PLURIBUS

Share this post

E-Pluribus | February 15, 2022

www.pluri.blog

Discover more from PLURIBUS

Providing original commentary and aggregating the best work on the illiberal impulses that threaten freedom and social cohesion.
Over 1,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in
Today's Best Arguments

E-Pluribus | February 15, 2022

The explosion of DEI in federal science grants, a law professor hits the Tolerance buzzsaw, and a Levi's executive answers a $1 million question with 'no.'

Jeryl Bier
Feb 15, 2022
1
Share this post

E-Pluribus | February 15, 2022

www.pluri.blog
Share

A round up of the latest and best writing and musings on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:

Leif Rasmussen: Follow the “Diversity”

At City Journal, Leif Rasmussen shows how the mantra of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has made its way into the federal grant system, specifically in, science projects and research of all things. His analysis shows a 10-fold increase over the past three decades in the use of these and other similar terms from applicants looking for government dollars.

When I began graduate school, I was aware of the charges about political homogeneity and performative activism on campuses but thought that these were usually exaggerated. Having discovered the satisfaction of tutoring students in mathematical and technical subjects as an undergraduate, I wanted to make a career out of helping people acquire new competencies. I believed this to be one of the primary functions of institutions of higher education. But in the three years since beginning graduate studies, I have changed my mind about the politicization of academic life. Such terms as “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” I have come to see, are being used not only as administrative shibboleths but also in descriptions of actual scientific work—a troubling development, as the language can shield shoddy ideas. “Equity-centered” research can deflect scrutiny through the tacit insinuation that anyone who finds fault with it must be doing so out of hostility toward equity itself. It is difficult, too, to get clear definitions of “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “equity,” even from those using them in the titles of their own research projects.

[ . . . ]

I decided to do some statistical and linguistic analysis to determine how much more frequent the use of “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” and similar terms were becoming. My analysis, which I published for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, shows a precipitous increase in the use of words related to identity politics. In 1990, only 3 percent of award abstracts contained one of the following terms: “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” “gender,” “marginalize,” “underrepresented,” or “disparity.” As of 2020, 30 percent of all award abstracts had at least one of these terms. The NSF directorate in which abstracts most frequently contained one of these terms was Education & Human Resources (54 percent in 2020, up from 4 percent in 1990).

Read it all.

George Will: Even by today’s standard of campus cowardice and conformity, this repulsive episode is noteworthy

From George Will at The Washington Post comes an incredible story of a law professor treated with a shameful lack of due process by his employer, the University of Illinois at Chicago, following accusations of racism and even violence by students and the school administration itself. That academia is floundering in this age of sensitivity and “inclusion” is not news, but when a law school tramples the very principles they purport to be teaching future lawyers, the incongruity merits special attention.

In his lawsuit seeking damages for violations of his constitutional rights, Kilborn says he had used this identical hypothetical for 10 years without occasioning comment, let alone campus convulsions. But it takes just a few pebbles to start an avalanche, and just a few flamboyantly brittle students to start an infection of indignation. So, Kilborn was summoned to an electronic meeting with the law school’s dean, who had been told he had “used a racial slur” on the exam. He sent a note to his class expressing regret if his hypothetical had distressed anyone.

Nevertheless, three weeks later Kilborn was summarily placed on “indefinite administrative leave,” his classes were canceled for the entire semester, and he was banned from campus. All this, because the head of UIC’s Office for Access and Equity had a conversation with a student, according to the lawsuit.

On Jan. 6, the Black Law Students Association invited people to report if they had ever been “affected by” Kilborn. The next day, about an hour into a four-hour remote electronic conversation with a member of the association, Kilborn was asked why the law dean had not shown him a student petition complaining about the expurgated racial and gendered slurs in the exam question. Kilborn said perhaps the dean thought the abusive things said about Kilborn in the petition might make him “become homicidal.” Within four days, the student was reporting that Kilborn had exclaimed that he “was feeling homicidal.”

So, the dean triggered UIC’s Violence Prevention Plan, which triggered a Behavioral Threat Assessment Team that, without communicating with Kilborn, authorized the dean — who teaches law, mind you — to impose severe punishments without a shred of due process. Soon the Office for Access and Equity notified Kilborn that it was investigating allegations that he had “created a racially hostile environment,” particularly in his civil procedure course.

