As an initial matter, DEI is a non-partisan system of practices that are designed to foster integration and uplift communities that have experienced marginalization in the past and continue to face barriers today. DEI, in general, and as contemplated by SB 17, is separate from raceconscious admissions and should not be quantitatively measured solely by the number of students of color on campus. As scholars have explained, “institutions of higher education have to go beyond simply increasing enrollment of students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. These institutions must also attend to both the quality of the campus racial climate and the actual interactions among diverse students.”3 DEI initiatives and offices are essential because “just increasing the racial/ethnic diversity on campus while neglecting to attend to the racial climate can result in difficulties for students of color as well as for white students.”4
Senate Bill 17, if it becomes law, will codify guidance from your office, dated February 4, 2023, mischaracterizing DEI initiatives as “policies that expressly favor some demographic groups to the detriment of others” and “proactively encourage discrimination in the workplace.”5 Following your guidance, multiple universities across Texas, including Texas’ flagship university, the University of Texas at Austin, announced their suspension of DEI initiatives.6 However, in actuality—and in stark contrast to the letter’s mischaracterization—DEI initiatives function to make the workplace a more inclusive environment for all. Senate Bill 17 would enshrine these deeply flawed prohibitions into Texas law and will hinder ongoing efforts by Texas public institutions of higher education to undo the longstanding vestiges of state-sanctioned discrimination against Black and Latinx students and faculty. These efforts are key to cultivating positive school climates that foster inclusive institutions, and Texans will undoubtedly suffer the impacts of Senate Bill 17 in their classrooms.7
Moreover, Senate Bill 17 seeks to prohibit “discriminatory initiatives” that federal guidance has already explained are not discriminatory. Recent guidance on DEI issued by the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reinforces that “Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in the programs or activities of all recipients of Federal financial assistance.”8 “A [] college violates Title VI if it intentionally treats a person differently or causes them harm because of their race, or if a [] college creates or is responsible for a racially hostile environment.”9 “Activities intended to further objectives such as diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion are not generally or categorically prohibited under Title VI.”10 For example, Title VI does not prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion training, instruction in or training on the impact of racism or systemic racism, cultural competency training or other nondiscriminatory trainings, or efforts to assess or improve school climate, including the use of community focus groups or climate surveys.11 Indeed, DEI training may be necessary in some instances to combat the discrimination that Title VI prohibits. Moreover, to date, no Texas state court or federal court has found any Texas public college or university’s DEI office or policies to violate Title VI, the Texas State Constitution, or the U.S. Constitution as racially discriminatory.
Indeed, as OCR notes, DEI initiatives are often agreed upon to be implemented where there is a finding that a college has violated Title VI.12 DEI initiatives can remedy differential “treatment of students, provide remedial measures to address harassing conduct, assist in remedying other forms of discrimination on the basis of race, and foster a more positive and inclusive school climate.”13 Therefore, contrary to unfounded claims that DEI promotes discrimination, the opposite is true: DEI efforts help to combat discrimination and to address unintended gaps in services and opportunities for underserved communities, including Black and Latinx people, veterans, and differently-abled people. Senate Bill 17 is not in the best interest of faculty and students of color in Texas and will restrict public colleges and universities from using an important tool to create more belonging for all of their students and faculty. 14
[Editor’s Note: footnotes 1 and 2 below, referencing landmark desegregation cases, are cited in support of a previous section of the letter applauding the Texas Governor for signing The C.R.O.W.N. Act, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of hair style.]
1 Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
2 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
3 Gurin, P., Nagda, B. (R.) A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The Benefits of Diversity in Education for Democratic Citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x
4 Hurtado, S., Griffin, K. A., Arellano, L., & Cuellar, M. (2008). Assessing the value of climate assessments: Progress and future directions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 204–221.
5 Brian Lopez, Texas higher education leaders say equitable access is key for graduation goals, TEXAS TRIBUNE (Feb. 9, 2023)https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/texas-higher-education-budget/.
SB 17 – (consideration continued) Representative Kuempel moved to adopt the conference committee report on SBi17. The motion to adopt the conference committee report on SBi17 prevailed by (Record 2212):
Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker. Absent, Excused — Frazier; Garcia; Herrero; Shaheen. Absent — Morales Shaw.
