I am unshakeable in my belief that “DEI” is deceitful way of reframing institutional racism to make it seem benign, and that all positions in business, government and academia devoted to enabling this racket need to be abolished before the damage to society in irreversible. Nonetheless, recent implied criticism aimed at MIT’s DEI deans (why in the world would the school need six?) is unfair.
College Fix reports that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will host a scholarly debate on the value, or lack of it, of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, with a panel of invited scholars debating the question: “Should academic DEI programs be abolished?”
The story also notes that MIT’s own “highly paid” diversity, equity and inclusion deans declined invitations to attend. The debate, which is scheduled for April 4, will be moderated by Nadine Strossen, past president of the American Civil Liberties Union, back when the organization was non-partisan and cared about the First Amendment.
The College Fix story emphasizes that the deans also declined the site’s invitations to explain their absence, though earlier John Dozier, MIT’s chief diversity officer, had commented on the program. “We also learned of a debate that will be happening on campus in a few weeks over what I think is an utterly false binary of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ versus ‘merit, fairness, and equality,’” Dozeir said. “A number of people, including me, were invited to participate in this event…We declined based on the framing, but it fueled our thinking about how to set the right conditions for a discussion — avoiding simplified versions of issues and concentrating on a format that will broaden attendees’ perspectives rather than on having one side ‘win.'”
Well, he’s dodging the issue, but Dozier and the other deans have an irresolvable problem: conflict of interest.
It is unfair to ask any employee to justify his or her job and the whole reason for its existence in a debate format. They cannot take the position that their jobs should not exist, and the position that the job is important and essential lacks credibility coming from an advocate who benefits from being employed in it. Even as spectators of the debate, the deans would be placed in an awkward position.
The refusal of the deans to take part in an exercise that can’t do anything but diminish their perceived integrity and honesty is the only responsible one. They should not be criticized for staying away.
They should just be out of a job as soon as possible.
Ethics Alarms 
But who’s a better choice to defend their portfolio than they themselves? Wouldn’t they be perfect to sit on such a panel at Harvard or BU? You’d think they’d be raring to go spread the Good News of DEI at any forum that presents itself. I wonder if the debate will be shut down by black students. Should be interesting.
SIX!
Isn’t the request for the deans to participate no different than asking a job applicant why should I hire you or how will the applicant improve the company’s performance. I see very little difference.
It’s very different. A debate is an inquiry into truth using advocacy by presumably disinterested analysts and experts. Interested parties don’t belong in a debate—they are biased by definition. Bias doesn’t lead to illumination. Moreover, what debates usually hinge on is debating skill rather than evidence. The DEI Deans could be excellent at their jobs and certain that DEI is important, but not have the skills to “win” in a debate. It’s one reason interviews are lousy ways to choose who get a job, unless interviewing and the job have similar skill sets involved.
Honest question: if this idiotic notion of reparations ever become a national topic, would its proponents ever account for such hirings (not to mention all the indirect compensation in the form of affirmative action, welfare (housing, food, etc.), Medicaid, and excess law enforcement costs)?
Ron, You left out the fact that all those in bondage had their housing and food provided to them and aside from the fact they were not free their lives were not significantly different than many southern whites. The free person for the most part struggled at best to earn a subsistence living and were at the mercy of the elements. I don’t think any indentured servant or person in bondage had to worry if they would starve to death. Plantation owners knew full well that a starving slave was unproductive. This is not to excuse the practice but to provide some limited balance to the equation and narrative.
It also strikes me as illogical that a slave owner would whip slaves mercilessly. I have seen reports that slaves sold for about $500 which in todays dollars would be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Why would you purposely sabotage your capital equipment? It would make more sense to work to improve conditions so that these people were inclined to be receptive to their indenture.
Answer: No.
Jack wrote:
It is unfair to ask any employee to justify his or her job and the whole reason for its existence in a debate format. They cannot take the position that their jobs should not exist, and the position that the job is important and essential lacks credibility coming from an advocate who benefits from being employed in it. Even as spectators of the debate, the deans would be placed in an awkward position.
Then how can a debate on the value of DEI be had at all, and who better to present the “pro” side than the experts (and I’m trying to be fair here) hired by a prestigious university to implement and enforce DEI?
I do sympathize with Dozier’s argument that the premise might have been unduly prejudicial. Seems to me he could’ve discussed that framing with the organizers and negotiated for terms more fair to both sides. I agree that the DEI deans should not have to justify their positions — after all, it should be the university administration defending decisions like that, not the people they hired.
To me, this looks like a missed opportunity, whatever one thinks of DEI.
Since you mentioned the ACLU, here is an interesting sidelight.
One of my recent clients informed me that donations to the ACLU were no longer tax deductible and, looking at the email from them, I did not find any mention that the donation would be deductible.
Doing a quick search, the home page of their web site says contributions are not tax deductible, although I also found two donation pages through Google, one of which said not deductible and one saying non-deductible. I’m guessing that the home page is accurate.
Looking at the relevant regulations, here is one requirement that the organization’s bylaws must include for it to be classified as charitable for tax purposes:
A provision prohibiting participation or intervention in a political campaign.
So I infer that the ACLU is conceding that it either participates in political campaigns or spends a significant amount of its time trying to influence legislation.
Verrry interesting. I could be mistaken, but I always thought the original purpose of the ACLU was to defend people’s (group’s) rights, not try to elect politicians or get legislation passed.
My how times change.