Question, are you claiming that all scientific and academic criticism of DiAngelo is “dishonest”, a product of white nationalism, and lacking in credibility? Because it seems so here.

If there are questions raised about her about “statistics, methods and scholarship”, and these cannot be satisfactorily answered, then that’s on DiAngelo. If she can rebut them, then she is all the stronger. Wouldn’t you agree?

Is it possible for there to be ANY scientific or academic critique of DiAngelo, by a non-Black person, that isn’t a Kafkatrap?

Because it seems through this article that any attempt by a non-Black person to question ANY of DiAngelo’s claims, assumptions, methods or conclusions, is proof of DiAngelo’s point, and evidence of “white fragility” or “internalised racism” depending on whether the person with the questions is white or a non-Black POC.

In what way is this different to a Kafkatrap?