« Among many big amendment questions, will the new USSC promulgate new guidelines to limit acquitted conduct enhancements? | Main | US Sentencing Commission promulgates numerous consequential new guideline amendments (while defering resolution of other big issues), with big division on compassionate release »
April 5, 2023
Notable recent new coverage of the not-so-new horrors of solitary confinement
Long-time readers know I have long bemaoned the enduring use and reliance on extreme solitary confinement in many penal instututions for decades. Indeed, in some of my posts here and here from 2006 on this issue, during a time when constitutional litigation over lethal injection protocols was first getting revved up, I made suggested here and elsewhere that persons truly concerned about both human dignity and public safety ought to given even more attention to the tens of thousands of humans in Supermax facilities and subject to long periods of solitary confinement than to the far fewer humans on (often much nicer) death rows.
In part because it sometimes felt like shouting into the wind, I have not tended to blog all that much on this important topic. But I am still quite pleased when I see persons with much bigger platforms giving new and renewed attention to solitary, and I am eager in my little platform to highlight coverage at HBO and the New York Times:
From John Oliver on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, "Solitary Confinement":
From Adam Liptak at the NY Times, "How Long Without Outdoor Exercise Is Too Long for a Prisoner in Solitary?"
Just a few recent (of many) prior related posts:
- "The case against solitary confinement"
- Might a challenge to extreme solitary confinement for over a quarter century reveal if any current Justices are truly textualists and originalists?
- Latest "Time-in-Cell" report estimates that, as of July 2021, "between 41,000 and 48,000 people were held in isolation in U.S. prison cells"
- "A Call to Reform Federal Solitary Confinement"
April 5, 2023 at 10:11 AM | Permalink
Comments
Solitary is a hammer. If the kids don't behave . . . .
why should other prisoners be at risk from a violent inmate who cannot behave . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Apr 5, 2023 10:55:29 AM
Mr. or Mrs. Federalist -- the implicit premise of your comment is incorrect. Solitary confinement is imposed for myriad reasons. Physical protection of other prisoners isn't even the most common one. For example, in many places, the most common reason for extended solitary confinement is a lack of space in non-solitary spaces. Moreover, solitary confinement is *never* necessary to physically protect prisoners because it is entirely possible (and in fact cheaper!) to *physically* isolate prisoners without *socially* isolating them.
To the extent that your comment expresses a sentiment that some prisoners are getting their just deserts, you may want to reexamine whether anyone really "deserves" one of the worst forms of torture.
Posted by: CBL | Apr 5, 2023 2:58:08 PM
By all means, let's look into solitary---but the idea that it's not a tool to be used is nuts. Kill a guard--you get solitary./
Posted by: federalist | Apr 5, 2023 3:42:19 PM
After the en banc Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided "Rosales-Garcia v. Holland", 322 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003) (En Banc), I filed 14 2241 Petitions for Habeas Corpus for Mariel Cubans incarcerated with me at FCI - Manchester, Kentucky. I worked with the Cubans thru Inmate translators, since none of the Cubans spoke English, and they could not even read Spanish. Main DOJ called my Warden and had me locked up in SHU for helping the Cubans with their Petitions, even though such activity is completely legitimate under BOP policy and Supreme Court precedents. I remained in SHU, on 23+ hour per day lockdown, for 6 months, "under investigation", which ended with me receiving no disciplinary incident report. They made the Cubans wait to be released until after the U. S. Supreme Court denied Certiorari in the case. Eventually, the DOJ conceded that under the holding in Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, the Petitions should be granted and the cases closed. This information was smuggled to me in SHU on the food cart, and I immediately saw the trap the DOJ was laying. There was still a split among the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether the Cubans had no rights under the U. S. Constitution and could be held indefinitely in Federal prisons, without any federal conviction, as illegal aliens. One Circuit on the other side of the split was the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Little Havana and Miami, where most Cubans would go to join their families after being release3d from Manchester, FCI. If the files were closed here, then the DOJ could re-arrest the Cubans on the streets of Miami and incarcerate them in Federal prisons in the Eleventh Circuit, until and unless the U. S. Supreme Court said otherwise. I wrote a letter to the two Eastern District of Kentucky District Judges who had the 14 Cuban Petitions for Habeas Corpus, and enlightened them to what the DOJ might do if they closed the case files. I suggested that they leave the files open, to maintain supervision over those Cubans who were being released. in this manner, the DOJ could not re-arrest them in Miami after release on "immigration parole". It was worth spending 6 months in the HOLE, under investigation to free these otherwise helpless men, who had no education and could not even speak English.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Apr 5, 2023 4:06:43 PM
CBL,
Most of that just isn’t true.
You can’t physically isolate someone while not socially isolating them.
Nor have I ever seen a person put in solitary for reasons of space. If there is not space on a housing unit, they will put inmates in a SHU cell (two to a cell like in Gen pop), but also give them the same opportunities to go to the yard, their programs, mess hall, etc. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction and many are let out of solitary early because they are out of SHU space.
Doug,
Seriously? John Oliver?
What no one wants to deal with is what do you do with inmates who refuse to behave? Who rape other inmates, throw feces at guards, or attempt to stir up an uprising?
It gets tiresome hearing people who know nothing about prison (or have a skewed vision of it because they were inmates) say what “should” be done. Hell, these people even want “the loaf” banned as a punitive measure.
A slightly cleaned up version of what my dad told me when I became a prison teacher:
“Your first year you will be getting f***** up the a$$ and not even know it. The second year you will feel a burn back there. It’s the third year when you finally know what’s going on.”
