"Anti-racist rhetoric" is a very recent ideological phenomenon that is not yet proven to be effective solution for past and present racial injustice. It is possible for it to be flawed, prone to be implemented badly, or self-defeating and thus worthy of critique without being fired from academia (as in parent comment's example of California, or in Bret Weinstein's case).
It is also commonly defended and advanced by progressives. So it seems appropriate to categorize it as progressive.
Naming is not the be-all-end-all. If you think about the nomenclature of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is opposition to that country equivalent to "telling on yourself" as being against Democracy, Republics, Korea, or popular rule?
>"that is not yet proven to be effective solution for past and present racial injustice"
What is this even supposed to mean? We can't be "not racist" unless its proven (by what means?) that its effective in remedying (how is this judged?) past racism?
This is a platitude thats orders of magnitude greater than that which you are attempting to criticize.
Seems pretty clear from the article that the expectations for professors was that they had to adhere, not to a general "don't be racist" code of conduct, but instead to a specific ideologies ("that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles"). I think it is reasonable to describe those ideologies as "progressive" (at least in the sense that they are promoted and promulgated almost exclusively by people who would describe themselves as progressive)...
Not sure what you mean by this - regardless of whether you agree with antiracism or progressivism- if you take them at face value, ie “progressivism” = reforming society to improve the average human condition, and “antiracism” = reforming society to be less racist, they seem fairly aligned, no?
Also I suspect that the venn diagram of politicians who self-identify as anti-racist, vs politicians who self-identify as progressive is something very close to a circle.
The binary nature of antiracism - if you’re not in agreement with antiracism you’re a racist - is not something I would associate with a middle of the road politician.
It's pretty clear that what the person you are quoting to is referring to "progressive" as an action stemming from the political group colloquially referred to as "progressive" which is objectively distinct from the concept of progress and there is no reason why you need to pretend to be this obtuse!