Senate
Sunday, May 28, 2023
Senator Creighton called from the President s’ table the Conference Committee Report on SB 17. The Conference Committee Report was filed with the Senate on Saturday, May 27, 2023. On motion of Senator Creighton, the Conference Committee Report was adopted by the following vote:
Enhancing the Power of Governing Boards to Control Hiring and Course Offerings
Prohibiting Offices or Employees of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
Prohibiting DEI Training Unless Approved by the Texas Attorney General
And Providing for the Reporting, Removal, and Blacklisting of Offending Campus Employees
But Requiring Statements Affirming the High Priority of “Viewpoint Diversity”
Including a $1 Million Dollar Fine
Version Accessed, Good Friday, 2023
“All these communities who fought and bled and sometimes even died to have a seat at the table, we are now being told to get up & leave… We refuse to leave the table, we refuse to go back under.”#DEI#HB1#txlegepic.twitter.com/OWb06dvgBS
Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston) speaks against the House version of the DEI Ban, which has been approved as part of the House budget bill.
By: Creighton, et al. S.B. No. 17
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to public higher education reform; authorizing administrative penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 51.352, Education Code, is amended by amending Subsection (d) and adding Subsection (g) to read as follows:
(d) In addition to powers and duties specifically granted by this code or other law, each governing board shall:
(1) establish, for each institution under its control and management, goals consistent with the role and mission of the institution;
(2) appoint the chancellor or other chief executive officer of the system, if the board governs a university system;
(3) appoint the president or other chief executive officer of each institution under the board’s control and management and evaluate the chief executive officer of each component institution and assist the officer in the achievement of performance goals;
(4) restrict the membership of a search committee for the position of president or other chief executive officer of an institution under the board’s control and management to members of the governing board;
(5) approve or deny the hiring of a person for the position of vice president, provost, associate or assistant provost, dean, or associate or assistant dean or a similar position by each institution under the board’s control and management;
(6) set campus admission standards consistent with the role and mission of the institution and considering the admission standards of similar institutions nationwide having a similar role and mission, as determined by the coordinating board;
(7) approve or deny each course in the core curriculum, as that term is defined by Section 61.821, at each institution under the board’s control and management;
(8) approve or deny each posting or other advertisement for a tenured faculty position at each institution under the board’s control and management; and
(9) [(5)] ensure that its formal position on matters of importance to the institutions under its governance is made clear to the coordinating board when such matters are under consideration by the coordinating board.
(g) An institution of higher education may not spend money appropriated to the institution for a state fiscal year until the governing board of the institution submits to the legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board a report certifying the board’s compliance with Subsections (d)(2), (3), (5), (7), and (8) during the preceding state fiscal year.
SECTION 2. Chapter 51, Education Code, is amended by adding Subchapter L to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER L. PROHIBITIONS REGARDING IDEOLOGICAL OATHS OR STATEMENTS
Sec. 51.601. PURPOSE. The purpose of this subchapter is to prohibit institutions of higher education from requiring or giving preferential consideration for certain ideological oaths or statements that undermine academic freedom and open inquiry and impede the discovery, preservation, and transmission of knowledge.
Sec. 51.602. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) “Coordinating board” means the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
(2) “Institution of higher education” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003.
Sec. 51.603. PROHIBITIONS REGARDING IDEOLOGICAL OATHS OR STATEMENTS. (a) An institution of higher education may not:
(1) compel, require, induce, or solicit a student enrolled at the institution, an employee or contractor of the institution, or an applicant for admission to or employment or contracting at the institution to:
(A) endorse an ideology that promotes the differential treatment of an individual or group of individuals based on race, color, or ethnicity; or
(B) provide a statement of the person’s:
(i) race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, except to record any necessary demographic information;
(ii) views on, experience with, or past or planned contributions to efforts involving diversity, equity, and inclusion, marginalized groups, antiracism, social justice, intersectionality, or related concepts; or
(iii) views on or experience with race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or other immutable characteristics; or
(2) provide preferential consideration to a student enrolled at the institution, an employee or contractor of the institution, or an applicant for admission to or employment or contracting at the institution on the basis of the person’s unsolicited statement in support of an ideology described by Subdivision (1)(A).
(b) This section may not be construed to:
(1) restrict academic research or coursework;
(2) prevent a person from providing to an institution of higher education information described by Subsection (a) on the person’s own initiative separate from any specific requirement or request from the institution; or
(3) prevent an institution of higher education from requiring an applicant for admission to or employment or contracting at the institution to:
(A) disclose or discuss the content of the applicant’s research or artistic creations;
(B) certify compliance with state and federal antidiscrimination law; or
(C) discuss pedagogical approaches or experience with students with learning disabilities.
(c) Not later than December 1 of each year, each institution of higher education shall submit to the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the house of representatives a report certifying the institution’s compliance with this section.