Higher security prisons will never be a nice place. Eggs will get broken. The first part of fixing actual flaws in the system is understanding that. You cannot put 1500 bad people together and have a positive environment.
Doing away with solitary will result in more attacks and death.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 5, 2023 8:47:57 PM
Master Tarls, what do you think of proposals to generally eliminate solitary for more than a day for youth and those with mental or physical disability or illness and for more than 15 days for anyone else?
I have never been an inmate or a prison official, so I am disinclined to reject reasoned arguments that that solitary might sometimes be needed. But I have seen considerable research indicating sometimes extreme physical and mental health problems associated with long-term solitary confinement. Given that research, is there really a essential need for extended solitary periods, Master Tarls?
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 5, 2023 10:36:23 PM
Doug,
In my opinion, the elimination of mental health facilities is an enormous part of the problem. Prison staff attempt to deal with severe mental problems, but they are not equipped to provide intensive therapy for severe issues like being bi-polar or having psychoses. They give out meds, but are not able to provide much more. If the mentally ill homeless were institutionalized before committing crimes and going to prison, it would solve a lot of this mess.
Your recommendations seem logical if not in that environment, but are unworkable inside. I have huge reservations about solitary for minors, but what do you do if it is a 16 year old 250 pound violent thug beating on 12 year olds?
If a guy in for life beats the crap out of an officer, gets out of solitary after 15 days, and does it again, now what?
I’ve seen the problem. I worked a SHU one summer (literally taught through the feed up door), came back the next summer, and saw some of the guys from the previous year. There is no doubt that some had degraded. But, what’s the alternative that is going to keep other inmates and staff safe?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 6, 2023 12:18:46 AM
I hear you, Master Tarls, which is why I used the word "generally" so that extreme cases might allow for extreme responses. But I see two current problems of scope in the US: (a) too many people in solitary, and (b) too many people in solitary for too long. Data suggests that many tens of thousands are in solitary in the US and that thousands of them are in solitary for years on end. I am disinclined to think most or even many of these folks are the kinds of extreme cases you describe. (I also would hope isolation could be less extrme without great public safety risks -- e.g., allow communication technology in the cells and/or facilitate more time outside for eating/recreation -- those I know there are various administrative challenges to doing so.)
Finally, I think this discussion is yet another reason why robust parole and/or second look sentencing and/or serious earned time credits can be so important to give prisoners a most robust reason to be on better behavior. I have heard a number of prison official talk about how "truth-in-sentencing" made prisons and their lives harder.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 6, 2023 12:39:34 AM
Of course there is good reason for some inmates to be in isolation - even for long periods of time however that is not the way it is always used.
I know of a nonviolent first time marijuana federal offender who was held in isolation for the year that he was awaiting federal trial. He had no reading material, the temperature was kept at an uncomfortable degree, calories were limited, there was a board over the window, he was awakened every two hours with a flash light, no exercise etc.
I only know about non violent marijuana offenders with life and egregiously long sentences but the use of isolation is capricious and inexplicable. It is interesting that these people have no history of violence, yet they are always sent to USP's (high security prisons) because of the length of their sentences. It has nothing to do with them being a security risk or fear of violence.
They are most helpful in this setting as they teach classes and are very happy to work for Unicor for 9 cents to $1.60 per hour.
Posted by: beth curtis | Apr 6, 2023 3:13:34 PM
Doug,
I think we need some context. Citing data is not enough.
Sure, there are people in solitary for non-violent infractions. However, a guy is not getting long-term solitary for smoking a cigarette. There are very dangerous infractions that are “non-violent.” Smuggling drugs in, for example, is much more troublesome (you haven’t seen a drug war until you’ve seen a prison drug war) than the outside. People get cut over gambling debt, so it is taken much more seriously inside. You would shrug, but it causes large problems.
I can only speak to my experience in NY, but I have never seen inmates put in a SHU for minor infractions. Usually, a minor violation for say, “Failure to obey a direct order,” may get a $5 fine or cell restricted in his own cell for 10-15 days.
Beth,
Nonsense. The number of “non-violent marijuana offenders with life” without a bunch of other contributing factors rounds to precisely zero.
Your comments make my point about those on the outside having no clue. If they lost their reading materials, they did something to lose it. They are given the number of calories required to stay healthy. The temperature in a housing unit cannot be kept at a temperature everyone agrees with. Natural light has to be allowed in unless a reason is given otherwise (not to mention, it is a security threat), and they are woken every couple of hours because they need to check the welfare of all inmates regularly. If they didn’t and an inmate committed suicide during the night, you would be complaining about that.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 6, 2023 6:08:38 PM
TarlsQtr --
Doug asks you, "Master Tarls, what do you think of proposals to generally eliminate solitary for more than a day for youth and those with mental or physical disability or illness and for more than 15 days for anyone else?"
You can see where this is headed, because it's where it's ALWAYS headed with the crowd Doug runs with. EVERYONE is going to turn out to be among "those with mental or physical disability or illness." The game is eliminating solitary altogether, period, only doing it on the installment plan so hopefully we won't notice what's going on. It's similar in that way to attacks on the death penalty. As we've seen over the years, it only starts with the DP. Then it's LWOP. Then it's any long sentence. Then it's any sentence at all.
They simply oppose punishment of any kind ever, because they see the criminal as the victim (mental or physical disability or illness, etc., etc., etc.) and normal people as the cruel, callous, punitive victimizers -- victimizers who have had it coming, and now it's time that they get it. The "reckoning," dontcha know.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 6, 2023 7:11:55 PM
TarlsQtr
Of course, I should have clarified the pre trial solitary. It was a Federal case and they said they did not have space in a federal facility to hold the inmate. They made arrangements with a county jail for the pre trial solitary confinement and those were the conditions he was held under.
