I’ll just acknowledge the reason for my slight discomfort with the way some of you have engaged the English and Kalla piece. My sense is this: you’d welcome any evidence that gets us away from talking abt race & racism. Maybe that’s unfair, but that’s my read of some of you.

You’re like the students I’ve had who when conversations abt affirmative action come up, they say, “I’m not opposed to affirmative action but it shouldn’t be based on race; it should be based on class.” Of course these conversations abt race and class are complicated and nuanced.

I just don’t get the sense that some of you are interested in those weeds and simply hate any dialogue that centers race & racism as part of the narrative. Ofc, I could be wrong & you just want to be sure progressive policies win the day, and are looking best way to do that.

Like, what would be consequence of avoiding public discussions of racial gaps in access to vaccination sites or to not acknowledge env. justice issues or racial income gap that makes a living wage a more distant reality for POC? These are tough qs worthy of our engagement, too.

And this is to say nothing of how so many “race-neutral” polices get on the policy agenda in the first place—often the result of activism from those who belong to racially marginalized communities who recognize the disproportionate harm of the status quo.

That’s all to say, shit’s complicated. And we should be ok dealing in that complexity and being measured in the pronouncements we make when that complexity exists in the background of all that we do.