Republican Representative Brooke Boden and Democrat Spencer Waugh are running for Iowa House District 21 in Warren and Marion Counties.
During the campaign for Iowa House District 21, Representative Brooke Boden sent out the following accurate text message:
“I’ve worked to end the dangerous indoctrination efforts of DEI, advocating for fair and balanced education. When I was fighting to eliminate DEI from our schools – my opponent Spencer Waugh, was a DEI professor – promoting this dangerous propaganda. The choice couldn’t be clearer – we need a representative who truly supports our values and prioritizes our children’s well-being.”
DEI is an acronym for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.”
The Iowa legislature, including Boden, ended DEI at Iowa regent universities because it is destructive and imposes ideological conformity.
Iowa’s openness to all races is illustrated by the state’s rejection of DEI and critical race theory. In 2021, the Manhatten Institute did a survey of the 20 fastest growing cities in America. 73% of whites, 61% of Hispanics and 54% of Blacks agreed with “remov[ing] lessons based on critical race theory about such concepts as white privilege and systemic racism from public school curriculum.”
In response, Kedron Bordwell, a professor at Simpson College wrote, in the Indianola Independent Advocate, that Rep. Brooke Boden “claims Waugh has engaged in ‘indoctrination’ as a teacher and ‘dangerous propaganda’ [and] thinks . . . he is a ‘dangerous’ teacher.”
Bardwell distorted Boden’s message by failing to mention DEI. Why would he not mention DEI? Could it be that omission came about because DEI has a bad, even racist, reputation and he didn’t want to reveal that Spencer Waugh taught DEI?
Just take a look at the titles of recent Real Clear Politics articles addressing DEI: “DEI Is Crushing Military Recruitment,” “Top High School Sees Big Decline Following DEI Policy,” “How DEI Corrupted the NIH,” “‘Diversity’ Doesn’t Include Disabled Veterans Like Me,” and “Divisive, Extreme and Intolerant–Why DEI Failed”.
What is DEI?
As Christopher Rufo pointed out in “How DEI Corrupts America’s Universities”:
We can review the acronym in parts. First, “diversity.” The initial connotation of the word suggests a variety of people, experiences, and knowledge. But in practice, universities use diversity to justify a policy of sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, racial discrimination: a total inversion of the principles of colorblind equality and individual merit.
Second, “inclusion.” In kindergarten, teaching kids to be inclusive means encouraging them to share and be polite to classmates. But in the context of a university, inclusion is used as justification for excluding people and ideas that are seen as a threat to prevailing ideologies and sentiments.
Finally, “equity.” The immediate association is with the principle of equality. But equity is actually a radically opposed idea. Equality is the principle that every man or woman should be judged as an individual, neither punished nor rewarded based on ancestry. Equity demands the opposite: categorizing individuals into group identities and assigning disparate treatment to members of those groups, seeking to “equalize” what would otherwise be considered unjust outcomes.
What this means in practice is that members of certain groups get favored, others disfavored: in short, inequality justified under the ideology of “equity.”
https://christopherrufo.com/p/how-dei-corrupts-americas-universities
DEI is not affirmative action. Affirmative action brings underrepresented qualified applicants into a workforce or a student body through means such as advertising in minority media. Affirmative action encourages merit-based advancement. DEI negates merit-based advancement and focuses on equal outcomes.
It is important to note the normal relationship between DEI and Critical Race Theory (CRT). Carol Swain’s “Black Eye for America: How Critical Race Theory Is Burning Down the House” noted that there is a “plethora of DEI that use Critical Race Theory as their ideological framework.” It is the norm that CRT is the basis for DEI. Dr. Swain also noted that recent studies show that “DEI training does not achieve its lofty goals” and that “[c]ase law seems to suggest that common DEI training practices constitute racial harassment.”
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a Marxist theory that discards Martin Luther King’s maxim that persons “should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin”. Under CRT, your color is your character, i.e. white people are privileged oppressors and Black people are oppressed, unprivileged victims. Such stereotypes harm all races.
Under CRT, every white Iowa soldier in the Civil War, and the Iowa white sheriff, and white farmer, who freed Ralph, a Black man who had been kidnapped by men seeking to return him to slavery, were privileged oppressors. The white Iowa Supreme Court justices who, in 1839, in that court’s first decision, refused to return Ralph to slavery, held slavery was illegal, and the law “should extend equal protection to men of all colors and conditions,” were privileged oppressors.
Racism is, under CRT, an invisible, almost invincible force, a dark spirit across America.
In saner moments, people admit this isn’t true. Barack Obama stated that “[Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s] remarks . . . expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic.” Even Kamala Harris admitted that America was not a racist country.
Angela Sailor, the former Deputy Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Education, has noted the elements of Critical Race Theory that have been represented in DEI programs in schools:
First, CRT’s key assertion is that racism is systemic—embedded in America’s legal system, institutions, and the free-enterprise system. It says the world is divided between the oppressors and those they oppress (most non-whites) and that the system is rigged to reward white behavior and preserve white supremacy. . . . .
Second, since CRT’s proponents believe the whole system is rotten, they also teach that concepts like being on time, hard work, and literacy are “white values” designed to keep whites on top, so minorities must reject them.