As far as nonviolent marijuana only offenders being sentenced to life without parole - I can assure you that there are many. There is a common element in all their sentences and that is the fact that they all went to trial.
Posted by: beth curtis | Apr 6, 2023 8:22:53 PM
You know a lot more than I do about how solitary gets administered in practice, MasterTarls. But is it your experience that extreme solitary for years and years and years for thousands of prisoners? Many folks reasonably content, based on a broad array of research, that long term solitary truly amounts to a form of torture. Maybe such a form of treatment is sometimes necessary for some of the worst behaved prisoners, but there is currently little transparency or review to give me confidence that solitary is not overused. But, data and context aside, I think much transparency and review of extended use of extreme isolation would be justified.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 6, 2023 10:38:15 PM
Beth,
In both cases, there is something you are not telling us. Regarding the guy in solitary, a previous attempted escape, SOMETHING to put him there. Solitary space is limited.
Same with the criminal with life for marijuana. We aren’t talking personal use.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 8, 2023 10:43:39 PM
Doug,
My experience is that a vast majority of long-term SHU inmates are repeat offenders. In other words, they misbehave while in SHU and get time added.
The rest are generally escape risks and those who have severely attacked staff and other inmates.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 8, 2023 10:47:51 PM
I sincerely hope, Master Tarls, that extreme solitary is used only in cases of extreme need. Would you support more independent or court review of solitary practices (in individual cases and nationwide) to make sure extreme solitary is only used in extreme cases?
The power of the state to lock an individual alone in a small box for 23+ hours a day for months and years seems to me like the kind of power that the Framers would have wanted checked and balanced. Do you agree?
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 9, 2023 8:45:52 AM
Doug,
What’s “independent?” It usually means a bunch of left wing wackos with a ratchet that turns in one direction. And there is a reason judges usually defer to the prisons. They know little to nothing about the unique security needs of a prison.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 9, 2023 1:00:42 PM
I just mean review by someone other than prison officials, though maybe you think everyone else are likely to be a "bunch of left wing wackos."
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 9, 2023 6:44:20 PM
TarlsQtr
I can assure you that the solitary was for a nonviolent marijuana only offender.
I can also assure you that there are nonviolent marijuana only offenders with life sentences. Of course, it is or was not personal use. Government resources are not always used prudently.
Posted by: beth curtis | Apr 9, 2023 7:46:09 PM
Doug,
How many panels in other areas of criminal justice are not run by a “bunch of left wing wackos?” Government bureaucracies, the legal profession, etc., are full of them.
Again, the ratchet only goes in one direction. I, for one, am not falling for a blank check. If you want to outline a panel of experts, how they oversee the job, qualifications, how they are appointed, etc., go for it.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 9, 2023 9:57:46 PM
Beth Curtis,
Hogwash. You are talking drug kingpins, not some street level dealer or a guy with a few plants in his attic.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 9, 2023 9:58:58 PM
Tarls: I suspect Beth is talking about her brother and others like him.
As for CJ groups, how about the new US Sentencing Commission I have discussed repeatedly here? Do you view that bipartisan (Senate-confirmed) group as a "bunch of left wing wackos"? That kind of group, though with some more corrections experience, is what I have in mind.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 9, 2023 10:41:02 PM
Doug,
Pronouns.
When the left is in power, yes, it is filled with left wing wackos. They will ratchet it in the direction of pro-criminal and it will never go back.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 10, 2023 9:23:59 AM
Tarls, when you did not attack SG for his use of the indefinte "she" pronoun, I decided you would understand if I am inconstistent in using your pronouns. As you know, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and all that.
As for staffing the US Sentencing Commission, when the GOP was in power, it could not (or decided not to bother) to get the job done from 2017 to 2020 (perhaps in part becuase of who Prez Trump nominated). Prez Biden thereafter made seven bipartisan appointments that received voice vote appoval by the 50/50 Senate.
Do you consider the new USSC to be filled with "left wing wackos"? In particular, I am eager to know if you consider the current GOP members of the bipartisan USSC --- Vice Chair Claire Murray, and Commissioners Judge Claria Horn Boom and Candice C. Wong --- to be "left wing wackos." I tend to use the term "wacko" to dsscribe very strange, very "out of the mainstream" type folks. But, I know you have some particularly strong views on the use of some words, so I wanted to double-check.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 10, 2023 1:04:42 PM
Doug,
Who I decide should use my preferred pronouns is my business. It’s in the rule book. (BTW, “My Liege” would be welcomed on occasion as well)
As far as the USSC, I would point out that Bill’s nomination wasn’t given the same treatment, a voice vote. In fact, it was never allowed to come up for any vote.
Nor is the problem, as I see it, when the Senate is 50/50. It’s when it is 60/40 or even 55/45, when they can lose some of their own votes and still get their picks.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 10, 2023 3:04:31 PM
Pretty sure the US Sentate was controlled by GOP in 2018 when Bill Otis was nominated (52-48, I believe). So you are complaining about the GOP failing to move Bill for a vote. (I sense the broader problem was that Prez Trump's entire slate of nominees, and especially Bill, was not seen as a serious bipartisan effort --- in contrast to Prez Biden's slate of nominees which got moved through the process with considerable bipartisan Senate support).
