Yet more "science" used to justify policy that leaves out details. Yes, Virginia, diversity matters (sometimes). Gov Polis indulges the human tendency to pigeonhole people.
Yet more "science" used to justify policy that leaves out some details.
This post plays off one from Friday. This is the link to Friday's newsletter if you'd like to look back.
This is thematically related because the two links below, the first to Colorado's Office of Gun Violence Prevention's yearly report and the second a CPR article on the Health Dept's "Environmental Justice" tool EnviroScreen, are both examples to me of things that both the media and Democrat policymakers will be using in what I termed earlier an "expedient" fashion.
That is, the output, the work product of both of this Democrat (and recently) created things will be used to bolster the policy coming from the Assembly, whether that bolstering is justified or appropriate by what is actually in the output.
I have written more than once about how the conclusions reached in research and studies depends greatly on the choices made by those doing the researching.
If you read the CPR article, paying attention to the questions about its validity from those that stand to be beaten about the head by it (and then being fair by reading the CDPHE response to these claims), you'll note that even those that made the tool do not claim it to be a complete picture.
There is more information to be gleaned from the Office of Gun Violence Prevention's report, but focus in on page 12 and note the resource bank that is there to help guide researchers, advocates, and others.
Follow that up with a trip to the resource bank itself (linked third). See the sites, ride the rides: look at the Dashboard, visit the external resources.** Put what you see there in the context of Friday's post about what that gun "expert" included and didn't.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying CDPHE is lying or hiding the truth. I am saying that the size of the bars in their graphs depend greatly on how questions are asked and how things like, for example, mass shootings are defined. I am saying that what is included in their "resources" depends entirely on a group of researchers at the CU School of medicine, at least that's all we're told.
What do you suppose the chances are that these tools will be quoted in legislative declarations? Quoted, in particular, sans the context, boundaries, and limitations of their conclusions that define their validity?
I'd say high. This has been the soup du jour served by the Democrats running this state lately.
**Expect more here. I sent out some questions to their press contact that I am working on.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xVaK0PDD5LlH9Dq9CLAynLuMLMsTiOul/view
https://www.cpr.org/2023/12/27/new-tool-designed-to-map-environmental-justice-needs-in-colorado/
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/colorado-gun-violence-prevention-resource-bank
Related:
Gun control organization Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence just gave Colorado the dubious distinction of an A+.
A touch self-congratulatory if you ask me, seeing as how Giffords has had a hand in a whole lot of policy here.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/colorados-grade-on-gun-control-improves-to-a-minus-says-giffords-center/article_f544d958-9dd3-11ee-b65d-7b8f95f6aeca.html
Yes, Virginia, diversity matters.
It matters as long as that diversity is such that it doesn't contradict the goals or stymie the notion of progress, at least as some see it.
A common theme across media and politics is a need for diversity. We need more diversity in newsrooms, boardrooms, the halls of government. I don't disagree. I don't think it a panacea, but I do think that in many, many spheres diversity is a good thing.
While we might agree on that, I wonder whether we all agree on what diversity is, and which kinds are important. You see, when I think diversity, I include all the common factors you hear these days, but I also include things like ideology and the region you're from, but I'm not so sure that everyone does.
It occurs to me to wonder why those that don't include ideological or geographic notions of diversity don't include them. Or why they prioritize one over another.
There is room for cynicism here of course. A quote from a 2023 Assembly session kickoff speech by Speaker Julie McCluskie illustrates this. Quoting from the first link below,
"So as I urge lawmakers of both parties to push for pragmatic and inclusive solutions, I want to challenge members to see, truly see, the diversity of this body, and more importantly how that diversity must be put into action to build a state that supports the dreams of all Coloradans."
Living as a conservative, Republican, or rural Coloradan for about 5 minutes and having paid even cursory attention to the proceedings of the Assembly (or their work product) ought to put a special shine on those words. By their actions the Democrats running this state have made it all too clear that what they value is people of all different creeds, abilities, and races WHO SHARE THEIR POLICY GOALS.
McCluskie alludes to same by her verb choice of "see" in her words. We must see the diversity they have on display; where the rubber meets the road, policy, however that diversity is really only skin deep.
I don't think it's fair, however, to paint everyone with the same brush, so I ask myself whether there is room for the pattern I see here to NOT involve a cynical calculus like the above.
This reminded me of a discussion I saw once between Kyle Clark and Jon Caldara. I linked the video below in full, but the quote I am going to transcribe over is from about the 31:44 mark. The video is a few years old, but the thoughts are timely here.
