FAIR Discusses its Mission

End of Year Message by Bion Bartning, Founder of FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism), discussing the genesis and mission of FAIR:

When I was a child growing up in Newton, Massachusetts, I was passionate about civil rights. I wanted to do my small part to help “heal the world”—and move us ever closer to the promise outlined in the Declaration of Independence: that every person was created equal, and that we are all entitled to unalienable rights including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero to me, and still is. I remember the day several years ago that I first shared his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech with my two young children. He spoke the truth about our shared humanity, equal protection under the law, access to equal opportunity for all, and why it was important to treat our fellow Americans with dignity and respect. I thought, growing up, that everybody shared these values.

As a young teenager in 1988, I did not understand why our governor at the time was pilloried as a “card-carrying member of the ACLU”—which I viewed as an organization committed to standing up for the individual civil liberties that are promised to all Americans under the Constitution. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Equal protection under the law. I saw the ACLU as a vigilant guardian, fighting to protect our hard-won individual rights and freedoms.

Perhaps that was true at one time—but, as I discovered a few years ago, and many recognized much earlier, the ACLU is no longer the vigilant and nonpartisan civil liberties organization that we desperately need. Rather, it is a highly partisan fundraising machine that contributes to the ever-increasing polarization in our culture, while bringing in almost $400 million per year through the ACLU and ACLU Foundation, plus millions more through its state-level chapters.

And where does the ACLU spend all of the money that it raises from individuals and corporations? In 2021, Anthony Romero, CEO of the ACLU, was paid over $1 million. This is an astounding amount for a nonprofit organization to spend on one person—and, together with the significant salaries of the other key employees, shows the degree to which, perhaps, money and a careerist mindset motivates and drives the people at the top of the ACLU.

As founder and CEO of FAIR, I have never taken, and will never take, any salary or compensation. In fact, FAIR’s total payroll, for its entire team of paid staff members combined, is substantially less than the $1 million that the ACLU spends on its CEO alone. For almost two years I have donated, and will continue to donate, my time, energy, and money to support FAIR. The same is true of the other volunteers and donors involved in building FAIR since its launch last March—including Letitia Kim, head of the FAIR legal network, our chapter leaders, Board of Advisors, and hundreds of other courageous individuals.

Why do so many of us choose to be part of this? While we may not agree on every issue, we are all passionate about FAIR’s nonpartisan mission, and to advancing the values, principles—and individual freedoms—that are the foundation of a healthy, functioning, pluralistic society. I was compelled to found FAIR after seeing how the same illiberal and intolerant ideology that had infected my children’s school had caused the ACLU and other civil rights organizations to stray from their missions. I saw the urgent need for a new, truly nonpartisan, organization committed to advancing individual civil rights and liberties for all Americans—and that is exactly what we are building, with your support and involvement, at FAIR.

Continue ReadingFAIR Discusses its Mission

University of Missouri School of Journalism Embraces Censorship.

University of Missouri School of Journalism has announced that it is engaging in censorship based on comically vague criteria. Excerpt from City Journal:

One of the top journalism schools in the country endorses restrictions on free speech. The University of Missouri’s School of Journalism currently enforces a sweeping newsroom diversity policy that aims to eradicate “reporting that is racist or sexist in fact or in connotation” and to “eliminate nationalistic, racist, sexist and other demeaning remarks . . . whether said in seriousness or jest.” The policy applies to the university’s six affiliated news outlets, which are often staffed by faculty and students.

When asked, the journalism school refused to provide any definitions or examples of a “demeaning” remark. But recent incidents suggest that university students and faculty can encounter severe repercussions if they criticize the Black Lives Matter movement, hang flags in support of the police, or challenge gender ideology. The School’s vaguely defined policy allows university faculty and administrators to enforce speech restrictions as they see fit....

If one refers to the horrifically vague Newsroom Diversity Policy, one can see that the school is laser-beam discriminatory when it comes to students seeking work on-air. The university is proudly lispist, hissist and stutterist.

Criteria for air work will include clarity of diction; enunciation and elocution; well-modulated pitch and tone; lack of lisp, hiss, stutter, thickly accented speech or distracting mannerisms; correct inflection; and interpretation of delivery.

Continue ReadingUniversity of Missouri School of Journalism Embraces Censorship.