Meanwhile, you've avoided a key question: Do you consider the current GOP members of the bipartisan USSC --- Vice Chair Claire Murray, and Commissioners Judge Claria Horn Boom and Candice C. Wong --- to be "left wing wackos"? I do not consider anyone on the current USSC to be a "wacko," but I want to understand if you think your label fits even the GOP members.
(As a political aside, it seems very unlikely that the US Senate will be 60/40 in favor of Dems anytime soon unless the GOP keeps going hard down the unpopular Trumpian/anti-abortion path despite obvious political problems.)
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 10, 2023 3:40:54 PM
It’s a long game, Doug. The universities were not filled with left wing wackos overnight. Yet, here we are. As are the overwhelming majority of federal and state bureaucracies from which these people would come.
I know nothing about those three people.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 10, 2023 6:30:38 PM
Seems like you see a lot of wackos. I do not see many, though I do see plenty of folks with various perspectives.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 10, 2023 7:21:43 PM
Doug,
Are you saying that OSU is a politically diverse institution?
Even in your law school, what percentage of your fellow academics would you consider to be Republican? In the rest of the university as a whole? In administration? How many “diversity” administrators do you have?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 10, 2023 7:38:52 PM
I said I "see plenty of folks with various perspectives," though most are variations on left-leaning perspectives in university settings. I suspect 20% or less are registered with the GOP, though I sense that's not all that far off from the numbers we see among folks with college + advanced degrees. And I have not met anyone in academia that seems like a "wacko," though plenty have views that I do not find convincing.
As for DEI employees, an American Enterprise Institute report from Dec 2021 indicated there were 132 DEI staff at OSU. Since there are more than 50,000 faculty and staff at Ohio State, that's a bit over 0.25% of OSU employees. At the law school, O beliee we have one or two junior administrators focused specifically on "inculsivity" among 120+ faculty and staff (not counting adjuncts).
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 10, 2023 9:59:58 PM
Doug,
So, you agree that OSU is not diverse despite spending more than $12 million on DEI grifters?
https://www.thecollegefix.com/ohio-state-employs-150-diversity-officials-now-it-will-hire-50-professors-focused-on-social-and-racial-justice/
Do you believe that OSU should be allowed to use race in determining who to hire and who to offer positions in the student body?
Do you believe that true diversity includes much more than what’s between your legs or the color of your skin?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 10, 2023 10:07:59 PM
I believe OSU has over 50 employees working for the football program at a cost of over $20 million. Though I love rooting for the football team, those expenditures contribute less to the core academic mission of the university than the DEI staff. (And though neither football nor DEI are my areas of focus, I suspect I might have different views on how best to use allocated resources were I asked to focus in those areas.)
As for diversity concerns more generally, I have long believed and long advocated that true diversity concerns far more than just race and gender issues. And I generally view race as a relatively poor proxy for a lot of diverse factors that are quite important -- eg, different backgrounds/experiences/viewponts, achievement in the face of personal hardships, interest in using a professional degree in service to underserved populations, etc. And I do often find a lack of viewpoint diversity in the classroom can significant harm the educational mission --- eg, in recent years, very few of the students in my sentencing course are open to arguments in favor of the death penalty, which makes it much harder to have a dynamic conversation on that topic.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 10, 2023 10:42:17 PM
Doug,
Yeah, and the OSU football program funds all of the other sports at the school. It also creates opportunities in all of these sports for women, people of color, and other minorities to get an education for free. Talk about an ROI!
The program does more for diversity in one year than all of those DEI programs do in a decade. They bring people of different backgrounds together. While your DEI people are thinking of ways to separate people with race or sexually identified social clubs, graduations, and dorms, sports programs accept people of all races and backgrounds and quickly become a group of “brothers” or “sisters,” as they fight for a common goal.
To put it plainly, they do more for DEI than any DEI program.
As a highly ranked member of the faculty, have you done anything to promote ideological diversity in hiring and admissions?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 11, 2023 10:42:50 PM
Master Tarls, it seems you generally support having programs in a university that help ensure "women, people of color, and other minorities [can] get an education for free." But, if I am reading you right, you think the OSU football program is better than achieving those postive ends than the "DEI people." So, is it fair to say you are behind the DEI mission, you just think the OSU football program advances that mission better than the "DEI people" and "DEI programs"?
Of course, there are "DEI people" and "DEI programs" in the OSU Athletic Deprtment:
https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/doran-joins-national-diversity-inclusion-efforts/
https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/athletics-racial-equality-group-builds-awareness/
But, for the record, I generally agree that college sports often are, in many respects, a great DEI program. So if you are asserting that you are 100% behind the DEI mission, but just want to make sure DEI efforts are most efficient and effective, we are really on the same page (though I tend to think at least a few (non-sports) "DEI people" can be import to help advance the DEI mission thoughout a university with tens of thousands of non-altheles).
So is it fair to say, Master Tarls, that you are 100% behind the DEI mission, but you just want to make sure DEI efforts are most efficient and effective?
(For the record, I am quite proud of my 25-year record as a faculty member supporting "ideological diversity in hiring and admissions" at the Moritz College of Law. This medium does not readily allow the full explanation, but I have always tried to "walk the walk" on all forms of diversity as well as "talk the talk.")
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 12, 2023 9:49:32 AM
Doug,
My comment was to illustrate that allowing nature to take its course is generally the better option than forcing it, absent discrimination. Sports is a perfect example. It’s a pure meritocracy and those teammates with different backgrounds and life experiences feel like brothers and sisters to each other.
