview known as the Critical Social Justice (CSJ) perspective, which insists upon divisive, discriminatory prescriptions. Endorsing these prescriptions means endorsing the discrediting of science and contributing to its demise. At the same time, questioning this perspective (and its discriminatory prescriptions) does not mean questioning the praiseworthy goal of equality. However, this questioning is necessary for all who believe in science. Understanding what DEI represents requires understanding the CSJ perspective.

This is more easily said than done. The CSJ literature is enormous. Moreover, it has traditionally been almost impenetrable to those not trained in it (or initiated to it). This has changed recently as both advocates (e.g. Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo) and critics (e.g. Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay, and Stephen R. Hicks) have begun writing accessibly about the CSJ perspective. As a result, it is now becoming easier to synthesize and describe.