Third, CRT promotes the narrative that all white people are born with privilege that gives them advantages that non-whites can never have, so people of color will never succeed.
A fourth characteristic of CRT is that it pushes equity instead of equality. Nothing under heaven has the power to guarantee equal outcomes. Policies that insist on this impossible goal will inevitably result in discriminatory practices.
What Rep. Boden had available was the Simpson Course description and Waugh’s syllabus for the course. The description explicitly described the course as “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” and all that implies. Issues to be explored included “bias” and “privilege”. The syllabus repeats the course description and indicates that students will be assigned “Bias” by Jennifer L. Eberhardt and other unspecified materials. “Bias” focuses on unconscious bias and perpetuates the idea that such bias permeates everything, completely consistent with DEI/CRT. I rather doubt it was taught that unconscious bias results in discriminatory actions 4% of the time or less. The reference to “privilege”, if this is a typical DEI course, would be references to the racist/sexist stereotypes that all whites or white males have privilege while all females, all minorities or minority females do not.
Three of the four elements of DEI/CRT mentioned by Angela Sailor, that racism or bias is systemic or pervasive, that whites are privileged and a focus on equity are implied in this course information.
Based upon the available information, Boden could justifiably conclude that this DEI course taught the usual concepts of DEI, not auto mechanics or a fair, balanced, and accurate history of America’s race relations or the current state of those relations.
Boden’s judgment was also supported by subsequent information.
On October 17th, Kedron Bardwell, a defender of Waugh and his course, appeared to affirm, in a discussion of what course topics are appropriate, some of the ideas that usually underlie DEI: “Bias and privilege exist (meaning Mr. Alexander and I go through life never having to fear or even think about the stereotypes and discrimination some of our neighbors regularly see).” The implication is that bias, stereotypes and discrimination are pervasive or “regularly see[n].” And that certain classes of people have “privilege” and/or are never discriminated against based on stereotypes, which probably, if these were topics in a typical DEI course, and given Bardwell’s references to himself and Alexander, means the class or category of white males.
On October 17th, Rachel Lopez wrote, “I have known a few students who took Mr. Waugh’s foundations class, and their parents were outraged at what is being taught in our colleges. My daughter took a class at DMACC and had the same experience. She was given a bad grade because she didn’t express her white privilege enough. All this needs to stop!!”
And there has been one student who suggested his experience was better than those students and parents that Ms. Lopez talked to. So, there appears to be a disagreement among students on the class.
But, based on the information she had at the time, Rep. Boden’s conclusions were reasonable and justified.
Bardwell suggested that Boden should have contacted Spencer Waugh to ascertain more information about his course. In theory, the idea that political opponents would share information about classes they have taught sounds admirable. However, experience shows that attempts to elicit a response from Spencer Waugh by even his potential future constituents are utterly futile.
Steve Kirby, a resident of Iowa House District 21, has repeatedly requested Waugh to address questions on issues of public importance in the Indianola Independent Advocate. To date, there has been no response.
David Alexander pointed out in the Advocate that, “Mr. Waugh has not listened to me or his constituents from his district. One friend poured her heart out to Mr. Waugh in an email about the lie of abortion. You would think that when someone shares an emotional heart-felt letter with you, that someone deserves a response, not the case with Mr. Waugh. My friend was ignored.“
Boden would also have reason to wonder if any information provided by Mr. Waugh would reflect reality. His campaign is reported to have a practice of providing red brochures to Republicans, blue brochures to Democrats and yellow brochures to independents, all of which are tailored to the audience and provide inconsistent information. Waugh also made the strange statement that the Heartbeat Bill, which is designed to save the lives of unborn children, “sets up a paradigm in which fundamentally, women are valued only for their reproductive organs”. How does that conclusion reflect reality?
Perhaps the best example of the human cost of DEI/CRT concepts, as well as the truth that white males can be subjected to discrimination based on stereotypes, is provided by the 2016 Simpson College meeting to consider the election of President Trump. See http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/indianola/2016/11/10/simpson-college-tries-cope-fears-trump/93619254/
Faculty and students revealed their lack of critical thinking skills as they compared losing an election to the Holocaust and 9-11.
A white male Republican student, who did not even vote for Trump, asked other people to stop the hateful action of calling him, and others like him, a racist or sexist. He asked that others reach across the aisle, shake hands and get to know each other. An assistant professor responded by saying that no one needed to shake his hand because “I cannot look my oppressor in the eye and say I love you the way you said to. I want to say that you are right, but you are asking that from a place of privilege where you can do that without being harmed.” The professor suggested that it was appropriate to act on the stereotype that white male Republicans are “oppressors” and “privileged”. This is a classic example of how discrimination occurs.
Simpson President Simmons didn’t object, but said “I’ve cried a lot the past couple of days, and I’m the privileged-middle-aged-white-guy.” Good grief!
We need to turn our backs on such teachings and remember the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“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. . . .Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
Amen.
Author: Donald Bohlken
Donald W. Bohlken of Indianola is an attorney and a retired administrative law judge with the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals. He worked for seven years combined at the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission as an investigator and then for 21 years as an administrative law judge at the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and the Department of Inspections and Appeals. He received his J.D. with Honors from Drake University in 1986.