Read it all here.

Jennifer Sey: Yesterday I Was Levi’s Brand President. I Quit So I Could Be Free.

When it came down to $1 million or her voice, Jennifer Sey chose her voice. After a very successful tenure at Levi’s (the jean company), Sey’s journey to the top of that company was cut short when she refused to keep quiet or backtrack on her comments and beliefs about how schools were failing children during the pandemic. Her story (via Bari Weiss) highlights the growing intersection of politics, culture and big business, and what happens to someone who refused to play along.

In the summer of 2020, I finally got the call. “You know when you speak, you speak on behalf of the company,” our head of corporate communications told me, urging me to pipe down. I responded: “My title is not in my Twitter bio. I’m speaking as a public school mom of four kids.” 

But the calls kept coming. From legal. From HR. From a board member. And finally, from my boss, the CEO of the company. I explained why I felt so strongly about the issue, citing data on the safety of schools and the harms caused by virtual learning. While they didn’t try to muzzle me outright, I was told repeatedly to “think about what I was saying.”

Meantime, colleagues posted nonstop about the need to oust Trump in the November election. I also shared my support for Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic primary and my great sadness about the racially instigated murders of Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd. No one at the company objected to any of that.

Then, in October 2020, when it was clear public schools were not going to open that fall, I proposed to the company leadership that we weigh in on the topic of school closures in our city, San Francisco. We often take a stand on political issues that impact our employees; we’ve spoken out on gay rights, voting rights, gun safety, and more. 

The response this time was different. “We don’t weigh in on hyper-local issues like this,” I was told. “There’s also a lot of potential negatives if we speak up strongly, starting with the numerous execs who have kids in private schools in the city.”

[ . . . ]

Meantime, the Head of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the company asked that I do an “apology tour.” I was told that the main complaint against me was that “I was not a friend of the Black community at Levi’s.” I was told to say that “I am an imperfect ally.” (I refused.) 

The fact that I had been asked, back in 2017, to be the executive sponsor of the Black Employee Resource Group by two black employees did not matter. The fact that I’ve fought for kids for years didn’t matter. That I was just citing facts didn’t matter. The head of HR told me personally that even though I was right about the schools, that it was classist and racist that public schools stayed shut while private schools were open, and that I was probably right about everything else, I still shouldn’t say so. I kept thinking: Why shouldn’t I?  

Read the whole thing.

Around Twitter

Credit where credit is due: via Wesley Yang, Ilya Shapiro finds support from the national legal director of the ACLU:

Twitter avatar for @wesyang
Wesley Yang @wesyang
"If academic freedom is to mean anything, these two tweets can't be a firing offense." The ACLU's national legal director does something that not one other member of the Georgetown University Law Center has done: defend Ilya Shapiro's academic freedom nybooks.com/daily/2022/02/…
Image
4:04 PM ∙ Feb 15, 2022
173Likes24Retweets
Twitter avatar for @wesyang
Wesley Yang @wesyang
On the one hand principles constitutive of the university as such On the other hand, social credit points or debits...
4:31 PM ∙ Feb 15, 2022
25Likes1Retweet
Twitter avatar for @wesyang
Wesley Yang @wesyang
On this question, there is simply a correct answer, the one that Cole provides, and that everyone inculcated into the norms constitutive of the university as such knows -- and a process whereby the whole fund of assumptions is being dismantled through peer pressure
4:38 PM ∙ Feb 15, 2022
22Likes3Retweets
Twitter avatar for @wesyang
Wesley Yang @wesyang
This is the meaning of "cancel culture" -- to use discrete transgressions to stage inquisitions with the intended effect of hollowing out in practice underlying values that make co-existence within diversity possible
4:40 PM ∙ Feb 15, 2022
72Likes13Retweets
Twitter avatar for @wesyang
Wesley Yang @wesyang
The Georgetown Law Center faculty is already 100 percent captured by this process
4:40 PM ∙ Feb 15, 2022
36Likes3Retweets

Jonathan Kay (a vaccine fan himself) on the extremely unprogressive attitude of some progressives towards the unvaccinated (click to read it all):

