It is arguing that there are no differences between groups that justifies disparities unless there are biases or oppression.

Even if he is wrong, this still does not become an argument for individual equality of outcome.

We might imagine that humans are akin to gas molecules and human groups are ideal gases, thus an ideal gas law of sorts holds for humans, PV = nRT. There is brownian motion at individual level, but we expect that, statistically, all ideal gases / human groups to have the exact same macro properties. And perhaps if we hard subscribe to rational choice theory (a popular theory among American economists with deep roots in The Enlightenment) we might imagine that indeed humans are atomized undistinguishable gas molecules, pushed around randomly by the vagaries of fate and character.

Alas, there are other ways for matter to organize. Witness the bewildering diversity of minerals out there. 'The Smithsonian's mineral and gem collection [...] consists of approximately 350,000 mineral specimens and 10,000 gems'. As soon as we allow for some degree of matter / social cohesion, the ideal gas / human group law is blown to the smithereens.

I'll let you ponder whether hard atomized rational choice theory is a reasonable assumption when it comes to human groups. Or whether it is a reasonable goal to aspire to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/geogallery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Critici....

So would you say that men having shorter lifespans than women is due to bias or oppression against men?

Should we reallocate public health spending from women to men until lifespans are equal?

This is essentizlly false. Ibram X. Kendi is a Harvard professor, author, and widely published by the New York Times, the Atlantic, etc.

He is literally a leader of a large group of people pushing for exactly the views he espouses.

Your second statement does not follow from the first.

You are free to claim that he isn’t, but there is a preponderance of evidence that he is.

“IBRAM X. KENDI is one of America’s foremost historians and leading antiracist scholars.”

“Dr. Kendi strives to be a hardcore antiracist”

“In 2020, The Root 100 listed him as the seventh most influential African American between the ages of 25 and 45 and the most influential college professor.”

We know what his goals are, and we know that he is independently regarded as extremely influential. He is de facto leading people towards his goals.

What isn’t clear is why you’d try to claim otherwise. He certainly wouldn’t.

[Side conversation] As to the why question, consider:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-we-blame/201709/...

> Willful ignorance occurs when individuals realize at some level of consciousness that their beliefs are probably false, or when they refuse to attend to information that would establish their falsity.

> In contrast to this sort of willful ignorance, self-deception occurs when individuals believe false things with complete conviction.

We are all subject to these kinds of cognitive biases. The best we can hope is to learn some of our own and try to avoid them. Likely we will fail most of the time :(

It’s not always clear what is willful ignorance, and what is a rhetorical device.