The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
White Employee Suing Seattle for DEI-Based Racial Harassment, Retaliation, and Discrimination
Robby Soave here at Reason has an interesting story on this; you can see the Complaint and the attached exhibits here. Of course, keep in mind that this is just the plaintiff's side of the story (Soave reports that the City "did not respond to a request for comment," which is common in litigation). An excerpt:
In November 2022 [Diemert] filed suit, alleging that the city's racially hostile work environment harmed his mental and physical health…. His tormenters, he argues, were motivated by so-called antiracism training under the auspices of the city government's Racial and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI).
"The city of Seattle believes that race representation is paramount, and they believe that people should not be judged by their individuality or their individual actions, but should be judged by their collective race," says Diemert. "In fact, they say that if you judge people by individuality, that was actually a tool of white supremacy used to oppress people of color."
The environment Diemert describes is almost too toxic and oppressive to be believed; in his account, Seattle's RSJI program sounds like a conservative's nightmare about a progressive workplace—something that would be brutally parodied on South Parkor Portlandia. But his complaint is well-supported by hard evidence: actual copies of documents from the bizarre antiracism training that the city uses. Indeed, these documents can still be found on the city's RSJI website.
The training is based on the extremely controversial and much-criticized work of Tema Okun, a consultant who identifies perfectionism, timeliness, a sense of urgency, and writing things down as aspects of "white supremacy culture." (Okun is a white woman.) Okun has had a significant influence on the diversity and equity industry, and these ideas frequently come up in training materials for educational seminars. Similar work by the author Judith Katz—also a white woman—previously appeared on the website for the National Museum of African American History and Culture.
Okun was recently interviewed by The Intercept's Ryan Grim, who has reported at length on the dysfunction within progressive organizations. She expressed profound misgivings about the weaponization of her work and asked Grim to publicize an updated version in which she qualifies many of her original claims.
"It became clear to me that quite a few people were misusing it," she said….
Click here to see the entire story.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wow!
Seems like that whole; "... be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin" thing is long gone for some people.
Can eliminating the MLK holiday be far behind? Or just renaming it DEI Day instad? I really can't ever see AFSCME giving up another three day weekend.
“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?
Luckily, MLK day doesn't stand for one out of context quote.
It doesn't stand for it, but it's an important part of his legacy.
How about it not standing for his blantant sexism and harassment of women? Or is he excused for that along with JFK and RFK?
https://www.theonion.com/man-always-gets-little-rush-out-of-telling-people-john-1819578998
How is that quote out of context? It's literally one of MLK's single most famous quotes, speaking against racism....
Here's the full quote. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
It is famous because y'all take it out of context.
What was the world he was describing in I Have a Dream? Hint: it wasn't color-blind.
That quote is what a lot of the respect the general population have for him hangs on. It's not widely understood that he basically gave up on his dream, and that a large part of the modern civil rights movement positively reject it.
Really, the only reason he's got such a positive reputation is that "one out of context quote".
Yeah, all the people who would have opposed his civil rights campaign at the time love that quote.
Who opposed it then? The Democrats.
Who opposes it now? The Democrats.
You're a Democrat?
Brett, tell us again how MLK was one of the good ones till he sold out and became Marxist.
You maybe aren't the best judge of why he's popular, since you kinda hate him.
You obviously hold Brett in very low regard, so I can understand the temptation to throw a snide comment his way. But I'd be pleased to know why you think he's wrong...
Wow.....
I mean, what's going through these people's heads?
First, mandating that people are divided up into working groups based on their race? Then saying the white caucus is "accountable" to the working groups of other races?
I mean....
I'm getting a sense here that "Wow" is some kind of White Supremacist dog whistle.
Well, it is. If you use a really asinine definition of "white supremacist", which I gather a lot of people on the left do.
Armchair, I experienced all he alleges (and worse) 30 years ago at UMass Amherst.
This is nothing new -- although the suit for emotional distress is an interesting approach I hadn't thought of.
And what struck me at the time was what Nathan Bedford Forrest did after the Civil War when confronted with similar circumstances and -- 30 years later -- I'm actually surprised that we don't have *real* White Supremicist groups.
We have the Tiki Torch Brigade and other sophomoric stuff, but none of what I honestly feared that we would have by now.
If you keep hitting people over the head long enough, telling them you're doing it because they're white, sooner or later they'll come to think of themselves (1) as a group (2) that needs to defend itself against non-whites. Now, whose fault will that be?
