Response to WSJ Commentary.."DEI Got Me Sacked From My Nursing Job"
Note: DEI references Diversity, Equity, Inclusive
Summary: Brad McDowell purports that his oversight position as a Nurse was terminated due to a FB post that said in part that "no employer has the right to invade the unconscious space of its employees minds in an attempt to reprogram them into thinking certain ways. If your employer signs you up for an 'Unconscious Bias' aka 'Implicit Bias' training, then you are doing exactly that." Mr. McDowell goes on to indicate that his FB page does not link up to his employer, nor did he ever mention the hospital name or the course names to which he objected. "All I did was criticize the idea that people should be forced to accept a hateful world view."
Appeared in the March 16, 2024, print edition as 'DEI Got Me Sacked From My Nursing Job'.
My Response
The tragedy of DEI is that it has failed to keep in its lane.
DEI in the American experience are sociological assessments that any good organization should be aware of, describing the diverse tapestry that is and is not yet the American experiment; A people hopefully united by a set of ideals deeper than our racial, cultural or religious groupings.
Inherent in America's founding ideals is limits to the power of the state, corporate or even majoritarian powers to deny equal access to every and all individuals. Any power or entity which radically inhibits freedoms of speech, religion, free association and property rights without legal process and a public purpose that cannot be achieved any other way, places the unique and progressive American experiment at risk. Mr. McDowell's firing over protected "free speech" is an excellent example of applying social insight to individual liberty. It attacks fundamental freedoms via social engineering.
America has been and remains an imperfect model of our own ideals; Slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal, Native American histories, Japanese internment are a few examples. Thus we need to retain the kind of social studies and ethnic or religious centric studies that compel us to see built in (systemic) patterns that evidence equal access remains a problem.
The difficulty is when such helpful analyses are used to effectively choose winners/losers inside personal, psychologically driven decisions. Sociology applied as "fact" over-riding individual choices is of itself discriminatory and undermines the equal access principle to which we should aspire. When used as an ultimate end we inevitably harm those most vulnerable. School districts who reject merit achievement in the name of DEI harm the increasing number of minority students who qualify for achievement based scholarships. In medicine DEI insights applied as determinative choices have on occasion resulted in withholding optimal care "as privileged." For individual patients the outcomes can result in increased deaths by denying the best available treatment without regard to racial, religious or ethnic identity. As in Mr. McDowell's illustration the government or private beauricratic decision makers will do real harm to individual and otherwise essential employees in the name of a social ideal. In such cases the patient, consumers, employees and the peaceful administration of American corporations, non-profits and governments loose.
The solution to unequal access can never be forced outcomes if we wish to remain a free society. Our recourse remains addressing marginalized, disadvantaged communities (religious, ethnic, racial, gender) a place by increasing money, education, and spiritual presence which allows for improvement in outcomes while illuminating even the hint of illegal discrimination against any person. In short, to keep sociology and psychology doing good work, each in its track.
Terry Mattson,
Seattle
Comments