The renowned Harvard law professor and author argues that mandatory DEI statements are ideological pledges of allegiance - and it's time to abandon them
Ok, so 10 years ago I was writing lots of Grant & Funding Applications. Every one of these applications required me to make a DEI statement about how our inclusive our programs were of marginalized people, specifically indigenous, blacks, and LGBT (It was 10 years ago, there were not as many letters)
One problem. I was running programs for homeless people. By definition everyone I served was marginalized. If you were my client, you had serious problems with income, mental health, addiction, etc. My other problem, the biggest portion of the population I served were middle aged white men. (70%) According the orthodoxy of the DEI world, that simply could not be true. They wanted to serve indigenous people, women, and gender minorities and could not believe that "white privilege" did not result in no middle aged white men being homeless.
In other words, DEI orthodoxy could not deal with data that did not reflect their beliefs.
The loyalty oaths of the '50s had the same basic defect. They were allegedly meant to filter out "soviet agents", who were a vicious myth in the first place. All "subversives" and "terrorists", then as now, were working for FBI.
Real foreign agents would have happily lied to get the job. Spies are expert liars. The oaths only punished normal people who didn't like being FORCED AGAINST THEIR WILL to violate their own morality.
The author of this essay states his political leanings with the statement, " I am a scholar on the left committed to struggles for social justice.” I have heard this definition from others, including Tara Henley and some of her guests on her podcast. I believe that definition is incomplete, and, in its lack, It assumes a few things that trouble me. The reality of the need for “social justice” is, I believe, universal. Regardless of whether you are of the Left or the Right or even from off the popular political spectrum, perhaps for religious reasons, social justice is a laudable goal found in our humanity, not our politics. When one makes the incomplete statement that the esteemed professor does, there is an unstated assumption of an elevated moral stance. Does he believe that others who may think differently only by having different solutions to the perceived issue have abandoned social issues?
I could say, for example, that, as a Christian, relatively unfettered from the Left and Right dichotomy, I am engaged in the fight for social justice in a measure that would boggle most minds. The Church has been working on this file for a couple of thousand years. I know there are some who would say that Christianity is strongly ensconsed in the Right, but that would be a reduction to many Christians. I would put the real responses of gritty action of Christian organizations and the charitable giving of the average saint in the pew against any other recognized demographic in our society.
Kennedy is such an important voice today because he doesn't come from a place of hostility to American higher education, which is still the envy of the world, a magnet for talent, and a critical export sector.
I have also been reading his work for years. Race, Crime and the Law is a classic and my book with Dan O'Flaherty takes that as starting point and foundation. Interracial Intimacies is just mindblowing, exposing the startling paradoxes that arise when race becomes a basis for law. His debates with Glenn Loury are legendary and full of mutual affection.
So thanks for posting. I had read it in the Crimson already but so happy to see it brought to others.
And thanks for your voice also Tara, so much appreciated!
A few years ago the Law Society of Ontario was dealing with a proposed mandatory DEI statement. Many lawyers, including myself, were insulted. Our whole careers were predicated on the idea of learning and understanding the law in order to make things better in the world. In every way. To have some group suggest that we were doing anything less was not only disrespectful but deeply hurtful. When that happens, when bullied, people react in different ways. Some demure rather than create conflict. That they counted on. But others were riled and risked appearing to be the very thing they are accused of being to stand up for the integrity of the profession and the people in it. Mercifully, this courageous group of "benchers" (lawyers who are elected to administer the Law Society) stood fast against the demand for blind compliance and the DEI motion was defeated. That said, DEI is still mysteriously a part of the profession's "continuing legal education" requirements. For most lawyers, daily practice is chockablock with DEI experience. Still, this cloud of insinuation and insult hangs over us.
In fairness, on the other side of the coin, I think we should be acknowledging that a lot of change has been accelerated by virtue of what might be called "social" pressure in the past few years. Advertising, for example, is dramatically diverse. We are being presented with a different view of the world, one that does not necessarily reflect demographics exactly but nevertheless promotes something most people think is a good direction to go, open and inclusive.