You're hitting yourself. It'll be your own 'fault.' White people have never ever been shy in 'defending' themselves against non-whites.
Wrong....
Somewhere in hell Charles Manson is smiling. His "helter skelter" dream is coming true.
You didn't get the memo? racism isn't racism anymore if its against those who Deserve it(TM). 'Deserve it' being determined by some invisible vague unquantified scoreboard that nobody can quite agree on what it is and how its scored but is determined by an unknown methodology by self appointed academic cliques and twitter influencers.
So you can basically insult, demean, stereotype, harass, deny opportunities; basically do anything and everything that used to be called racist as long as its against the 'right' type of people. And racism is redefined as opposition to this. Pretty 1984 if I say so myself. Orwell would be amazed.
Orwell would be in denial about racism because he was a colonialist racist.
/sarc, at least for most people
There's nothing new about white people in the US claiming that they're the real victims of oppression.
And they are often right....
In their own heads they suffer all the slings and arrows of prejudice and discrimination, in the form of unreadable mission statements.
There are more White people in poverty than there ARE Black people....
Now there's a statitistic that you save to trot out only in very specific circumstances.
My son, who is darker than half the blacks on this street, is going to be formally discriminated against if he tries enrolling in a fairly large number of institutions of higher education, just because he's Asian-American. How is that not the slings and arrows of prejudice and discrimination?
It's not like he lynched somebody 75 years ago, and needs to pay for his crimes.
He's not going to be discriminated against, he's just not going to be given special preference because of historical racial discrimination. Maybe he should, but if you want to argue that you'd have to dig into historical racial discrimination against Asians, which was something white people did.
Admissions are zero sum. There is no difference between a special preference for A and discrimination against not A.
Yeah, all those years when admissions were white-only men-only or white-majority men-majority there was a notable lack of difference between who was being discriminated against and who was getting preference.
Asians were allowed in those white-only admissions?
And Jews? Both groups seem to have done very well for themselves despite many decades of exclusion.
'Asians were allowed in those white-only admissions?'
Answer's in the question.
Institutions of higher education are not meritocracies. Your son has no inherent right to enroll in a fairly large number of institutions. It's not the slings and arrows of prejudice, it's the slings and arrows of homogeneity that your son is suffering from.
So I’m curious. All these stories about the ‘right’ sort of people being targeted and judged by their race. Basically the old definition of racism. When you guys issue your snide responses you don’t deny it you just blow it off as unimportant. So you truly believe that its okay to judge, stereotype, demean and treat people differently based their perceived race in these situations? And everything that used to be called racist is actually okay if its toward the appropriate sort of people?
'you just blow it off as unimportant'
The old defintion of racism involved slavery, lynchings, the denial of basic civil rights and cities redesigned to hem people into ghettos, kept impoverished and flooded with drugs. The new definition of racism involves enduring middle-management deploying jargon and documents and essentially wokewashing that's as tedious and meaningful as any other management training fad.
Like this?
What's next? Firemen refusing to put out a fire because the homeowners "have white privilege"? Cops refusing to protect those who "have white privilege"? How about not letting those who "have white privilege" vote?
Don't laugh -- look at Evergreen University.
That's an extreme example but policing in much of academia has become political, with disfavored groups often denied police protection.
Isn't it lucky that you do, in fact, have civil rights.
Actually, I don't. White males don't have civil rights anymore.
That you actually non-ironically think this shows just how threatened you are by non-whites having their civil rights safeguarded, and how necessary that is.
No. If that's true it doesn't represent the tiniest fraction of the discrimination and tyrannical oppression non-whites have experienced. But it is a terrible reason to reject an application. If it happened.
You know Nige, it's going to be an interesting summer because it's quite clear which way SCOTUS is going to go on Students for Fair Admission and rioting for handouts and preferences is not the same thing as protesting police brutality.
Historically, the people who have protested/rioted for civil rights and against police brutality have been dismissed as protesting/rioting for handouts and preferences because when it comes to non-whites and women and lgtbq, they are viewed as the same thing.
You're right but pyrrhic. The ruling will be essentially, keep doing what you're doing but be more subtle about it. (They seemed ok with having a goal of racial diversity as long as it was only achieved via proxies for race. Well, that's not that hard, and ultimately not too different. A bit more haphazard, but maybe that's a good thing.)
... why would you think anyone is going to riot over Affirmative Action?
AA is one of those weird policies, where certain people (lawyers, some universities, the SCOTUS) are really super interested in, but most Americans are pretty indifferent to.