SECTION 3. Subchapter Z, Chapter 51, Education Code, is amended by adding Sections 51.9317, 51.9318, and 51.9319 to read as follows:
Sec. 51.9317. DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION OFFICES AND EMPLOYEES PROHIBITED. (a) In this section:
(1) “Coordinating board” means the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
(2) “Diversity, equity, and inclusion office” means an office, division, or other unit of an institution of higher education established for the purpose of:
(A) influencing hiring or employment practices at the institution with respect to race, sex, color, or ethnicity, other than through the use of color-blind and sex-neutral hiring processes in accordance with any applicable state and federal antidiscrimination laws;
(B) promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity;
(C) promoting policies or procedures designed or implemented in reference to race, color, or ethnicity, other than policies or procedures approved in writing by the institution’s general counsel and the office of the attorney general for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with any applicable court order or state or federal law; or
(D) conducting trainings, programs, or activities designed or implemented in reference to race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation, other than trainings, programs, or activities developed by an attorney and approved in writing by the institution’s general counsel and the office of the attorney general for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with any applicable court order or state or federal law.
(3) “Institution of higher education” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003.
(b) An institution of higher education may not establish or maintain a diversity, equity, and inclusion office or hire or assign an employee of the institution, or contract with a third party, to perform the duties of a diversity, equity, and inclusion office.
(c) Subsection (b) may not be construed to:
(1) restrict:
(A) academic course instruction;
(B) research or creative works by an institution of higher education’s students or faculty;
(C) the activities of student organizations registered with or recognized by an institution of higher education;
(D) the guest speakers or performers who may be invited to speak or perform at an institution of higher education for short-term engagements;
(E) health services provided by licensed professionals at an institution of higher education;
(F) services provided by appropriate professionals at an institution of higher education to veterans of the armed forces of the United States or persons with a physical or cognitive disability; or
(G) an institution of higher education’s ability to:
(i) respond to a request for information from a grantmaking agency or athletic association; or
(ii) collect data; or
(2) prohibit an institution of higher education from:
(A) establishing or maintaining a legal office or other unit, hiring or assigning an employee who is an attorney, or contracting with a third-party attorney or law firm to ensure the institution’s compliance with any applicable court order or state or federal law;
(B) establishing or maintaining an academic department that does not establish policy or procedures for other departments; or
(C) registering or recognizing student organizations at the institution.
(d) Nothing in this section may be construed as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of an institution of higher education.
(e) Any person may notify the attorney general of a violation or potential violation of this section by an institution of higher education. The attorney general may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling the institution to comply with this section.
(i) If an institution of higher education determines that an employee of the institution has violated this section, the institution shall:
(1) take the following action against the employee:
(A) for the first violation, place the employee on unpaid leave for the next academic year; or
(B) for the second or a subsequent violation, discharge the employee; and
(2) report the determination and the action taken by the institution to the coordinating board.
(j) The coordinating board shall maintain and provide to each institution of higher education a list of persons against whom action has been taken under Subsection (i).
(k) An institution of higher education may not hire an employee who is included on the coordinating board’s list maintained under Subsection (j) before:
(1) if the employee was placed on unpaid leave under Subsection (i)(1)(A), the end of the academic year for which the employee is placed on unpaid leave; or
(2) if the employee was discharged under Subsection (i)(1)(B), the fifth anniversary of the date on which the employee was discharged.
(l) If the coordinating board determines that an institution of higher education has violated this section, the coordinating board shall assess an administrative penalty against the institution in an amount equal to the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the amount of the institution’s operating expenses budgeted for the state fiscal year preceding the state fiscal year in which the violation occurred.
(m) An administrative penalty collected under Subsection (l) may only be appropriated to an institution of higher education that the coordinating board has not determined to have violated this section during the two state fiscal years preceding the state fiscal year for which the appropriation is made.
Sec. 51.9318. STATEMENTS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN MISSION STATEMENT, BYLAWS, FACULTY HANDBOOK, AND STUDENT HANDBOOK. (a) In this section, “institution of higher education” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003.
(b) Each institution of higher education shall adopt an institutional mission statement that includes, or incorporate into the institution’s institutional mission statement if the institution has already adopted an institutional mission statement, the following statements in whole and without interruption:
(1) “We affirm that (name of institution) will educate students by means of free, open, and rigorous intellectual inquiry to seek the truth.”;
(2) “We affirm our duty to equip students with the intellectual skills they need to reach their own informed conclusions on matters of social and political importance.”;
(3) “We affirm the value of viewpoint diversity in campus intellectual life, including in faculty recruitment and hiring.”;
(4) “We affirm our duty to ensure that no aspects of (name of institution) life, in or outside the classroom, require, favor, disfavor, or prohibit speech or action that supports any political, social, or religious belief.”;
(5) “We affirm our commitment to create a community dedicated to civil and free inquiry that respects the intellectual freedom of each member, supports individual capacities for growth, and tolerates the differences in opinion that naturally occur in a public university community.”;
(6) “We affirm the value of institutional neutrality: that institutions of higher education should not take collective positions on political and social controversies of the day.”; and
(7) “These values take priority over any other value we may also adopt.”