Jonathan Haidt Joins FAIR’s Board of Directors

Below is Jon’s statement on why he signed up to join FAIR’s Board of Advisors:

The first 50 years of my life, from 1963 to 2013, were the greatest period of social progress and the extension of rights and inclusion in human history. Progressives should have been celebrating success and vowing to continue on toward the fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream. Instead, because of changes to social media platforms in the early 2010s, new, terrible, and illiberal ideas flooded into universities, and from there to the rest of our institutions. I co-founded Heterodox Academy to push back against illiberalism in universities. I joined FAIR's advisory board because FAIR is pushing back everywhere else.

Continue ReadingJonathan Haidt Joins FAIR’s Board of Directors

MIT Advises How to Write a Winning Diversity Statement

At Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne posts on how to please the DEI department by writing an acceptable diversity statement.

The MIT site says this:

A diversity statement alone is unlikely to get you an interview or a job offer, but a well-written diversity statement may enable you to stand out among a large pool of qualified candidates.

. . . in reality, in some places like Berkeley, if your diversity statement isn’t up to muster you have no chance of getting a job, no matter how good your academic qualifications are (see here and here). And since you have to talk about efforts you have made in the past to increase diversity, as well as your philosophy of diversity, you have to start doing social-justice work well before you intend to apply for jobs. Woe to those students who have immersed themselves wholly in quantum mechanics or classical literature out of the love of the field and of knowledge. Without a track record in promoting diversity, as well as a philosophy of diversity, those people are doomed.

I don’t of course object to universities encouraging diversity efforts as a way to “broaden” a candidate, but there are many ways to be broad besides fighting for equity of races and genders. These include doing general outreach to high schools, writing popular books and articles on your field, doing an internship at a newspaper or other organization,, and so on. But those don’t count nearly as much as showing your history of fighting for equity. And is this attempt to turn universities from places of learning into instruments of specific types of social justice that bothers me. As Stanley Fish said (it’s a book title): “Save the world on your own time.”

And, in the end, DEI statements may be illegal. As my colleague Brian Leiter (a law school prof) pointed out, such required statements, if used to cull candidates, may constitute illegal “viewpoint discrimination”. As he notes:

I recommend that those applying for jobs in the University of California system say only this in the diversity statement: “I decline to supply this statement which constitutes illegal viewpoint discrimination in violation of my constitutional rights.” There are already lawyers gearing up to bring legal challenges; I hope they act soon. If you have been rejected from a University of California search, and suspect it was on grounds of insufficient ideological purity about “diversity,” please get in touch with me. I can connect you with one public interest legal organization looking for plaintiffs.

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) is also concerned about Diversity Statements. Here is an excerpt from FIRE:

FIRE is concerned by the proliferation of college and university policies requiring faculty applicants or current faculty to demonstrate their commitment to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” often through a written statement that factors into hiring, reappointment, evaluation, promotion, or tenure decisions. In our newly released Q&A and full Statement on the Use of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Criteria in Faculty Hiring and Evaluation, we explain how DEI statement policies can too easily function as ideological litmus tests that threaten employment or advancement opportunities for faculty who dissent from prevailing thought on DEI.

Over the past few years, FIRE has heard from countless faculty members concerned that their university’s DEI statement policy violates the First Amendment, academic freedom principles, or both. Numerous complaints have prompted FIRE’s intervention.

Our statement provides guidance to universities to ensure they respect faculty members’ expressive freedom when seeking to advance DEI.

Continue ReadingMIT Advises How to Write a Winning Diversity Statement

Race and Racelessness

Latest Episode of Common Sense (by Bari Weiss). This is a wide-open starkly unpoliticized discussion about "race."

Today’s episode is borrowed from the feed of the great podcast The Fifth Column. Usually hosted by Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, and Matt Welch, this episode, which aired in July of 2022, features Kmele and two guests who have become elder statesmen around the persistent issue of race in America: John McWhorter and Glenn Loury.

Over the past few years John, Glenn, and Kmele, each have written, discussed and lectured exhaustively on anti-racism, the role race plays in America, and the changing meaning of the word “racism” itself. In this episode, they talk about the inadequacies of regarding people solely by their racial category, the dignity of the individual and what a future might look like if we were to abolish race all together. While all three men bring a contrarian streak to this discussion, you’ll find that they have big disagreements when it comes to questions of race abolition and the so-called “racial reckoning” of 2020.

Continue ReadingRace and Racelessness