Dr. Tricia Rose’s work on Racism in the Era of Equality prompted me to consider how equality can be surreptitiously used to reinforce systems of oppression (and, therefore, patterns of inequality.) First of all, an ethos of color blindness that necessarily touts notions of equality can have the effect of trivializing the depth and specificity of the racial reality experienced by actual people within certain groups vulnerable to marginalization.

Race-and-ethnic-based affinity group initiatives bear, to my counting, at least three potential objectives. One might be that of in-group members thinking critically with one another about their roles within the larger organization or community and what strengths they bring to their work—a form of confession that often involves bonding around challenges experienced as persons of color.

The individual DEI worker must walk the line between dual tasks—one task would be that of challenging the community and the other, that of healing the community. Entire groups, which, too, work in this DEI space, must also strive for the same aspirations—that is, the same challenging-healing quotient required and pursued by individual DEI workers.

I feel pathetically resigned when I say that white privilege is almost as permanent a factor as any other force in nature, it is that entrenched…at least here in America. And this, too, I understand, remains a dire certainty so long as it also holds true that, demographically, white people continue to make up the plurality of America’s citizenry. Even DEI work and white involvement within its initiatives—at schools as well as at other kinds of institutions—is subject to the impact of this reality.

It may very well be true that segregation is necessarily born out of diversity, can, in fact, occur only in environments that are, at their outset, diverse. And so it stands to reason that the more “diverse” a given population is, the greater chance for segregation to exist and in increasing degrees, no matter how segregation is measured—whether by the degree of homogeneity within groups, by the extent of separation among groups, or by the number of segregated groups within the sample. Where the segregation lies, however, is relative to the diversity from which it is born, and is so determined by scale of perception, as it is with any form—like, say, a viewed painting. Think a painting considered initially on the level of its constituent color elements all the way up to the ultimate level of the constituted image whole.

When it comes to DEIJ (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Justice), people are prone to underestimating just how difficult change actually is. It’s harder than a moment. “It’s a slow payoff earned with hard work, not shortcuts with high and quick rates of feel-good returns.”

In the midst of the racial “reckoning” our country seems to be experiencing, many of our nation’s institutions, including our schools, are hiring diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) consultants to help guide their reform efforts. While the hiring of outside consultants probably can’t hurt, it’s important to remain skeptical of these efforts, remaining aware of what the very hiring of a DEI consultant says about institutions.

Prognosticators continue to forecast a U.S. population that will ultimately reach majority-minority levels within a generation. In spite of recent nationalist movements—both abroad and here at home—the path of our social evolution still points towards pluralism. Demography is still our destiny. Our civic identities must evolve accordingly. The most important thing our primary and secondary schools can do is prepare our children.