(c) Each institution of higher education shall incorporate into the institution’s bylaws, faculty handbook, and student handbook the substance of the following reports issued by the University of Chicago:
(1) the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression; and
(2) the Kalven Committee Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action.
Sec. 51.9319. CERTAIN MANDATORY TRAINING PROHIBITED. (a) In this section:
(1) “Coordinating board” means the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
(2) “Institution of higher education” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003.
(3) “Training” includes a training, seminar, discussion group, workshop, or other instructional program, whether provided in person, online, or by any other means, with a purpose of advising, counseling, influencing, or teaching participants. The term does not include:
(A) an academic course offered for credit; or
(B) an activity of a student organization registered with or recognized by an institution of higher education that affects only the organization’s members.
(b) An institution of higher education may not require a student, employee, or applicant for employment at the institution to participate in training on diversity, equity, inclusion, bias, oppression, gender identity, or related concepts as a condition of:
(1) admission to or enrollment at the institution;
(2) employment or promotion at the institution;
(3) participating in any function of the institution; or
(4) graduating from the institution.
(c) This section may not be construed to:
(1) limit the academic freedom of any individual faculty member to direct the instruction of a course taught by the faculty member; or
(2) prohibit any training:
(A) that is:
(i) developed by an attorney; and
(ii) approved in writing by the institution’s general counsel and the office of the attorney general as being required to comply with any applicable court order or state or federal law; and
(B) for which the materials are made publicly available on the institution of higher education’s Internet website.
(d) Any person may notify the attorney general of a violation or potential violation of this section by an institution of higher education. The attorney general may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling the institution to comply with this section.
(e) A student or employee of an institution of higher education who is required to participate in training in violation of this section may bring an action against the institution for injunctive or declaratory relief.
(h) If an institution of higher education determines that an employee of the institution has violated this section, the institution shall:
(1) take the following action against the employee:
(A) for the first violation, place the employee on unpaid leave for the next academic year; or
(B) for the second or a subsequent violation, discharge the employee; and
(2) report the determination and the action taken by the institution to the coordinating board.
(i) The coordinating board shall maintain and provide to each institution of higher education a list of persons against whom action has been taken under Subsection (h).
(j) An institution of higher education may not hire an employee who is included on the coordinating board’s list maintained under Subsection (i) before:
(1) if the employee was placed on unpaid leave under Subsection (h)(1)(A), the end of the academic year for which the employee is placed on unpaid leave; or
(2) if the employee was discharged under Subsection (h)(1)(B), the fifth anniversary of the date on which the employee was discharged.
(k) If the coordinating board determines that an institution of higher education has violated this section, the coordinating board shall assess an administrative penalty against the institution in an amount equal to the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the amount of the institution’s operating expenses budgeted for the state fiscal year preceding the state fiscal year in which the violation occurred.
(l) An administrative penalty collected under Subsection (k) may only be appropriated to an institution of higher education that the coordinating board has not determined to have violated this section during the two state fiscal years preceding the state fiscal year for which the appropriation is made.
SECTION 4. Section 51.942, Education Code, is amended by adding Subsection (c-1) to read as follows:
(c-1) For purposes of Subsection (c)(5), good cause for revoking the tenure of a faculty member includes the faculty member’s violation of Section 51.9317 or 51.9319.
SECTION 5. (a) Section 51.352(d), Education Code, as amended by this Act, applies beginning with the 2023-2024 academic year.
(b) Section 51.352(g), Education Code, as added by this Act, applies beginning with money appropriated to a public institution of higher education for the state fiscal year beginning September 1, 2024.
SECTION 6. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b) of this section, Subchapter L, Chapter 51, and Sections 51.9317, 51.9318, and 51.9319, Education Code, as added by this Act, apply beginning with the 2023-2024 academic year.
(b) Sections 51.9317(i) and 51.9319(h), Education Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a person who enters into or renews an employment contract at a public institution of higher education on or after the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 7. A public institution of higher education may not spend money appropriated by the legislature for the state fiscal biennium beginning September 1, 2025, until the institution’s governing board has filed with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and posted on the institution’s Internet website a report that:
(1) states the steps taken by the institution to comply with Section 51.9317, Education Code, as added by this Act; and
(2) certifies the institution’s compliance with Section 51.9317, Education Code, as added by this Act.