Meanwhile, the races perceived each other much better 15 years ago. Now, college students huddle in their own groups based on race, who they sleep with, etc. Is segregation better? Is it a coincidence that DEI rose during this time and encourages it? Do you believe that “black commencement” is a good thing? Are dorms just for the Alphabet Club a good thing or would they be better off coming into contact with Christians and vice versa before they try to beat up Riley Gaines and hold her for ransom?
DEI is evil because it is not about what it purports to be (the premise of equity is always evil).
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 12, 2023 11:56:08 AM
Isn't all of womens' sports about "equity," Master Tarls? It is certainly not a "pure meritocracy," since we only see women in the WNBA, not the NBA; we see them only in the LPGA, not the PGA and so on. In turn, do you view the premise of equity at the heart of women's sports to be "always evil"?
Of course, we have so many womens' sports at the college level only because of Title IX. Do you consider Title IX to be an example of "allowing nature to take its course"? Or is it really one of those "always evil" efforts to achieve equity for women.
Your last comment continues to leave me confused as to whether you are for or against the DEI mission. When you say "DEI is evil because it is not about what it purports to be," it sounld like you are for the DEI mission as long as it functions the way you want it to function (eg, funding womens' sports at the college level, covering collge costs for women, people of color, and other minorities, urging the "Alphabet Club" and "Christians" to come into contact with each other). Am I wrong to think you are actually a big DEI fan, Master Tarls, you just think the DEI folks are not doing it the right way if/when they lean into "segregation"? I largely agree that DEI is good and segregation is bad.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 12, 2023 1:58:05 PM
Doug,
First, you seem to be confused and using equality and equity interchangeably. They have different meanings.
I would hope you can see that women having a place to play (equality) is different from mandating a number of the women having to be from the Alphabet Club (equity). (I’m excited to see you tacitly admit women and men are different.) I also want African-Americans to be able to sit at a lunch counter but I don’t want a quota of how many sit there everyday.
I love diversity, but it needs to come naturally, not through fiat. Our universities are not “diverse.” They are Balkanized groups who look at each other with suspicion. DEI ideology is mostly responsible for this. I love inclusion too, but DEI ideology has destroyed that as well. Was Stanford Law School being “inclusive?” Was SFSU being “inclusive” with Riley Gaines or were they trying to beat her for her views? Is it a coincidence that at Stanford, it was a DEI employee wondering if “the juice was worth the squeeze?”
Equity is always evil. In concept and practice.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 12, 2023 2:52:02 PM
So if women want a school-funded football team at OSU, Tarls, is that about "a pure meritocracy" or about "equality" or about "equity"? Should it happen in the name of "equality"? I would welcome your explanation of "equality" (always good?) and "equity" ("always evil") in this context or others. Usually the DEI folks are seeking to definte these terms, but they do not call equity "is always evil." (Also I am still eager to know if you think the changes forced to college sports by Title IX were good and whether you think they "came naturally.")
These are hard issues, but it still sounds like you favor diversity, equality and inclusion, but are concerned about how DEI gets pursued. I would welcome you explanation of how DEI should be pursued, but need more of an understanding of what you mean by "come naturally." A whole lot of the diversity, equality and inclusion changes I have witnessed at the university seem "natural" because they are being sought/demanded by students. Today's students are far more likely to identify as LGBT than as deeply religious, though most campuses still have many more formal religious groups than LBGT groups. Surveys suggest that only 20% or less of college students identify as right of center. Higher education is truly driven by a range of these consumer/market economics --- that's why our fooball coaches make more than many departments' faculty --- and I see a lot of the DEI spending to be a reflection of the consumer/market reality. Is the money always well-spent on DEI or other stuff done in the university, surely not. But I see this as a "natural" market driven by the consumers of higher education, especially since (unlike Title XI) I do not think there are any federal law requiring all the DEI investments.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 12, 2023 3:29:02 PM
I think you are still confused about the difference between “equity” and “equality.” Equality means equal opportunity. Equity means equal outcomes. I am for equal opportunity (which Title IX is meant to provide), but not equal outcome. A black girl should be able to try out for the school hockey team (equality). She should not be given a spot because she is black (equity) to check a box. Title IX was enforced from above, as was the abolition of slavery and allowing blacks to sit at the lunch counter. The difference is that equality is a right. A belief in equity is evil.
My comment about “pure meritocracy” is about the teams. LeBron James’ kid is not going to get into the NBA because of his dad. If he gets in, it will be because he is good enough. That’s a meritocracy and how sports teams are run.
I am sure you see demand for DEI garbage on campus. The question is, “Why?” Was the same demand there 15-20 years ago before DEI ideology (even if by other names) took hold? The AA view of whites, say in 2008, was much more positive than today and vice versa. We are far more Balkanized now than we were. It’s because those DEI grifters created the demand by brainwashing these kids since grammar school. That’s not letting it happen “naturally.”
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 12, 2023 5:58:48 PM
Can you answer my football team question: "If women want a school-funded football team at OSU, is that a call for 'equality' or 'equity'?" Is that a "right" that should be "enforced from above"? Also, do men have an "equal opportunity" on the OSU women's hockey team? Would that be a "right" that should be "enforced from above"?
There seems to be a lot of gender "equity" going on in sports as I see it --- both the requirement to have (some but not all) women's sports and keeping (small) men from being able to play sports with smaller people --- but maybe you think the gender segregation of sports is a form of "equality." And speaking of small men, should there be a little guy football team? (My college roommate played on the "lightweight" team, but I am not sure they exist anymore.) Would making a football team for people under 200 pounds be good "equality" or evil "equity"? Or how about the paralympics --- good "equality" or evil "equity"?