If the SCOTUS completetly abolishes AA, then you'll see apocalyptic screeds from academics and lawyers and... not much else.
Similarly, if the SCOTUS upholds AA while ruling that this specific schema is disallowed (which has been their pattern for decades), then you'll see apocalyptic screeds from academics and lawyers and... not much else.
This may be a big ol' legal mountain, but to the rest of America it's a molehill. People may have feelings one way or the other, but it's nothing they're going to take action on.
Like quite a lot of academic brouhahas that threaten the very foundations of western civilisation, supposedly.
And everything that used to be called racist is actually okay if its toward the appropriate sort of people?
If dude's allegations are true, Seattle should lose the case. But just being triggered by the phrase "white supremacy" isn't enough. Like Nige pointed out, that's snowflake-level shit on the racism spectrum. (It's not even on the racism spectrum using "the old definition of racism.")
What's happened over the last 20 years is the recognition that colorblindness is a cruel joke. It's a rhetorical device for conservatives to use to justify the status quo. But nobody's actually colorblind, and nobody wants to be treated as if their identity is irrelevant. Black people want to be seen as black people. It's ridiculous and insulting to ignore someone's race. This was a common joke on ye olde The Colbert Report back in the day, because it's like, duh. Colorblindness is just silly when you actually pretend to do it.
So, that's how you get to race-consciousness. It's pretty basic. More difficult is what you do with it. But conservatives haven't even joined that conversation yet. They're still pretending like colorblindness is going to work for society. Give it up, and start participating in the actual debate. How should different races relate to each other? Should we all just retreat into our self-segregated safe spaces? (Fuck no!) You're 20 years behind the times.
Obviously a "Bitter Klinger"
I love that Privilege Bingo.
Not a Redhead
No Criminal Record
Adult (how many children do they employ?)
And my favorite: Human.
Even Mr. Spock is a victim!
"Not a Redhead"
Can't say totally biased against whites with that
There are Black Redheads -- they are part Irish.
Mr. Spock is half a victim. It is only logical.
"She expressed profound misgivings about the weaponization of her work and asked Grim to publicize an updated version in which she qualifies many of her original claims."
In this interview, starting at around 20:45, she tells a story about how she was giving a "training" to a group that included white activist lawyers, who got distracted at her workshop by the news of the arrest of a black activist, and how the urgency that they felt about trying to get him out of jail reflected white supremacy.
Priceless....
The training packet linked in Soave's report is indeed interesting reading.
I'm struck by both the relative lack of interest in the events at Tulane and UNC-Chapel Hill and the downturn of media coverage of illegal immigration. Both illegal immigration mitigation and higher education reform are important to the majority of voters (76% and 72% respectively, if we believe polls). While diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) initiatives are also opposed by most voters (67%), it would be a mistake to allow the conversation to change to race exclusively.
Yet many large corporations and professional societies feel an obligation the to proclaim DEI as a primary corporate aim.
To avoid shakedowns by activists. Mouthing platitudes costs nothing.
Is that worse, in the mind of a clinger, than companies (Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A) or schools (most conservative-controlled campuses) that proclaim old-timey, deplorable bigotry as a core corporate value?
I have somehow missed both Tulane and UNC-Chapel Hill.
What aspect of higher ed reform have I missed?
There is an interesting fight brewing in Oklahoma between the Governor, who wants to end DIE and the System Chancellor who argues that "Higher Learning Commission and program-specific accreditors – including those for nursing, engineering, education, and business degree programs – require institutions to demonstrate diversity, equity, and inclusion in their practices, policies and curriculum to maintain accreditation."
See: https://kfor.com/news/local/governor-stitt-calls-for-less-diversity-officers-even-though-dei-is-required-for-program-accreditation/
This is going to become an interesting issue and I'd be surprised if the ABA isn't (or doesn't) do likewise for law school accreditation.
This will create an interesting conflict between governors & legislators, who have the authority to control the practices of their state institutions and the accreditors who have the power to dis-accrediate them for, essentially, refusing to violate state laws.
Now I'm not saying it is RICO, but isn't there a problem when you attempt to force someone to violate state laws? And on a more expedient basis, the state can then just say that program accreditation is no longer required to take the state licensing exams.
Something similar has already happened in Arizona.
The American Psychological Association, which accredits psychology grad programs, requires that the programs expel students who refuse to support the entire LBGTQ agenda, and there were two notable cases where students who refused to do so on religious grounds were kicked out.
