Culture: August 2019 Archives

I will be on with Pat Campbell on AM 1170 KFAQ tomorrow morning, August 29, 2019, just after the 8 a.m. news, to discuss Tulsa Mayor G. T. Bynum IV's executive order adding gender identity and gender expression to the city's non-discrimination policy.

(UPDATE: Here's the podcast of my August 29, 2019, conversation with KFAQ's Pat Campbell.)

I'll save my detailed discussion for the show, but here are some relevant links and a few brief thoughts.

Last Friday morning, August 23, Pat spoke to Dr. Everett Piper about the new non-discrimination policy.

Here is Executive Order 2019-05, establishing the new non-discrimination policy. It was promulgated on August 19, 2019.

Also, on July 31, 2019, the City Council approved a change to Title 5, Section 102, the ordinance that establishes the City's Human Rights Commission. Ordinance 24196 modifies the membership of the commission, which is required to have 12 to 15 members. Previously the Human Rights Commission had only two set-aside seats, both for Tulsans with disabilities, in recognition of the decision to dissolve the Commission on Concerns of the Disabled. Now most of the positions reserved for advocates for special interests:

The membership shall be constituted as follows: one (1) member who is serving on the African-American Affairs Commission; one (1) member who is serving on the Hispanic Affairs Commission; one (1) member who is serving on the Indian Affairs Commission; one (1) member who is serving on the Commission on the Status of Women; one (1) member who is an advocate for the rights of individuals with disabilities or the provision of services to them, but it is not necessary that this member have a disability as defined in Section101 E. herein; one (1) member who is an advocate for the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer communities; one (1) member who is an advocate for issues uniquely impacting Tulsa's community of veterans; and the remaining members at large.

The revised ordinance does not define the term "queer," which I don't believe has ever been used in official city documentation before.

Sexual orientation is not a new addition to the city non-discrimination policy. Back in May 2010, Bynum IV, then a city councilor, came out as a progressive and pushed for this change, based on a private promise he had made to local activists. The mayor at the time, Dewey Bartlett Jr, signed the proposition into law, which passed by a 6-3 vote, despite a 6-3 Republican majority on the council at the time. This was around the time that Bynum IV became a federal lobbyist with the George Kaiser Family Foundation as a major client.

I wrote at the time:

The heart of the matter is this: For millenia, the cultural consensus among almost every civilization around the globe, among every major religion and even among the irreligious, has been that one's sexual conduct is a reflection of one's character. For the last 50 [years] or so there has been a campaign, fairly successful in the west, to insist that no one should ever suffer reproach for his sexual behavior, no matter how deviant. This ordinance imposes the moral perspective behind that campaign on the people of the City of Tulsa. It is an act of cultural imperialism by a vocal minority over the vast majority of Tulsans.

In 2015, the City Council, led by Blake Ewing and Bynum IV, approved adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's housing non-discrimination ordinance. Once again, Mayor Bartlett Jr signed the proposal into law. Note that the definitions of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" differ from those used in the most recent policy decree.

Richard Florida's "Creative Class" theory, which have been around for about 20 years, may explain part of the push for this. Stephen Malanga summarized the theory back in 2004:

In his popular book The Rise of the Creative Class, which just appeared in paperback after going through multiple hardcover editions, Florida argues that cities that attract gays, bohemians, and ethnic minorities are the new economic powerhouses because they are also the places where creative workers--the kind who start and staff innovative, fast-growing companies--want to live. To lure this workforce, Florida argues, cities must dispense with stuffy old theories of economic development--like the notion that low taxes are what draw in companies and workers--and instead must spend heavily on cultural amenities and pursue progressive social legislation....

To capitalize on the hot new economy, Florida tells policymakers, they must reach out to the creative class, whose interests are different from those of the buttoned-down families that cities traditionally try to attract through good schools and low taxes. The new creative class craves a vibrant nightlife, outdoor sports facilities, and neighborhoods vibrant with street performers, unique shops, and chic cafés. In Florida's universe, the number of local bands on the pop charts becomes more important to the economy than tax codes. "It is hard to think of a major high-tech region that doesn't have a distinct audio identity," Florida writes, sounding more like a rock critic than an economics prof. Creative workers want to live and work in "authentic" neighborhoods of historic buildings, not areas that are "full of chain stores, chain restaurants and nightclubs," he asserts. Accordingly, cities should stop approving expansive new condo developments on their outer boundaries and instead focus on retooling former warehouse and factory districts.

