I would argue that DiAngelo’s and the progressive left definition of racism is not congruent and contradictory. On the one hand, it is defined by consequences alone : “Beliefs and actions are racist if they lead to minorities continued disadvantage compared to Whites.” Regardless of the connotation and baggage of the word, this is a useful concept.
However, this also means that pretty much everything you do is racist if you actually follow the definition: You do not want to attend a diversity seminar, forget about race and just do your work? By not addressing racist structures, you are enforcing them, and that is therefore racist. You merely want to read a fantasy novel before going to bed? Well, that keeps society the way it is, and therefore contributes to racism. Sounds extreme, but I contend that this is the logical consequence of that definition. And as an aside, a white CEO publicly using the n-word, and thereby being fired and replaced by a person of color, would not be racist by that definition.
But how do you delineate disadvantage? If white parents support their kids so that they succeed at school, are they putting their black classmates at a disadvantage and therefore being racist? It seems consistent with the consequentialist definition you give.
I would argue that DiAngelo’s and the progressive left definition of racism is not congruent and contradictory. On the one hand, it is defined by consequences alone : “Beliefs and actions are racist if they lead to minorities continued disadvantage compared to Whites.” Regardless of the connotation and baggage of the word, this is a useful concept.
However, this also means that pretty much everything you do is racist if you actually follow the definition: You do not want to attend a diversity seminar, forget about race and just do your work? By not addressing racist structures, you are enforcing them, and that is therefore racist. You merely want to read a fantasy novel before going to bed? Well, that keeps society the way it is, and therefore contributes to racism. Sounds extreme, but I contend that this is the logical consequence of that definition. And as an aside, a white CEO publicly using the n-word, and thereby being fired and replaced by a person of color, would not be racist by that definition.
But how do you delineate disadvantage? If white parents support their kids so that they succeed at school, are they putting their black classmates at a disadvantage and therefore being racist? It seems consistent with the consequentialist definition you give.
Yes, absolutely. But that is not my definition, just the one that (as I understand it) DiAngelo gives.