Read on Twitter
Thread re: W. Warner's ASECS presidential address & what I see as a problematic current of thought amongst Enlightenment scholars, some of whom worry about the state of the field & enrollments but who wrongly conclude that CRT and DEI are somehow to blame.
Let me be clear: the overwhelming whiteness of Enlightenment studies is a major problem. And when Enlightenment scholars make sloppy assertions about "woke Diversity Radicals" and deride CRT, they are not helping.
Screeds like this make the field of eighteenth-century studies less welcoming to BIPOC scholars *and that is a very big problem*.
It's not just Warner. P. Cheney's H-France review of A. Lilti's book had this paragraph; where is the evidence for these assertions? I teach courses on the Enlightenment and none of this is familiar. Again, it is *bad for the field* when senior scholars write this stuff.
Believe me, I understand the anxiety about falling numbers of majors and enrollments. But the solution is not to blame CRT, DEI, or "cancel culture." It is far more effective to take CRT & multiculturalism seriously, as @clpichichero does in this article: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/773124/summary
THAT is the future of Enlightenment studies that I want to see.
Speaking of the future of Enlightenment studies, there should not be a panel on the futures of Enlightenment with this little diversity amongst the panelists. Long-time full professors, elite research institutions, almost all men, all white -- the panel is just too homogenous.
*homogeneous, ugh
