Okay, here is my first post on the WBM controversy:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090928/013957.html
I called WBM annoying for the way he framed his argument. As the thread moved on I found out that his actual practice in real life amounted to de facto employment discrimination. So he is a hypocrite and doesn't practice what he preaches.
Things got worse. It turns out he doesn't know what he's talking about from a sociologist's perspective. Two sociologists said so. I also posted links to several others from liberal (Wolfe) to left (Proyect) who developed fine arguments against, Against Diversity, the book and its related essays.
Michaels wants us all to get back to a MORE MANLY MARXISM.
Fine what could be more MANLY MARXIST than *Equal Pay for Equal Work*
That was and is the slogan of activist women's movements to write Title IX, use OCR enforcement, and other legislation including up to this year. It was also the concrete principle behind the Lilly Ledbetter case that the US Supreme Court over turned. It is supposed to be the principle behind the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act signed January 2009 to remedy the SCOTUS decision. That decision in effect eroded much of the principle of equal pay for equal work, through legal technicalities. If you don't recognize the name here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_&_Rubber_Co.
When Michaels claims that struggles against racism and sexism are not properly left politics, and calls for a MORE MANLY MARXISM he is obviously wrong, period. The more the Walter Benn Michaels Defense Committee, or WBMDC claims otherwise, the less I believe them.
CG