Whatever your answers as you try to help me understand "equality" and "equity," do you also think there are "DEI grifters" in elementary school brainwashing kids on how to answer these basic sports questions? And who is hiring these brainwashers to work in elementary schools?
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 12, 2023 7:02:51 PM
Wow, Doug.
I cannot believe the silliness of these questions.
I have no issue with a female football team if there is a demand for it.
Equality is giving the opportunity for women to play sports…against other women. To even ask these questions, you must go with the absurd premise that there are no biological differences between men and women. A man playing on a female team is not equality because she has no opportunity to play the sport. An under 15 boys high school soccer team beat the US female World Cup team.
You have reached absurdly low levels.
But, I mean, short people? They have every right to try out for the football team (equality). They don’t have the right to make the team (equity). That’s where meritocracy comes into play. You are good enough or not.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 12, 2023 8:45:35 PM
Tarls, you keep failing to explain whether a female football team would be "equality" or "equity" and whether a small person football team would be "equality" or "equity." (After all, small men have "no opportunity to play the sport" of football because of their bilogical differences.) And, on the topic of biological difference, are the paralympics an example of good "equality" or evil "equity"? Could I fairly say that "Equality is giving the opportunity for short men (or Catholics) to play sports … against other short men (or Catholics)"?
With all these (silly) questions, I am seeking to make the point that these concepts are socially constructed (like all of sports) --- you have "no issue with a female football team," but why? I surmise it is because you want to give women a chance to play football when "a pure meritocracy" would not. And that's fine --- but it is fundamentally YOUR notion of justified equity, since women have the same "right to try out for the football team (equality)" or any other team now dominated by men because the biggest men are bigger and stronger than the biggest women. Only by making a special team for women do women get a chance to play, and that seems to me to be a form of equity, not equality, in part because because small men are not allowed to try out for the special women's team.
So that's my point -- even in sports, there are notions of "equity" that inform what you (and others) consider justified and what you think is not. It seems clear that you do not view some gender equity (in sports) as "evil" because you favor this form of equity, but it apparently is "evil" when you do not like how equity gets practiced elsewhere. It seems the devil truly is in the detail.
And we have not even scratched the surface of hard questions concerning why many altheles typically get admitted with lower credenital AND get tuition paid whereas other have to pay. Is that equality or equity?
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 12, 2023 8:54:38 PM
Doug,
It still appears you have no idea what equality and equity mean.
A female football team would be equality, giving them the same opportunity as men. (Equity would be taking scholarships away from men and allowing women to play on the men’s team).
A small male team would be equity, as nothing is stopping them from trying for the regular football team. Lack of skill or height compared to other males does not violate equal opportunity.
Your insistence on absurd scenarios shows the weakness of your position.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 13, 2023 4:57:52 PM
Master Tarls: what is the "regular football team"? Is that the men's team? Then why a "special" equity women's team? Why would it not be more accurate to say equality is having all people compete for the "regular football team"? And if some thereafter call for a paralympic football team --- perhaps hoping to get "equal" althetic scholarships --- would creating a football team for the disabled be required in the name of "equality" or would that be "equity"? More broadly, let me ask again, are the Paralympics held after the Olympics an example of good "equality" or evil "equity"?
You have failed to address the paralympic question because there is no clear answer to the question. And that's the point, which I surmise you do not get: your notions of "equality" are socially constructed in the same way others' notions of "equity" get constructed. (Before "equity" was the word of choice, the common semantics was to debate "formal equality" versus "substantive equality." And having special sports teams for women is a form of "substantive equality," since "formal equality" would involve everyone competing for the "regular team.")
Moreover, keeping the focus on college realities, isn't the real INequality that so many (male and female) athletes get admitted to college with lower credenitals AND get free tuition while others with stronger credentials get rejected or have to pay full tuition? College athletes all benefit from a form of "affirmative action for athletes equity" that produces considerable inequality for other applicants/students who have better academic credentials. But since you claim equity "is always evil," I guess all college sports programs are always evil.
Again, my point is not to argue for the label "equity" or against the label "equality." My point is to highlight those who champion equality and those who champion equity are generally rowing in the same direction, though certainly people have different views about what forms of equity/equality are most essential to pursue. I think it would be a darn shame to do away with the Paralympics whether one describes it as "equality" or "equity." But if one label is "always evil" then we need to spend a lot of time giving always debatable meaning to these labels.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 13, 2023 10:47:16 PM
Doug,
Here is the problem. Race grifters, which all DEI is.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/04/12/disgraced-professor-abruptly-leaves-job-amid-claims-he-faked-data-to-make-racism-seem-more-prevalent-1349258/
Reality:
https://www.newsweek.com/americans-are-convinced-that-race-relations-are-bad-data-says-opposite-opinion-1791265
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 13, 2023 11:27:07 PM
Okay, so it seems we are back to where we started when you praised college athletics for advancing the DEI mission. Is I read your various comments, you support the DEI mission in concept -- and seemingly the practice of athlete affirmative action in various forms -- but just do not like how "race grifters" have poluted the pursuit of this mission.
The problem, as I see it, is that many folks on the right (and even centerists) have been pushed out of/departed the DEI space rather than being able/eager to advocate for pursuing DEI in various other ways and for various truly diverse goals (eg, more admissions and more respect for religious persons, for rural persons, for poor persons, etc). With conservatives/centerists pushed out, disengaged or even aggressively oppositional, an un-diverse and un-inclusive version of DEI develops. (I am not meaning to allocate blame, just flagging dynamics I see.)
