A Response to "DEI Shouldn't Focus on Childfree Cat Guys"

I didn’t expect everyone to agree with my argument that the Childfree/Childless be included in DEI’s initiatives; I concede it’s an unorthodox idea.  And, to be sure, while it garnered a lot of support in the Higher Ed Learning Collective Facebook group, it got some pushback; said disagreement was generally civil, except for the person, a self-proclaimed "Social Justice Advocate," who spouted “Straight up bullshit…so fucking gross!” 

I was, admittedly, a bit stunned when I read Megan Strong’s letter to the editor, entitled “DEI Should Not Focus On Childfree Cat Guys.” After pondering, I decided to take it as a compliment: something I wrote really got to someone, enough they would take the time to conduct research, write about it, and publish it. I do empathize with Dr. Strong’s position, but I still disagree with the tenets of her argument.

First, the title.  I never suggested that DEI should focus on childfree cat guys, merely that it includes this population (not to mention cat ladies, dog ladies, and anybody else who’s childless or childfree).  Inclusion: the third word in DEI.

Second, nobody is arguing that DEI initiatives are under attack.  One of the criticisms of DEI is that it limits free expression and dialogue in college classrooms.  In my classes, we regularly discuss different perspectives on romantic relationships and their value in my society; I hear all different viewpoints on the issue, so I have not found this to be the case at all.  However, when a practitioner and scholar of DEI argues that DEI initiatives “shouldn’t include” a certain population, it supports said argument from DEI’s detractors.  Moreover, this explicitly runs counter to the idea of “inclusion,” one of the tenets of DEI.  I’m sure the people who conceptualized the idea would frown upon such gatekeeping, something DEI was designed to prevent.

Third, I acknowledged the difficulties of parenting in my original piece.  And yes, I believe the Surgeon General’s Warning that parents are going through a tough time.  One doesn’t need such a warning to understand how difficult parenting is; that is one of the reasons I’ve opted out of it.  However, there are two problems with this argument: 1) the difficulty one group faces does not cancel out the oppression another group faces.  Dr. Strong, a sociologist, should understand the idea of Oppression Olympics; and 2) parenting is a choice.  A valid one for many, but a choice nonetheless.  And Dr. Strong has forgotten about the thousands of women who are childless, as opposed to childfree.  I fall into the latter category (not wanting kids), but the former consists of those who wanted children but couldn’t have them.  Seeing parents receive the privilege they do can cause them to feel even more marginalized than they already do.  Can’t DEI initiatives acknowledge that more than one group can be subject to some degree of oppression, even if for different reasons?

Dr. Strong had quite the visceral reaction on the Facebook page when she read it: “Unbelievable.”  She further went onto say that she thought the “Bingo card” would be an actual bingo card and was “disappointed.”  I can only speculate, but is it possible that those saying resonate with some of her own dialogue?  And is it possible that she doesn’t like the fact that she’s been called to the carpet on this issue, perhaps for the first time?

New ideas can be threatening to anyone, even academics who are supposed to embrace them.  Galileo was punished harshly for having the gall to suggest Earth revolved around the sun.  John Scopes was arrested for teaching evolution.  So the idea that marginalization of Childfree/Childless people should be included in DEI discussions will understandably ruffle some feathers.   But it is extremely irresponsible, not to mention hypocritical, for one person (particularly one who advocates for social justice-related issues) to decide what is not a microaggression and what does not belong in a certain category.  When that person does that, they’re just as prejudiced as those who commit those acts of oppression, thus necessitating DEI committees to exist in the first place.

Finally, the soon-to-be, second-most powerful person in the United States essentially stated that the votes of people without children shouldn't be counted as much as those with.  The soon-to-be most powerful person in the US looks to Vladamir Putin as a mentor in governance.  Russia is in the process of banning "propaganda" in favor of childfree styles.  If, after reading about it, Dr. Strong is not convinced that the childfree/childless are deserving of a spot in DEI spaces, then she has no business whatsoever discussing oppression.

Here's a link to my original article, "Letter from a Childfree Cat Guy."