Twitter avatar for @jonkay
Jonathan Kay @jonkay
there's been a steady stream of dehumanizing abuse against anyone who isn't vaccinated, portraying them as barely sentient "yobs" who need to be removed by police from polite pronoun-sharing, land-acknowledging, cbc-watching society. This view is called being "progressive"....
Twitter avatar for @rupasubramanya
Rupa Subramanya @rupasubramanya
RTd some replies reacting to my tweet about a man who is unvaccinated,lost his job and now homeless.We're told Canadians are caring and compassionate but the lack of empathy even to understand where he's coming from is astounding esp from those who claim to be liberal/progressive
1:52 PM ∙ Feb 15, 2022
1,370Likes332Retweets
Twitter avatar for @jonkay
Jonathan Kay @jonkay
I love that vaccine rates are high in canada, almost 90 percent. But one unforseen consequence of this extremely high rate is that it's seen as okay for the high and mighty to speak of the few dissidents as despised and "unacceptable" creatures.
1:52 PM ∙ Feb 15, 2022
325Likes36Retweets
Twitter avatar for @jonkay
Jonathan Kay @jonkay
Where this all went off the rails is where society's virtue signaling snobs decided that vaccines weren't just a great public health tool (which they are) but a marker of enlightenment and status. Then the whole thing became mean and cultish. Not to mention counterproductive
1:59 PM ∙ Feb 15, 2022
418Likes80Retweets

A short back and forth on “woke” between David Swerdlick, a New York Times Opinion editor, and Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution in response to Hamid’s tweet of his article “Why Wokeness Refuses to be Named” (click here for more also):

Twitter avatar for @Swerdlick
David Swerdlick @Swerdlick
@shadihamid Are you really that surprised that the folks occupying the space on the ideological spectrum that you’re talking about don’t want to adopt a label that A. is mostly used as a pejorative (as you noted) and B. the meaning of which was altered by those who use it as a pejorative?
11:19 PM ∙ Feb 14, 2022
Twitter avatar for @shadihamid
Shadi Hamid @shadihamid
@Swerdlick I think the issue is more that they refuse *any* label and any self-definition, which is quite rare for an ideological movement as controversial as this one. The bigger issue, though, is how this can seem a purposeful move to avoid scrutiny and accountability. 1/
11:25 PM ∙ Feb 14, 2022
Twitter avatar for @shadihamid
Shadi Hamid @shadihamid
@Swerdlick If there is no woke movement, then it becomes very difficult to debate its ideas with those who hold them, which feels a bit contrary to the democratic spirit. The coyness and obfuscation is what rankles, and it makes a lot of people feel gaslit. 2/
11:27 PM ∙ Feb 14, 2022
Twitter avatar for @shadihamid
Shadi Hamid @shadihamid
@Swerdlick As DeBoer notes in his post, every single descriptor, even relatively neutral ones, have been rejected. He suggests an alternative-perhaps there's some potential there. But I can't think of a comparable instance of an ideological movement that refuses to be named in this way. 3/3
11:29 PM ∙ Feb 14, 2022
Twitter avatar for @Swerdlick
David Swerdlick @Swerdlick
@shadihamid If I’m looking at the correct DeBoer post, all I see is “social justice politics.” And something tells me the progressives you’re describing wouldn’t disagree with that, for the most part. But my next guess: Woke is to too good of a pejorative for its users to let go of.
11:43 PM ∙ Feb 14, 2022

Finally, Part 2 of Why Colleges Are Becoming Cults, via Peter Boghossian:

Twitter avatar for @peterboghossian
Peter Boghossian @peterboghossian
Why Colleges Are Becoming Cults (Part 2): College Administrators | Dr. Lyell Asher
youtube.comWhy Colleges Are Becoming Cults (Part 2): College Administrators | Dr. Lyell AsherConnect with Dr. Peter Boghossian:Substack: “Beyond Woke with Peter Boghossian” https://boghossian.substack.com/Social MediaTwitter: https://twitter.com/pete...
3:57 PM ∙ Feb 11, 2022
99Likes23Retweets
1
Share this post

E-Pluribus | February 15, 2022

www.pluri.blog
Share
Previous
Next
Comments
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 PLURIBUS
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing