At MIT debate, DEI defenders concede diversity policies can make ‘things worse’


By Maggie Kelly

The College Fix

Aug 6, 2023


‘DEI is derailed when activists say men who want to be women are equal to women and allow those men access to women’s hard-earned rights,’ pro-DEI scholar says


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. — The resolution “Academic DEI programs should be abolished” drew a large crowd to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Tuesday evening as four scholars debated the hot-button issue in front of nearly 300 people.


Despite disagreement on the fundamental value of DEI, both sides agreed on the flawed or misguided nature of many diversity programs.


Pamela “Denise” Long, CEO of DEI consulting organization YouthCentrix, defended preferential treatment for American descendants of slaves but said DEI has in some ways been hijacked by activists representing other interests. “[American] Negros should forever have a special relationship with our nation that enslaved us since 1776,” Long (pictured, right) said.


“We are those folk who endured a hundred years of abhorrent, unimaginable, unconstitutional discrimination until 1960, and those of us who have continuously experienced disproportionate negative impact of social policy even until today,” she said. However, “DEI makes things worse when advocates attempt to shoehorn the ambitions of all people onto the backs of U.S. slaves and our legacy,” Long said.


“DEI is derailed when activists say men who want to be women are equal to women and allow those men access to women’s hard-earned rights,” Long continued. “DEI is derailed when they say that ‘minor-attracted people’ is just a sexual preference. … To hook that to our legacy as slaves is wrong and egregious.”


Karith Foster, diversity consultant with INVERSITY solutions, also spoke on the importance of DEI, but had strong words about many of its existing programs. “DEI is necessary,” said Foster (left, in purple). “When done well, lives can be transformed and transported to an infinitely better place. When DEI is done poorly — and let’s be blatantly honest, it’s taken a left turn — it creates insurmountable barriers of fear, mistrust, vengeance and indifference.”


However, “looking to eradicate an effort, as badly as it’s been done, is not an answer either,” Foster continued. “We need to reform DEI and all our conversations and programs around it.”


DEI ideas are ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing,’ McGill professor countered


“Diversity, equity and inclusion sound wonderful,” chemist and McGill University Professor Pat Kambhampati, who argued for the abolition of academic DEI programs, said at the opening of the debate. “But these ideas are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”


“Let’s begin with equity,” said Kambhampati (below left). “Equity involves redistribution of resources from me to you.”


“We had economic Marxism a century ago,” he said. “Now in Cambridge in [the 2020s], we have cultural Marxism.”


Heather Mac Donald, author and Manhattan Institute fellow, spoke up forcefully in favor of DEI program abolition. Mac Donald serves on the College Fix Advisory Board. “A university’s task is the pursuit of truth,” Mac Donald said. “The DEI bureaucracy is founded on a lie. A lie which teaches students to think of themselves as victims and to see racism where none exists. It [creates] through racial preferences the very divisions and discomforts that it purports to solve in an endless vicious cycle.”


“Campus diversity bureaucrats … suck up vast sums of money, narrow the acceptable range of discourse, and force the adoption of double standards of achievement. Universities should embrace a single, colorblind version of academic excellence. It will only do so however by eliminating DEI fiefdoms and by replacing identity with merit as the touchstone of academic accomplishment.”


Nonetheless, “it is the academic skills gap which gives rise to the entire academic diversity apparatus,” Mac Donald later elaborated in an email to The Fix.


The purpose of that apparatus is to re-cast the inevitable academic struggles of students admitted with large racial preferences into struggles with racism,” Mac Donald said. “Nothing a DEI administrator does can possibly solve the academic skills gap problem, which begins to manifest itself in the earliest years of a child’s life. Even were DEI administrators remotely competent to solve that problem, which they manifestly are not, they enter the picture 14 years too late.”


The debate was uploaded to YouTube on Tuesday night and has been viewed approximately 4,200 times as of Wednesday.


The auditorium, which seats almost 300 people, was nearly full. A quiet and attentive crowd allowed the event to proceed undisturbed. Nadine Strossen, professor emerita at New York Law School and past president of the ACLU, moderated the debate.


Organizers said they were “delighted” at how the event proceeded, economist and co-organizer Eric Rasmusen wrote in an April 5 email to The Fix.


“No police were present, no threats were made, and the debate and audience questioning proceeded respectfully— though not because the debaters didn’t stake out their positions in very strong and opposing terms,” he said.


Approximately 100 MIT scholars, include several DEI deans, were asked to participate in the debate, but all declined or did not respond except for one professor, The College Fix reported last month. None of the panelists, pro or anti-DEI, were formally affiliated with the university.


The event was hosted by the university’s Adam Smith Society and MIT Free Speech Alliance. Fifteen other organizations also co-sponsored the debate, including American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism and the Alumni Free Speech Alliance.


At MIT debate, DEI defenders concede diversity policies can make ‘things worse’ | The College Fix



March 19, 2025
By Gabriel Russ-Nachamie ’27 and Stephen Walker ’26 The Davidsonian March 19, 2025 Davidson’s public commitment to free expression is admirable, but recent anti-speech actions by the College contradict its guarantees to students and set dangerous pro-censorship precedents. This paradox threatens to stifle the open discourse we as a community all grow and benefit from. For context, a 2021 press release announcing Davidson’s commitment to freedom of expression states the College intends “to build a culture where everyone can participate and be heard” and acknowledges that “freedom of expression can’t exist when some people are barred from the conversation” solely on account of allegations that their speech is seen as wrong or offensive. Davidson’s pledge in the free expression statement itself commits the College to upholding protections of student expression for all because “Dissenting voices cannot and should not be censored.” Recent actions against the College Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter and its president, Cynthia Huang ‘25, threaten to undo these efforts in ways harmful to each and every one of us. In a letter published by YAF’s Davidson chapter, the College accused Huang of “Harassment” for publishing political content online and distributing pamphlets that “allegedly includes misinformation” promoting “Islamophobia” and “Transphobia” that made students report feeling “threatened and unsafe on campus.” Davidson offered to “resolve” the matter by forcing Huang to either admit responsibility for the alleged violation and agree to an “Accountability Plan” demanding action to avoid further sanction or a “Code of Responsibility Council Hearing,” which is reserved for actions constituting “serious prohibited conduct in a single incident or a persistent pattern of less severe prohibited conduct,” according to Davidson’s student handbook. The content that triggered this response was political material responding to ideas and policies the YAF chapter disagreed with. It is wrong to classify disagreement as harassment simply because the disagreement “offended” students. The content in question was meant to spark discourse surrounding certain political policies and ideologies. According to Davidson’s own standards, this content should be protected speech. The content that Huang faces potential sanctions for did not explicitly or implicitly promote any action against specific people or groups on account of their identities. For example, the pamphlet from YAF notes the link between Islamic fundamentalist theology and Hamas. However, this is not “Islamophobic” but a historical and scholarly argument about justifications of violence that rely upon religious interpretations. In fact, Hamas is an acronym that stands for the “Islamic Resistance Movement” and the group uses Islamic theology to justify their actions. Discussing the impact of religion on violence, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, is protected speech and not bigotry. The club did not in any way target students and the material was freely available for anyone to engage with or ignore. Serious political disagreement on issues always has and will continue to offend individuals who dislike competing opinions. However, a small group of students being “offended” never justifies institutional backlash against political speech. We are not the only individuals or groups concerned about this restriction on speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan national organization dedicated to protecting free speech for all Americans, recently sent a letter to President Doug Hicks ‘90. FIRE urged Davidson to drop the charges against the YAF chapter and change its policies to align with the Chicago Principles of free speech, commonly known as the Chicago Statement which Davidson has allegedly committed to upholding. Adjudicative bodies should not base their decisions purely on perceptions motivated by personal feelings and biases. These actions by the college against YAF risk violating Davidson’s commitment to ensuring free speech and robust debate among students. No threats or harassment against students were included in YAF’s content, and anybody who does not like what they have to say is not being forced to engage with their content in any way. The only discernible motivation for going forward with sanctions is that YAF is a political minority that has questioned political orthodoxies in a way that is upsetting to others. The College’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression was made to protect this type of conduct. The Commitment directly states, “Davidson College’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate, discussion, and deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even most members of the college community to be offensive or unwise.” Sanctioning YAF for political arguments violates our rights as students and has dangerous implications. The aforementioned press release announcing Davidson’s commitment identifies “self-censorship” as a problem for Davidson and a motivator for its creation of the Commitment to Freedom of Expression statement. When students see that the only person who has spoken out against the majority in a political debate is facing sanctions because others did not like the content that student shared, said administrative action sends a message that dissent is unacceptable. This potentially triggers more self-censorship among all those who may disagree with this and countless other political ideas. As the presidents of the Davidson College Republicans and the Davidson College Libertarians, we stand for the free speech rights of all Davidson students. As a leading liberal arts school receiving taxpayer dollars, Davidson has publicly committed itself to upholding free speech rights for students and faculty. We call on the College to uphold its proclaimed principles and reject punishing students and political clubs for speech that some might disagree with or find offensive. We call on the College administration to change the Code of Responsibility to align with the Chicago Statement, as FIRE argued is crucial for Davidson in its letter to President Hicks. Finally, we firmly reject the anti-intellectual, adolescent mindset that has motivated the support for YAF’s censorship. Unwillingness to coexist with peers you may disagree with is unbecoming of students at such a prestigious institution like Davidson. You can’t take away your peers’ rights just because people’s feelings are hurt. Gabriel Russ-Nachamie ‘27 is an economics and mathematics double major from Lincolnton, NC and can be reached for comment at garussnachamie@davidson.edu. Stephen Walker ‘26 is a political science and English double major from Philadelphia, PA and can be reached for comment at stwalker@davidson.edu. https://thedavidsonian.news/1063/perspectives/davidson-college-republican-and-davidson-college-libertarian-presidents-we-stand-for-free-speech-at-david son/
