Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) Argues that Diversity Statements Required by Many Colleges “Impose a Suffocating Orthodoxy.”

Why are diversity statements improper? One reason is that they interfere with a college's need to choose the best qualified candidates. But that is merely one of many reasons set forth by the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA):

The Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) today released a statement urging institutions of higher education to desist from demanding “diversity statements” as conditions of employment or promotion. The AFA’s statement responds to the rising trend of academic institutions requiring members or prospective members of faculties to sign pledges or make statements committing themselves to advance “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or to detail the ways in which they have done or will do so.

“Academics seeking employment or promotion will almost inescapably feel pressured to say things that accommodate the perceived ideological preferences of an institution demanding a diversity statement, notwithstanding the actual beliefs or commitments of those forced to speak” said Janet Halley, co-chair of the AFA Academic Committee and Eli Goldston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.*

Today’s statement, which is available in its entirety here, further warns, “This scenario is inimical to fundamental values that should govern academic life. The demand for diversity statements enlists academics into a political movement, erasing the distinction between academic expertise and ideological conformity. It encourages cynicism and dishonesty.”

Regarding the AFA’s statement, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University*, said, “The danger that mandatory DEI statements would function as ideological loyalty oaths worried academic freedom advocates and other civil libertarians from the start. Experience, far from diminishing that worry, has heightened it.”

“A legitimate debate exists regarding how to promote equal access to higher education, as well as ensure a diverse intellectual community of learners. When the very terms of discussion (e.g., equality, equity, color blind, and meritocracy) are contested concepts, to prevent diversity statements from being used as ideological litmus tests, universities should refrain from requiring DEI statements.” said Lucas Morel, co-chair of the AFA Academic Committee and John K. Boardman, Jr. Professor of Politics and Head of the Politics Department at Washington and Lee University.*

The AFA position dovetails well with Jonathan Haidt's analysis that universities must choose between truth or "social justice," not both:

Continue ReadingAcademic Freedom Alliance (AFA) Argues that Diversity Statements Required by Many Colleges “Impose a Suffocating Orthodoxy.”

Doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital Explain How to Detect Children of One Sex who are Really of the Other Sex

Dr. Jeremi Carswell of Boston Children's Hospital explains the warning signs: Your girl might be a boy if that girl tries to stand to urinate or plays with the "opposite gender" toys. In other words, we need to vigorously engaging in the kinds of sexual stereotypes that we, as a country, have spent decades trying to demolish.

Even more jaw dropping, these kids often know they are in the wrong body when they are still babies, from the "minute they were born," Dr. Carswell says. She doesn't say whether these parents (or, when they become teenagers, peer groups of these kids or activist counselors) are encouraging their kids to think these thoughts.

Dr. Carswell tells us these things as the pleasant music plays in the background. She mentions the "treatment" given to these children/teenagers, but doesn't describe it.

These patients can be as young as 2 or 3 years old, according to Kerry McGregor Psyd at Boston Children's Hospital:

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingDoctors at Boston Children’s Hospital Explain How to Detect Children of One Sex who are Really of the Other Sex

Jonathan Haidt Discusses “De-Tot”: Decentralized Totalitarianism

Wokeness is a form of "De-Tot," Decentralized Totalitarianism. Jonathan Haidt discussed this phenomenon with Melissa Chen and Angel Eduardo at FAIR:

So, you know, I, perhaps like many in the audience, have lost money. I was going to say investing in cryptocurrencies, but I'll just say gambling and speculating. And one of the things that's kind of fun about, it's just learning about the blockchain and decentralized finance and realizing that the technology makes it possible to have all kinds of things without anybody in charge.

Many have observed this began in 2015. So I co-founded Heterodox Academy with some other social scientists. Some of our members from Eastern Europe were saying, this is just like what we had in the communist countries: the fear of speaking up the witch trials, the purity spirals.

People ever since then have been using his metaphors like what's happening on campus, what's happening in the world is somehow like the totalitarian countries. But yet, there was no dictator. There was no totalitarian person or authority or office. I think what we have is you might call "De-Tot"  It's decentralized totalitarianism. The difference between totalitarian and a dictator is that a dictator tells you what he wants, and he'll kill you if you don't do it. But totalitarianism means it gets into the totality of your life. "We're going to control how you raise your kids what to think the food you eat, the science, everything, control everything."  That's very hard to do. It's only been tried a few times, certainly the Russians, the Chinese. Only a few countries have been tried to control everything of your life. And in a way this thing that we call wokeness has elements that are totalitarian, but there's no person. There's no authority. So what you have when everybody can record everybody, when everybody can shame everybody, you get human behavior reacting as if you were in a totalitarian country, but yet there's no totalitarian

Continue ReadingJonathan Haidt Discusses “De-Tot”: Decentralized Totalitarianism

Woke Food Fights

I just finished reading today's NYT article, "Food Is Identity. For Korean Chefs Who Were Adopted, It’s Complicated. Koreans raised by American families are exploring a heritage they didn’t grow up with through restaurant cooking — and finding both fulfillment and criticism." Here is an excerpt:

As Korean food continues to influence American dining, with Korean fried chicken and bibimbap appearing on all types of menus, a variation on that interplay is unfolding in the kitchens of chefs with backgrounds like Mrs. Hong — Korean adoptees who came to the United States in the 1970s and ’80s. These chefs are coming to terms with a heritage they didn’t grow up with. And they are enthusiastically expressing it through the very public, and sometimes precarious, act of cooking for others.