SECTION 8. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2023.
Here is a portion of the official bill analysis filed on July 15, 2021 (first special session of the Texas Legislatue), in support of S.B. 3 “Relating to certain curriculum in public schools, including certain instructional requirements and prohibitions.”
(4) a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school is prohibited from:
(A) requiring or making part of a course inculcation in the concept that:
(i) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(ii) an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s race or sex;
(iv) an individual’s moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual’s race or sex;
(v) an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(vi) an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s race or sex;
(vii) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
(viii) the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or
(ix) with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality;
(B) teaching, instructing, or training any administrator, teacher, or staff member of a state agency, school district, or open enrollment charter school to adopt a concept listed under Paragraph (A); or
(C) requiring an understanding of the 1619 Project.
Editor’s Note: Here is a self-description of the 1619 Project from the New York Times Magazine:
“The 1619 Project began with the publication, in August 2019, of a special issue of The New York Times Magazine containing essays on different aspects of contemporary American life, from mass incarceration to rush-hour traffic, that have their roots in slavery and its aftermath. Each essay takes up a modern phenomenon, familiar to all, and reveals its history. The first, by the staff writer Nikole Hannah-Jones (from whose mind this project sprang), provides the intellectual framework for the project and can be read as an introduction.
“Alongside the essays, you will find 17 literary works that bring to life key moments in American history. These works are all original compositions by contemporary black writers who were asked to choose events on a timeline of the past 400 years. . . .
“In addition to these elements, we partnered with the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African-American History and Culture to create a brief visual history of slavery. That is as good a place to start as any.
“A word of warning: There is gruesome material in these stories, material that readers will find disturbing. That is, unfortunately, as it must be. American history cannot be told truthfully without a clear vision of how inhuman and immoral the treatment of black Americans has been. By acknowledging this shameful history, by trying hard to understand its powerful influence on the present, perhaps we can prepare ourselves for a more just future.
“That is the hope of this project.”
Editor’s Note: Under the proposed Texas law, here are some things that will be required:
(h-2) Requires SBOE, in adopting the essential knowledge and skills for the social studies curriculum for each grade level from kindergarten through grade 12, to adopt essential knowledge and skills that develop each student’s civic knowledge, including:
(1) an understanding of:
(A) the fundamental moral, political, and intellectual foundations of the American experiment in self-government;
(B) the history, qualities, traditions, and features of civic engagement in the United States;
(C) the structure, function, and processes of government institutions at the federal, state, and local levels;
(D) the founding documents of the United States, including:
(i) the Declaration of Independence;
(ii) the United States Constitution;
(iii) the Federalist Papers, including Essays 10 and 51;
(iv) excerpts from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America;
(v) the transcript of the first Lincoln-Douglas debate; and
(vi) the writings of the founding fathers of the United States; and
(E) the history and importance of:
(i) the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000a et seq.);
(ii) the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution;
(iii) the complexity of the historic relationship between Texas and Mexico; and
(iv) the diversity of the Hispanic population in Texas;
(2) the ability to:
(A) analyze and determine the reliability of information sources;
(B) formulate and articulate reasoned positions;
(C) understand the manner in which local, state, and federal government works and operates through the use of simulations and models of governmental and democratic processes;
(D) actively listen and engage in civil discourse, including discourse with those with different viewpoints;
(E) responsibly participate as a citizen in a constitutional democracy; and
(F) effectively engage with governmental institutions at the local, state, and federal levels; and
(3) an appreciation of the importance and responsibility of participating in civic life, a commitment to the United States and its form of government, and a commitment to free speech and civil discourse.
QED: “The controversy surrounding CRT is not about the verifiability of its claims or the accuracy of attributing social inequities to anti-Black racism. The debate over CRT is at its heart the assertion, through censorship and punishment, that Black people do not—and should not have—the ability to indict the historical legacy of white civilization and the virtue of white individuals. Insofar as the dissent of Black peoples and other non-white victims of white violence become popularly endorsed, the white managerial structures of American and British societies demand a limit on the discussion of racism and critiques of white societies. As such, the failures of Black people—their poverty, death, and under-representation—cannot be attributed to their history of exclusion and oppression, only their cultural inadequacies or personal failures. In short, the white managerial classes have decided that censorship is necessary to curb not only undesirable speech, but unwanted social empowerment among Black, Brown, and indigenous populations who seek a redistribution of power and economic resources. The effect of which is that Black peoples, despite the rhetoric of equality, remain subject and not a citizen within white democratic societies.”
Texas Civil Rights Review 