February 26, 2025
"I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning:"
February 26, 2025
By James (Jim) Martin '57 The Davidsonian February 26, 2025 As a loyal alumnus, I love Davidson College. There are few things here that I don’t love. Perhaps you feel the same, for similar or different reasons. While privileged to teach chemistry here for twelve years, I got into politics as a Mecklenburg County Commissioner. For five decades since retiring from the faculty to become a member of the US Congress, I followed Davidson mostly in passive ways. My annual giving was modest until I was in a position to increase my donation and deliver a significant gift from Duke Energy while on its Board. This and generous friends endowed Professor Malcolm Campbell’s multidisciplinary Genomics Program and a chair in chemistry honored to support Professor Erland Stevens. While Governor of North Carolina, I received an honorary degree and spoke at graduation. All this is a self-aggrandizing way to say I’m part of Davidson College and fully committed to helping it become the best it can be. This was tested when our Trustees decided that the President and the majority of Trustees need no longer be Christian. I joined eleven other former Trustees in a statement objecting to what we believed would undermine Davidson’s tradition and Statement of Purpose. This angered some alumni, especially recent graduates. You might be amused at how many defended the change simply by denouncing us as “old white men.” This trifling trifecta of accursed identity was true, but ignored thoughtful reasoning. This drew me to an even smaller, unofficial group of concerned alumni, Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse ( www.dftdunite.org ). Since 2018, its founders had petitioned Davidson College to adopt the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression. Pleading from a conservative viewpoint, they got little respect. Even with support from hundreds of alumni representing a wider range of interests, ages and viewpoints, DFTD continued to be disregarded. In 2021, President Carol Quillen heeded a similar appeal from several faculty members, whose interests weren’t aligned with ours. She appointed me to a group of six chaired by Professor Issac Bailey to compose a Davidson vision for academic freedom of expression reflecting Davidson’s commitment to ideals of diversity. The resulting document containing every element of the Chicago Principles was deferred until the arrival of new President Doug Hicks. With his calm inspiration, earnest discussions among faculty won growing acceptance. In early 2023, “Davidson’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression” was affirmed by a nearly unanimous vote. DFTD found ways to support greater diversity of viewpoints on campus. A student chapter of Free Speech Alliance was founded and DFTD was pleased to provide funding for their and others’ invited speakers. This led individual students to entrust us with suspected violations of their academic freedom. Most alarmingly, we heard about several dozen academic courses with syllabi requiring students to confess themselves “oppressors,” repent and atone . . . religious conditions irrelevant to the subject matter. Ironically, DEI is Latin for “gods.” We learned from other students about an astonishing “mandatory” order that all Davidson athletes attend a one-sided, provocative documentary entitled, “I’m not Racist…am I?” Its message? If you are white, you are racist. If you’re non-white, you can’t be racist. Melanin matters. While we don’t object to anyone studying such controversial notions, we protested the coercive way highly partisan objectives were imposed as a condition for participating. After several months with no assurance that our concerns were taken seriously, we reported this to our subscribers. Our purpose was to bring about a remedy, not punish or accuse any individual as was making national headlines at other schools. We figured some may have felt they were doing what was expected of them. One of us mentioned this campus issue in an interview on Fox News. This exploded into far wider circulation than we had foreseen or intended. Faculty and administration were flooded with vile communications from hundreds of anonymous individuals. At the time, this threatened to damage the reputation of Davidson College as well as DFTD, likely among opposing factions. I see no consequent injury against the College today, and DFTD’s standing has become more respected or tolerated even among some who dispute us. We made a point to welcome Dr. Chloe Poston as DEI Vice President at Davidson. She listened to our encouragement to explore ways to reform those abuses. Was it fair, in the cause of including diversity, to blame students for past discriminatory practices for which they bore no personal responsibility? We were pleased to discover, not long after the fall term began, that every course whose syllabus had defamed students as “oppressors” had dropped the insulting indoctrination. To us, this was good news, reflecting a less divisive and more welcoming attitude on campus. We commend those among faculty, administration, and students whose thoughtful contributions led to these corrections. Other reforms may need attention. Do any departments still require DEI allegiance in ways that filter out conservative scholars? Do students or faculty still feel intimidated to self-censor their thoughts and questions? Will Davidson adopt institutional neutrality for ideological controversies? There’s now the question whether Davidson‘s more welcoming, less doctrinaire approach to inclusion of a wider diversity of attributes, cultures and viewpoints will survive the national backlash against DEI. The federal government has declared a campaign to eradicate any trace of it. Among our DFTD membership we’ve learned to respect divergent views among friends, but I can tell you there is division over this. Some are convinced the same old divisive malpractices will simply be continued behind new titles, concealing the enforcement of identity politics. Others trust that Davidson’s new approach can be a positive model for others. Davidson can demonstrate a standard of healthier assurance that every student, without regard to their culture, religion, attitude, politics or appearance, will be genuinely welcomed and encouraged to grow intellectually, socially and spiritually. Large universities with massive DEI staffing must choose to fold or fight. If Davidson can restore diversity’s original ideals without the partisan excesses, other elite colleges might choose to defend this more sensible approach. The Davidsonian 2/26/25 by Davidsonian - Issuu
Show More