Panic in the Ivory Tower

Idaho S1198 is a DEI ban bill primarily aimed an discrimination in training, employment, promotion, and classroom indoctrination.  It has a list of naughty words and phrases which will be familiar to you:

What is causing the panic?  Classes in some departments use some of these phrases and concepts as a fundamental part of the curriculum.  While some are, or should be, offensive to thinkers of any discipline ("white fragility," "internalized racism) others have some merit as concepts such as intersectionality: individuals are more than just one group identity.  Ms. A is not just black or female: she has multiple characteristics.  You know things that all together make her her an individual.  (Now that is a scary thought in some fields: individuals, not member of a group.  This might require some explication in a classroom.)  This discussion of intersectionality from Vox makes the point that conservative opposition to it is not based on the validity of the original theory but its use:

"In my conversations with right-wing critics of intersectionality, I’ve found that what upsets them isn’t the theory itself. Indeed, they largely agree that it accurately describes the way people from different backgrounds encounter the world. The lived experiences — and experiences of discrimination — of a black woman will be different from those of a white woman, or a black man, for example. They object to its implications, uses, and, most importantly, its consequences, what some conservatives view as the upending of racial and cultural hierarchies to create a new one."

This is always a problem.  Abstract theories (such as the Marxian emphasis on economics as a driver of history) may be fine in themselves if tempered with other possible causes.  How those abstract theories are implemented can means millions worked and frozen to death.  It is hard to ignore how that theory is implemented when writing laws.

But the bill specifically exempts from these provisions: an "academic course offered for credit and not otherwise subject to subsection (2)(f). [which requires students to enroll in DEI-related courses].  It is not clear to me that that instruction in academic courses is impacted by this language.  It is a complex and at times unclear bill (Idaho legislators are not prone to clear language).

I am going to write Gov. Otter and suggest a signing statement such as presidents have used for some decades to express an understanding that this law does not apply to classes in which discussions of diversity are incidental to the primary focus of the class.