Reconciliation: A Roadmap for Divisive Times and Rejecting SB 289
By Yvette Butler
On Easter Sunday and Easter Monday 1873 in Colfax, Louisiana, a mob of white men attacked and killed upwards of 150 Black men. Only three White men were killed in the attack. Officially, this is known as the Colfax Riot. The project of Reconstruction – an effort to build a multi-racial, multi-class democracy on the ashes of a war fought over slavery – was stopped short after its inception. What was the legal result of the Colfax Massacre? Perpetrators had their convictions overturned when the U.S. Supreme Court said that the actions of these private parties could not be addressed by the U.S. Constitution.
A few years ago, two descendants – one (Rev. Avery Hamilton) whose ancestor was a Black victim and one (retired businessman, Dean Woods) whose ancestor was a White perpetrator – set out to correct the record: what happened in Colfax was a massacre – not a riot – and it should be recognized as such. In an interview, both agreed that the goal of their project in replacing the misleading monument with an accurate one is to: make sure the public is aware of the truth of what happened that day and recognize those whose lives were stolen.
“This isn’t about blame,” added Woods. “This is about reconciliation.”
As a law professor who teaches and writes in the areas of Constitutional Law, Critical Race Theory, and Collective Liberation, I believe the answer to division is grounded in a mutual respect of values like accuracy, empathy, and accountability. These values are captured in just one word: reconciliation.
I oppose SB 289, misleadingly titled “nondiscrimination in employment and education” for four reasons:
The bill aims to cloud the historical record by misrepresenting what diversity, equity, and inclusion programs do. DEI programs were born from political will that engaged substantively, honestly, and empirically with our past to build alliances across lines of difference and ensure access to economic and educational opportunity for all. SB 289 labels these efforts as biased. In doing so, SB 289 avoids honestly reckoning with the very real consequences of our home-grown atrocities.
SB 289 prevents innovation and agility in response to problems. For example, we are in the middle of a male loneliness epidemic. SB 289 forbids “promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, sex, color, or ethnicity.” If a school finds that males need extra support because they are feeling disconnected from their peers, can they not respond through programming tailored to the struggles males face?
The bill is internally and externally contradictory. SB 289 attempts to label “diversity, equity, and inclusion” as efforts to discriminate. But then it says that schools and others receiving state funds must report on what they did to “ensure intellectual and ideological diversity.” Indiana even passed SEA 202 last session, which specifically calls for intellectual and ideological diversity. If there are people – perhaps conservative college students – who feel they do not have a place on campuses, can we not be agile and respond to the claim by, perhaps, starting centers on campus that aim to be inclusive of a variety of diverse ideologies? Such work would be a DEI initiative.
SB 289 seeks to surveil only the efforts that address the consequences of our violent and exclusionary past. It continues a practice of attempting to harden the narrative that a diverse society is not a well-qualified one. Instead of substantively addressing the results of empirical data – like the role of discrimination in perpetuating Indiana’s tragic maternal mortality rate – SB 289 scapegoats the programming responsible for illuminating and resolving these problems.
A particularly troubling part of the Senate hearing on SB 289 was the realization that the question-and-answer session may have little to no impact on persuading their colleagues. The social media account for Lt. Gov. Beckwith’s campaign made a post celebrating the passage of the bill before the nearly 3-hour hearing was over. Beckwith claims that anyone pointing this out is trying to stifle his freedom of speech. But, as made clear by testimony during the hearing, that is not accurate. The campaign can post what it wants and Lt. Gov. Beckwith can say what he likes. This is not in dispute.
The problem is when the post was made, the campaign assumed the bill would pass despite the opposition. This raises a question as to whether opposing views were being considered in good faith. As Sen. Randolph noted, they had all just spent about three hours providing arguments in favor or in opposition to a bill. That process is to assess the merits of a proposed course of action. The appearance of a predetermined outcome stains the entire proceedings. If a bill is meritorious, it should be able to succeed or fail based on the quality of the text and the reasons it was written. If minds were made up before the vote, then what was the point of the hearing? That’s what bias is.
SB 289 – in procedure and in its text – is not meritorious. I want to be part of the solution. I don’t want any area of study tainted by poor research or application by anyone. And the fact that the process of deliberation and public discussion in our government is not being respected, suggests something more nefarious than attempts to root out public or private discrimination. Whatever that something is, reconciliation requires addressing it head on.
Yvette Butler writes on SB 289 in her personal capacity.
