This definition uses two common definitions of racist.

Racist1: The definition of 'racist' used that prevailed during MLK's era: prejudice against, discrimination against, or hatred towards individuals because of their membership in any racial or ethnic group.

Racist2: The competing definition of racism is that racism is prejudice, discrimination, or hatred from an 'oppressor' group member towards a member of a historically oppressed group. For example, if Black people have been historically oppressed in the United States, then by the definition of racist2, a Black person cannot be racist against a white person, even if he or she feels prejudice against white people.

The definition of paranoid used in this description is that differences in outcomes among groups are assumed to be strong evidence of persecution, discrimination, or ill-intent without ruling out or even considering alternative explanations.

The OR used in this definition is the mathematical OR. 'A OR B' is true if A is true, B is true, or both are true. It is not an XOR.

This question resolves as YES if Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) ideas influenced by Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" or the work of Ibram X. Kendi are repudiated as racist1 OR paranoid by both left and right wing moderates in the USA before 2040.

The DiAngelo/Kendi books contain many ideas, so I'll limit consideration to three key DiAngelo/Kendi-influenced ideas that were part of the conventional wisdom in US blue states in 2018-2023:

(1) People in a certain historically oppressive and powerful racial/ethnic groups are inherently racist2, and this is a condition that can only be treated or mitigated but never can be cured completely.

(2) A person's failure to be actively, vocally opposed to racism2 is proof that a person has racist2 beliefs. A person's opposition to DEI training is also proof of their racist2 beliefs.

(3) Negative outcomes that occur to historically oppressed people are almost certainly caused by persecution or ill-intent. Other causes are not worth considering because the evidence is overwhelming. (And if someone brings up other explanations, that is strong evidence of their racism2 beliefs.)

To resolve as YES, two or more of the following criteria must be met.

(1) The New York Times Editorial board says the DEI ideas above are either paranoid OR racist1. This must be the editorial board's opinion, not a description of a point of view that some people hold. The opinion must come from the editorial board, not from a columnist or newsletter writer.

(2) Boston University closes Kendi's Center for Antiracist research and issues an apology which directly or indirecly calls the shuttered center racist1 OR paranoid.

(3) The two front-runner candidates in a US Presidential election (not a primary) both repudiate the DEI ideas listed above. They do not need to call them racist2 OR paranoid, they just need to say they disagree with these ideas and think they are wrong. (The negative moral/factual framing is key.)

(4) ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) funds with at least $15B in assets under management say that companies that endorse the DEI ideas above cannot be considered ESG firms because the ideas are racist1 OR paranoid. (If 15 such ESG funds each have this policy and each has $1B AUM, that counts.)

(5) Both houses of the US Congress support an anti-DEI bill or resolution with a bipartisan supermajority (over 66% of votes). For example: a bill that prohibits the use of these DEI ideas in Federal government diversity trainings, or a resolution that denounces the ideas above as racist1 OR paranoid will count. If one party has over 66% of the votes in one or both houses, this vote doesn't count!

Before you send a drone strike to my house for writing this question, please read this.

I don't care how this resolves. I'm not trying to make a point about racism1, racism2, DiAngelo, or Kendi.

I wrote this to test a hypothesis that conventional morality changes more quickly than people think, and the arc of human progress may not bend towards justice. (Remember how torture suddenly became legitimate in the USA after several hundreds years of it being considered barbaric?) I think it may be more cyclic.

Currently, writing this in 2023, I can't imagine this resolving as YES. But Kendi and DiAngelo are going out of style, DEI heads at companies are being laid off, and people are much less angry than they were during the George Floyd riots era. This question could be interesting.

Paranoid is a strong word, but I can't find a better one. Find me a better word and I'll change it. Paranoid is the only word that is appropriate for a knee-jerk assumption that a bad outcome is due to persecution.

This question will be paired up with a sibling question that resolves as YES if this market is taken down by Manifold for any reason. Link later.

https://manifold.markets/mr22222222/my-dei-repudiated-in-usa-question-s