Ok, so 10 years ago I was writing lots of Grant & Funding Applications. Every one of these applications required me to make a DEI statement about how our inclusive our programs were of marginalized people, specifically indigenous, blacks, and LGBT (It was 10 years ago, there were not as many letters)
One problem. I was running programs for homeless people. By definition everyone I served was marginalized. If you were my client, you had serious problems with income, mental health, addiction, etc. My other problem, the biggest portion of the population I served were middle aged white men. (70%) According the orthodoxy of the DEI world, that simply could not be true. They wanted to serve indigenous people, women, and gender minorities and could not believe that "white privilege" did not result in no middle aged white men being homeless.
In other words, DEI orthodoxy could not deal with data that did not reflect their beliefs.
The loyalty oaths of the '50s had the same basic defect. They were allegedly meant to filter out "soviet agents", who were a vicious myth in the first place. All "subversives" and "terrorists", then as now, were working for FBI.
Real foreign agents would have happily lied to get the job. Spies are expert liars. The oaths only punished normal people who didn't like being FORCED AGAINST THEIR WILL to violate their own morality.
The author of this essay states his political leanings with the statement, " I am a scholar on the left committed to struggles for social justice.” I have heard this definition from others, including Tara Henley and some of her guests on her podcast. I believe that definition is incomplete, and, in its lack, It assumes a few things that trouble me. The reality of the need for “social justice” is, I believe, universal. Regardless of whether you are of the Left or the Right or even from off the popular political spectrum, perhaps for religious reasons, social justice is a laudable goal found in our humanity, not our politics. When one makes the incomplete statement that the esteemed professor does, there is an unstated assumption of an elevated moral stance. Does he believe that others who may think differently only by having different solutions to the perceived issue have abandoned social issues?
I could say, for example, that, as a Christian, relatively unfettered from the Left and Right dichotomy, I am engaged in the fight for social justice in a measure that would boggle most minds. The Church has been working on this file for a couple of thousand years. I know there are some who would say that Christianity is strongly ensconsed in the Right, but that would be a reduction to many Christians. I would put the real responses of gritty action of Christian organizations and the charitable giving of the average saint in the pew against any other recognized demographic in our society.
Kennedy is such an important voice today because he doesn't come from a place of hostility to American higher education, which is still the envy of the world, a magnet for talent, and a critical export sector.
I have also been reading his work for years. Race, Crime and the Law is a classic and my book with Dan O'Flaherty takes that as starting point and foundation. Interracial Intimacies is just mindblowing, exposing the startling paradoxes that arise when race becomes a basis for law. His debates with Glenn Loury are legendary and full of mutual affection.
So thanks for posting. I had read it in the Crimson already but so happy to see it brought to others.
And thanks for your voice also Tara, so much appreciated!
A few years ago the Law Society of Ontario was dealing with a proposed mandatory DEI statement. Many lawyers, including myself, were insulted. Our whole careers were predicated on the idea of learning and understanding the law in order to make things better in the world. In every way. To have some group suggest that we were doing anything less was not only disrespectful but deeply hurtful. When that happens, when bullied, people react in different ways. Some demure rather than create conflict. That they counted on. But others were riled and risked appearing to be the very thing they are accused of being to stand up for the integrity of the profession and the people in it. Mercifully, this courageous group of "benchers" (lawyers who are elected to administer the Law Society) stood fast against the demand for blind compliance and the DEI motion was defeated. That said, DEI is still mysteriously a part of the profession's "continuing legal education" requirements. For most lawyers, daily practice is chockablock with DEI experience. Still, this cloud of insinuation and insult hangs over us.
In fairness, on the other side of the coin, I think we should be acknowledging that a lot of change has been accelerated by virtue of what might be called "social" pressure in the past few years. Advertising, for example, is dramatically diverse. We are being presented with a different view of the world, one that does not necessarily reflect demographics exactly but nevertheless promotes something most people think is a good direction to go, open and inclusive.
I am who I work for.
My silence is complicity
This man lacks self respect
Lacks individual pride
Lacks integrity
Lacks principles
Harvard supported German Nazis
Has a German war criminal fellowship
Discriminates against Jew
Discriminates against blacks
Supports by complicity the mass murder by Muslims of blacks in Nigeria.
Supports by complicity the mass murder by muslims of Christians in Nigeria
Supports Harvard's refusal to provide information to the US Congress.
Harvard is a Muslim controlled college
His opinion based upon who he works for is not worth the paper it is written on
Tara- you embarrassed yourself by allowing this type of person to grace your pages
No self respecting individual can work for Harvard in today's day and age.
It's a catechism. Definitely not a religion though.