Labeling equity "always evil" can aggravate thse dynamics, in part because most DEI folks sincerely believe they are doing "better equality," and so they hear someone saying that "better equality" is "always evil." I know that is not what you are saying, but most folks tune out and double down when they think they are working hard to better society and people are calling their work evil. (Of course, any academic who builds a career by faking data may merit a similar label.)
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 13, 2023 11:57:46 PM
Doug, sorry for the late reply. I got tied up.
I believe you still misconstrue or misrepresent what I have been sàying.
I’m not in favor of “DEI” at all. And, yes, saying people deserve to end up at the same finish point in life is a moral hazard and evil. The same goes for intersectionality.
I am OK with the “D” and “I”, but not the way you perceive it. It shouldn’t be pushed, but it shouldn’t used as a weapon either. OSU Law School should hire the best law professors they can, regardless of race, gender, what’s between their legs, who they sleep with, and their political persuasion. However, it is the exact opposite of its supposed purpose,. It is used to exclude conservatives, whites, Asians, cisgender males, etc. I
I have a similar view of inclusion. Helping a disabled person with a special computer is not equity. Giving him a diploma based on the disability rather than performance is.
Although you say you are not assigning blame, you are. Like most of the current culture wars, conservatives were dragged kicking and screaming into this one. DEI grifters do not care about rural whites, conservatives, religious people, etc. They are the ones losing seats in these institutions. They don’t have a place on the intersectional ladder.
Finally, my point was about more than faking data. In what direction was it faked? Why all of these fake hate crimes while a federal judge at Stanford gets berated by students and DEI staff and Riley Gaines is getting assaulted? YAF and the Federalist Society are not doing this. The demand for racism has outstripped supply, which the second article I presented shows. What has become a major industry in our universities during all of this? DEI
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 15, 2023 8:10:24 PM
Master Tarls, I will not belabor the sports point because you do not seem entirely able to grasp that sports are full of all sorts of contestable DEI --- eg, having teams (with scholarships/other benefits) for womens' basketball and maybe wheelchair basketball (but not people under 5'5'') is fundamentally an equity decision designed to help certain people "end up at the same finish point" of being on a team (with its benefits) even though the starting point of the "regular" basketball team is equally available to the "best" basketball players. (And, of course, "gender, what’s between their legs" determines who is allowed to "finish" on the segregated mens/womens teams.)
And you highlight, yet again, that you fundamentally favor the basic DEI mission when you express your concern that DEI hiring "exclude[s] conservatives, whites, Asians, cisgender males, etc." Your concern is about what you perceive to be unfair exclusion based on your perceptions of merit --- which seems quite akin to how many DEI folks would describe their job in seeking to prevent what they perceive to be unfair exclusion based on their perceptions of merit. As I see it, extolling "equality" really means you have the same basic values/commitments as the DEI crowd, even though you surely have very different perceptions of who is being unfairly excluded and who has "merit."
Speaking of "merit," what do you think about a "disabled person" getting more time to take a timed test than his peers? That issue arises in my classes, and the student services staff decides who gets more time on my tests (and I have no say in the matter). Should I applaud this as good "equality" or oppose it as evil "equity"? (Though I am kept blind from who gets extra time on my tests, research in other settings has suggested white, wealthy men are disproprtionately benefitting from this sort of accomodation: https://www.chronicle.com/article/white-wealthy-males-are-found-to-gain-from-sat-accommodations-for-the-disabled/)
My main point is that "equality" and "equity" are part of the same playbook, though always will be defined distinctly in the eyes of distinct beholders. And, so you know, I have long thought (and complained) that viewpoints (and affirmative action) in the service of DEI goals have often failed to live up to the name. I share your concern that some folks tasked with pursuing diversity, equity and inclusion do not seem to fully understand these terms nor seem to care when they are advanced in only one-sided ways. But that is why I think it so harmful to attack the goals of DEI as "evil," rather than to assail the lack of DEI in the ways in which DEI is sometimes being pursed.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 16, 2023 8:57:59 AM
Doug,
Giving the disabled person the same grade as an abled person for the sake of equity is evil. It’s where you keep getting the premise wrong. Equality refers to opportunity, where you start. Equity refers to where you end. Equality is giving women an opportunity to play. Equity would be forcing male teams to allow women to play on their teams.
I appreciate your love for DEI, but let’s make this simpler.
What has DEI done for Asian minorities? What is it doing for women?
Are race relations better or worse off since DEI programs started?
Again, race relations were much better in 2008, showed by polling. There is probably more distrust now than since the 1950’s. Isn’t creating that problem “evil?” There is a new video of a trans “female” busting up the face and concussing a real female on the other team with a spike. Evil or not? Making young girls undress with men? Evil or not?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 21, 2023 8:28:15 PM
Tarls, neither I nor SAT administration give "the disabled person the same grade as an abled person for the sake of equity." Rather, disabled persons are given more time to complete a timed exam and then their exams and other exams are graded using the same equal grading metrics. Can you address whether THAT real-world situation is "equality" or "equity"?
And I still do not understand why true "equality" would not be having everyone compete to be on the same (sports or non-sports) team regardless of "gender, what’s between their legs." You say "Equality refers to opportunity, where you start." So why does that not just mean everyone should equally have the same equal opportunity to compete for one "regular" team rather than create multiple (equity, gender-based) teams just so more people (who are less good at a sport or a non-sport) can end up on a team?