And much to the chagrin of the APA, the State of Arizona passed a law making that illegal -- https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/arizona/az-laws/arizona_laws_15-1862
I haven't seen the APA dis-accrediate programs in Arizona...
APA, ABA, AMA - I guess putting "American" into the name of your organization qualifies it as an accreditor, regardless of the small percentage of professionals who are members thereof.
Nah, it's more about history.
The American Psychiatric Association was started in the 1840s, along with the American Medical Association.
American Bar Association wasn't until the 1870s.
American Academy of Pediatrics was 1930.
You do find more modern copy-cat associations, like the American College of Pediatrics (founded in 2002), but these aren't accreditors are pretty obvious in their political aim (that is, to be mistaken for the more respected institution to give a veneer of authority to their activism) when you look into them.
But the main thing is history.
One can only imagine the back-slapping good time Okun gets to have with her Klan friends about how she gets to teach openly tnat black people are all lazy shiftless good-for-nothings – and the dimwits pay her to say it!
He should have made a deal with some lawyers to stay a while and gather evidence for them. A lot of lawyers could have made a lot of money suing the city for discrimination and probably a lot of other things.
I read through the city's "bizarre antiracism document." It's very Kumbaya, like, I don't know if they ever get anything done or just sit around "being conscious of how people experience strategies and actions on emotional and spiritual dimensions" all day, but I didn't see anything that encouraged discriminatory hiring or advancement.
I suspect Seattle will be able to point to statistics that they hired and promoted tons of white guys, just not this jerk.
"It’s very Kumbaya, like, I don’t know if they ever get anything done or just sit around “being conscious of how people experience strategies and actions on emotional and spiritual dimensions” all day,"
That's the sense of urgency that they're talking about, you white supremacist.
I do think rhetorically this is a huge miscalculation by the left. Everyone’s a racist white supremacist now. The narrative has no room for moral distinctions between like the KKK and Santa Claus. That’s going to backfire badly, especially combined with the fact that pols on both the left and the right are encouraging their bases to carry zero-sum-based grudges.
I agree.
You know there's a slide on CPT somewhere in her presentation.
As a former employee at the City of Seattle I can tell you that it certainly was very plausible that things could get out of hand. But it never affected me that much because I plain old didn't care about their woke posturing.
Here is one amusing story: A group of Black employees started a Black Affinity group to talk about issues affecting Black employees, so they'd announce the meetings on a city employee wide distribution list, and it was just something else to ignore. Then an Asian Affinity group was started and we'd get this notifications too. But then some White Employees were feeling left out of the woke posturing so they wanted to start a White Allies group to talk about what they could do to improve the climate for the minorities, still nothing I was interested in. Well it wasn't much more than a week after the first meeting that another notification came out that the group announced that the White Allies group was disbanding and there would be no further meetings. Someone had pointed out the optics of having a Whites only employee group for any purpose just wouldn't do, and that was that. Rumor was that some of the wokesters that started the group were just crushed they couldn't meet to show how much they cared just like the minority employees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlE5yK4l34o
Enough said?
“Rumor was that some of the wokesters that started the group were just crushed they couldn’t meet to show how much they cared just like the minority employees.”
Shortly after George Floyd’s death I happened upon a demonstration. Roughly 50 people, mostly young, doing a call and response routine with the organizer. You know the type, “What do we want? When do we want it?”
The organizer was the only black person there. The white protesters with their black-power raised fists were cringworthy, to be sure. True believers all.
This approach was actually implemented in Minneapolis schools. A lawsuit challenging this was thrown out of court:
https://alphanews.org/judge-dismisses-complaint-against-racially-discriminatory-mps-teachers-union-contract/
Yes -- "Judge Sande argued it was “not clear that consideration of a teacher’s membership within an underrepresented group necessarily requires consideration of race and ethnicity.”
Orwell would be proud. Judicial Watch said that they were going to appeal.
The question I wondered about would be a White teacher suing the *union* for breach of fiduciary duty.
Paging George Orwell...
Interesting document from Texas Tech about using DIE criteria to evaluate a candidate for generally scientific positions.
Seems like they were using all sorts of ideological critera unrelated to the position, such as:
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog Of Grievance-Consumed, Bigot-Hugging Clingers
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say dude probably has a good case.
Why? Because racial harassment cases are notoriously difficult to win, so if it's gotten this far they probably have a good case.
It's like if you see the Postal Police showing up: if it's gotten that far, there's almost certainly real meat to the case.
When the originator of the ideas they use for their policies thinks they've pushed them to a weird extreme, yeah, he probably has a case.