It isn't all rock music, antique architecture, and snowboarding, however. Workers also seek enlightened communities and employers who encourage differences. In focus groups, Florida says, young knowledge workers say that they are drawn to places "known for diversity of thought and open-mindedness." For example, young heterosexual workers tell Florida that they seek out companies that offer domestic-partner benefits, not because they plan to use them, but because such benefits signal that the company practices the kind of tolerance they approve of.

It should be noted that Florida himself has begun walking back some of his conclusions and has recognized that many of these creative-class cities have seen middle-class displacement and growing income inequality.

This conversation is well worth an hour and a half of your time. The topic is critical race theory and intersectionality and how those ideas destroy any community that grants them entrance. It is essential listening for understanding the times, a comprehensive overview of these concepts and their impact, delivered in an engaging way.

In the video, the first of a planned series of five, Michael O'Fallon of Sovereign Nations interviews Dr. James Lindsay and Dr. Peter Boghossian of New Discourses. The news story that serves as the launch pad for the discussion is the adoption, at this summer's Southern Baptist Convention, of a resolution identifying critical race theory and intersectionality as "analytical tools [that] can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences," albeit "only [to] be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture--not as transcendent ideological frameworks." Lindsay and Boghossian compare that decision to ancient Troy allowing a great wooden horse into the city.

Here's the video, but at the link you can also connect to audio-only versions of the discussion:

You may have heard of Lindsay and Boghossian. Along with Helen Pluckrose, they exposed the fraudulent academic foundations of what they call "grievance studies" by successfully getting bogus papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

In this conversation, they speak of watching the unholy trinity of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE for short) destroy collegiality in universities and destroy the New Atheism movement, of which they were a part. In a humorous twist, Lindsay says that if he were still the evangelistic atheist he once was, he'd laugh that Christian organizations welcoming these concepts into their midst and destroying themselves in the process. Instead, he understands that Christians and atheists who adhere to the idea of objective truth and rational debate have to band together to fight this threat to civilization.

You will learn what "equity" is, and how it differs from "equality." You will hear about "standpoint epistemology" -- a fancy name for the idea that there are different "knowledges" available only to particular intersections of oppressed classes. Members of oppressor classes (e.g. white cishet males) can't access this knowledge. Logic, reason, and evidence are all tools of oppression. If you argue your innocence of racism, etc., it's evidence that you are guilty as charged -- a classic kafkatrap. They describe this as a religious system with guilt and original sin, but no hope of redemption.

From the article accompanying the video:

This rise of the primary tools of deconstructionism is not uncommon among other Christian denominations, secular universities, STEM fields, knitting clubs, Boy Scouts, medical fields, and corporate organizations. Social Justice's paradigm-shifting presence is nearly everywhere. Its trajectory is also predictable. It comes in as a type of analytical tool, offered with the intention of helping to better "the oppressed" in issues of race, sex, gender, sexuality, and other identities that haven't always had a fair shake in life, and then it does exactly what it has always claimed to do: it makes the personal political. In fact, it makes everything political, and the only politics it is interested in are identity politics.

In this in-depth discussion, Lindsay, Boghossian and O'Fallon begin by reviewing the Southern Baptist Convention's Resolution 9 and then compare and contrast the strategic use of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality in nearly every facet of our society. Point by point, they explain how these "analytic tools" get put into application in practice and how they undermine communities. Their stated goal is not political or to take sides. It is to help anyone who is facing the decision to adopt tools like Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality to better understand what is really being offered and how it is likely to play out if accepted.

The article includes a thorough collection of references and links to specific instances discussed during the conversation.

RELATED:

About a year ago, John MacArthur delivered a series of sermons on the topic of social justice and the gospel, preaching from Ezekiel 18. MacArthur shows how the scriptures refute the idea of collective guilt for which we must atone and calls us to repent for our own sins and also (particularly preachers) to call others to repentance. MacArthur is a skillful expository preacher, explaining the text on its own terms, but applying it to present-day issues, and doing so without being bombastic or boring. The links below take you to transcripts, video, and audio for each sermon.

Social Justice and the Gospel, Part 1
Social Justice and the Gospel, Part 2
Social Justice and the Gospel, Part 3
Social Justice and the Gospel, Part 4

Here's an excellent 40 minute lecture defining social justice and explaining why we ought to be ashamed to use the term, by Dr. Voddie Baucham, Dean of Theological Education at African Christian University. It was the keynote speech of the Social Justice and the Gospel conference held in January 2019.

In an article from May 2019, Jordan Peterson explains why equity is a dangerous doctrine.