Because you are confused that terms like equality and equity are in the same family and can become hard to distinguish, Tarls, I suspect you are confused about how I mean to use the term DEI to describe diversity, equity and inclusion broadly defined. As I mentioned above, I think many modern DEI programs can often fail to live up to the name because of an excessive focus on race and gender issues. I see DEI everywhere in our political structures --- e.g., giving every state two Senators rather than apportioning democratic power by population is a commitment to "equity"; requiring the US Sentencing Commission to have both Rs and Ds is a "diversity" and an "inclusion" move. I trust you have a "love for DEI" when it is part of the American political structure (and I trust you are smart enough to realize that my prior "small person" football question serves as a great analogy for the "small state" fairness issue that the Founding Fathers struggled with as a matter of political "equity").
Based on your expressed concerns, Tarls, I surmise you are really only troubled by modern DEI programs as they lean excessively into race and gender issues. Here we are on relatively common ground because I view the biggest problem of the modern DEI push has been to elevate race and gender issues over so many other important DEI concerns. But what has hurt society, as I see it, is not a general concern for DEI, but rather a failure to take a robust and truly inclusive (rather than divisive) approach to DEI.
But, even as I am troubled by some of what now gets done in the name of DEI, the label "evil" does not seem the right. Foolish, misguided, harmful, counterproductive, sure. But anyone who truly considers "equality" as an important and meaningful value ought to understand that most of the modern DEI crowd sincerely believes that they are advancing that value more than anyone else and so they assume (often wrongly) that anyone who calls them evil to be fundamentally against human equality.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 22, 2023 2:49:39 PM
And one (last?) question about equity in higher education: what do you think of programs in many elite colleges providing free tuition (including room, board and fees) for all admitted students coming from families making less than $75,000 annually? That is certainly "equity," not equal treatment, focused on family background. Are these higher education DEI tuition programs evil?
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 22, 2023 11:02:36 PM
Doug,
I’m not sure if the premises are beyond your comprehension or you are just being obstinate.
1. It’s equality. It’s giving someone with a disability the opportunity to take the exam. It doesn’t issue him points or guarantee a similar grade (equity).
2. Because without sports partitioned by sex, there would be no opportunity for women to play competitive sports. Again, opportunity.
3. A fair point, but I don’t see “small states vs big states” as analogous to an individual getting preferential treatment in outcomes. Furthermore, small states still are not given equal power with their larger counterparts. And, yes, equality and equity are in the same family, but it doesn’t mean they are the same.
4. Many communists and fascists believed they were doing the best for society as well, but as a Polish-American I sure as hell know both ideologies are evil.
5. Elite colleges giving money for poor kids to apply is giving an opportunity they would not otherwise have, presumably having nothing to do with lack of intelligence. I don’t mind a poor kid, black kid, etc., being given an opportunity as long as a better qualified student is not turned away.
Now, I would like you to answer my questions that you ignored:
What has DEI done for Asian minorities? What is it doing for women?
Are race relations better or worse off since DEI programs started?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 24, 2023 2:51:36 PM
One more thing. You previously stated that you were against “wokeness,” at least in its current form.
Who is teaching our kids that words are violence? Who is teaching our students that Riley Gaines, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and a federal judge don’t have a right to speak?
Do you, or any of your colleagues, ever feel like you have to modify speech because you don’t want to deal with the backlash?
This is the DEI movement in public school systems and universities. Every one of these grifters should lose his job.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 24, 2023 5:37:41 PM
Master Tarls, you recognize that "equality and equity are in the same family," but then you label the types of equity you favor "equality/opportunity" without recognizing that these "opportunities" are certain to produce "preferential treatment in outcomes." Eg, giving some people more time on a test means they'll get a better test outcome than if not given that preferential treatment (and so will have better credentials relative to those not given more time); making special sports teams for women means they will get the preferred outcome of being on a team (and a scholarship/other benefits); giving money for poor kids to go to an elite college means having to charge more for everyone else to have the 'outcome' of attending an expensive school.
In other words, these are all forms of "preferential treatment" sure to result in different outcomes/distribution of benefits than without these forms of "preferential treatment." But it seems you like these particular forms of equity (as you like equity in the US Senate). Fine, but realize many DEI folks will claim they are just doing more of what you approve of; to parrot your point 2, they might say: "without DEI efforts partitioned by DEI factors, there would be no opportunity for DEI communities to be competitive in various part of society."
This is my core point, there is all sorts of DEI everywhere, and we all favor it in some form in some ways. Most higher ed admissions care about geographical diversity, though I doubt that form of DEI troubles you. As I said before, I surmise you are particularly troubled by modern DEI programs that lean excessively into race and gender issues. But, in higher ed, that lean seems to have generally helped Asian minorities and women based on data from the WSJ and NYT: Asian student made up about 28 percent of those admitted in 2022, up from nearly 20 percent in 2013; at close of 2020-21 academic year, women made up 59.5% of college students, an all-time high. Do you have data that Asian minorities and women are doing worse in educational arenas or others?
I do think race relations feel worse in some settings, but I also see a much more diverse world around me. I am troubled by claims that words are violence and the intollerance toward some speech and ideas, and I deeply dislike illiberal attitudes that somehow turn a desire to be tolerant into a lack of tolerance. (But the most backlash I have experienced for speech in recent times came from you complaining about my pronoun use.) And I do not think calling certain people evil and saying they should all be out of a job is the sound way to get us to a better place. Just like I do not think "abolish the police" moves us forward effectively, neither would I subscribe to "abolish the DEI."
In the end, I suspect we agree on more than we realize, as I suspect we both view equality/equity as an important value that needs to be balanced with a bunch of other values.
Posted by: Doug B. | Apr 24, 2023 11:35:39 PM