"Do we have people with different life experiences [here talking about the newsroom at 9News]? And, as we've talked about, here your life experience is in large part shaped by the fact ... are you gay, are you straight, are you a black or a white or you know so on and so forth. And, where you grew up. How you see the world. Did you go to a four year college? Are you at the start of your career or are you fifteen years into your career? Have you always been in front of TV lights, or do you have expertise on something else in life and then came to journalism later? We're going to be a better newsroom if we have diversity of life experience which will reflect, if done correctly, gender diversity and racial diversity and everything else. And will include that diversity in outlook that you're talking about [Mr. Caldara earlier mentioned that he wished for more ideological diversity among reporters]."
Despite the obvious disconnect here between what Mr. Clark says and the lack of diversity on his Next show, should we see this as him opening the door a crack for us to see inside?
Are there those that genuinely believe that getting people with all these diverse life experiences together will take care of ideological diversity? I can't help but think that this is the case. I think there are those that feel by including all different kinds of people in the discussion will ensure a diversity of viewpoints.
And I think I would agree, but with a big caveat. This would be sufficient if we picked people from a list of background characteristics at random (e.g. made sure to have one female between 40 and 55 from a town of population less than 5000 in our group, but who was randomly-picked from all the people fitting that criteria).
In groups like newsrooms where people self select about participation, you will not automatically get diversity of outlook or geographic diversity. When people choose to aggregate with each other, they will segregate into groups based on their interests and outlook. That is, a certain kind of person is drawn to that work and this supersedes things like whether the person is black or white, able-bodied or in a wheelchair, etc. I feel pretty confident in extending this idea to other "tribes" as well (such as, for example, certain academic disciplines).
We need to be careful in what we ask for with regard to wanting diversity. We should be just as intentional in making sure there is geographic and ideological diversity.
If we don't we might end up with (whether by plan or design) is diversity that we can see but that may not be the full and complete kind.
https://www.cohousedems.com/news/speaker-mccluskie-delivers-opening-day-remarks-
Stuffing people into pigeonholes instead of truly seeing them.
The first link below is to an interview done by Gov's Polis and Cox on social media and mental health. You're welcome to listen to the whole thing if that's an interest. I want to focus on about the 6:50 mark where, in a discussion about possible benefits to young people from social media, our Gov Polis had this to say:
"Imagine growing up the only gay kid in a conservative rural community thinking you're the only person in the world and finding that there's others like you facing the same issues you face, being able to work through those issues with them ... "
I don't doubt that there are those (both now but probably more commonly in the past) for whom what Polis says is true, but he could have made the same point without any mention of conservative or rural communities. His comment, in fact, betrays a common mistake that many make.
At a fundamental level, it's an example of what is called out-group homogeneity (among other things--I put a little Wikipedia explainer link second below if you want a good starting point) here manifesting as a misunderstanding of small towns and how much or little diversity they have.
I'm not sure how many small towns our governor has truly visited (outside of tightly-choreographed events that is), but mine's pretty diverse and open. At least by what I can tell. Taking solely the example of LGBT people living here, I can tell you directly. There was a time where I had a lesbian couple living across the back fence and one next door. Openly gay, as in they referred to their partners as wives and not roommates. I can't speak for the whole of where I live, but 2 out of 3 of my fence-sharing neighbors being homosexual hardly speaks to my town being a parochial village where differences in sexuality are unknown or quietly and privately swept under the rug.
If you want another example, take a look at the Sun article below. Fort Morgan (due to its meat processing facilities likely), another small Plains town, has quite a diverse collection of people living there. In a drive across the town, you'll see English speaking whites, Mexicans speaking Spanish, and people from Somalia speaking various dialects (I won't pin it down to a single language because I don't know that there is one--Somali students I've taught in the past speak up to like 13 languages). They have the shops to serve these various populations too: Fort Morgan is home to a tortilleria I like to visit, and I stopped once to get some gifts at a Somali market.
We all need to be careful (and yes this includes both the man writing this and our governor) that we don't thoughtlessly stuff people or whole communities into pigeonholes. We need guard against using too many of our inborn mental shortcuts when it comes to other humans.
If you take little else from this post and the one that precedes it, please take this. Human beings and the communities they create are unique. That individuality is one of their most important characteristics, not where they're from, what type they are, what their skin color is.
When you don't, you run the risk not only of making a dumb mistake, but of impugning people you've likely never even met. No one appreciates that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity
https://www.cpr.org/2023/12/24/new-migrants-face-fear-and-loneliness-but-in-fort-morgan-on-colorados-eastern-plains-has-a-storied-support-network/