In the process, they’re finding fulfillment — and sometimes attracting criticism from other Korean Americans that their cooking isn’t Korean enough.

An estimated 200,000 Koreans have been adopted globally since 1953, roughly three-quarters of them by parents in the United States, said Eleana J. Kim, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of “Adopted Territory: Transnational Korean Adoptees and the Politics of Belonging.”

Yes, let's keep dividing people against each other and publishing articles pretending that this finger-wagging attitude is worth discussing at the NYT (or anywhere). How about this alternative? We should honor people who cook well, regardless of their immutable characteristics or upbringing. How incredibly stupid and destructive have some of us become regarding this idea of cultural appropriation? Check out this article by Jonathan Turley: "White Owners Of Mexican Food Truck Shut Down After Being Accused of Cultural Appropriation." Here's an excerpt:

Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly thought that they had realized their dream when they opened Kooks Burritos in Portland Oregon. They were even more excited when the local newspaper Williamette Week decided to do a feature article on their new business. The two women recounted how they watched Mexican women making tortillas on a trip to Baja California and adopted what they saw. That admission however led to furious accusations that the two white women were guilty of “cultural appropriation.” They eventually shutdown their food truck.

And, of course, let's keep dividing people into two--count'em--two "colors." After all, it has been such an incredibly successful strategy for the U.S. so far. If you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at the "anti-racist" teaching materials common in many of our schools. They are all over the internet, though most legacy media outlets won't give you links to these poisonous materials. Those who embrace these newish "anti-racist" teaching materials apparently forgot who Martin Luther King was.

As Matt Taibbi pointed out in his book, "Hate,Inc., "[W]hat most people think of as 'the news' is, in fact, a twisted wing of the entertainment business."

Continue ReadingWoke Food Fights

Self-Imploding Woke-Permeated Organizations

Can Woke people even get along with each other? Apparently not. Aaron Sibarium reports on "Women Against Abuse." 

"One of the largest domestic violence groups in the United States offered to pay "BIPOC" employees more than white ones; asked white staffers to sign a statement affirming their innate racism; and discouraged black abuse victims from calling the cops."

There are many more examples. Woke workplaces tend to destroy the ability to do meaningful work. A recent example is the meltdown at The Washington Post, featuring Felicia Sonmez. Here's what tends to happen when social justice warriors invade the workplace, as reported by Ricki Schlott.  And if you'd like a lot more example of woeness destroying morale, check out this article by Ryan Grimm at The Intercept:

ELEPHANT IN THE ZOOM: Meltdowns Have Brought Progressive Advocacy Groups to a Standstill at a Critical Moment in World History. Here is an excerpt:

A Prism reporter reached a widely respected Guttmacher board member, Pamela Merritt, a Black woman and a leading reproductive justice activist, while the Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization were going on last December, a year and a half after the Floyd meeting. She offered the most delicate rebuttal of the staff complaints possible.

“I have been in this movement space long enough to respect how people choose to describe their personal experience and validate that experience, even if I don’t necessarily agree that that’s what they experienced,” Merritt said. “It seems like there’s a conflation between not reaching the conclusion that people want and not doing due diligence on the allegations, which simply is not true.” Boonstra did not respond to a request to talk from either Prism or The Intercept.

The six months since then have only seen a ratcheting up of the tension, with more internal disputes spilling into public and amplified by a well-funded, anonymous operation called ReproJobs, whose Twitter and Instagram feeds have pounded away at the organization’s management. “If your reproductive justice organization isn’t Black and brown it’s white supremacy in heels co-opting a WOC movement,” blared a typical missive submitted to and republished on one of its Instagram stories. The news, in May 2022, that Roe v. Wade would almost certainly be overturned did nothing to temper the raging battle. (ReproJobs told The Intercept its current budget is around $275,000.)

That the institute has spent the course of the Biden administration paralyzed makes it typical of not just the abortion rights community — Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and other reproductive health organizations had similarly been locked in knock-down, drag-out fights between competing factions of their organizations, most often breaking down along staff-versus-management lines. It’s also true of the progressive advocacy space across the board, which has, more or less, effectively ceased to function. The Sierra Club, Demos, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change, the Movement for Black Lives, Human Rights Campaign, Time’s Up, the Sunrise Movement, and many other organizations have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.

In fact, it’s hard to find a Washington-based progressive organization that hasn’t been in tumult, or isn’t currently in tumult. It even reached the National Audubon Society . . .

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSelf-Imploding Woke-Permeated Organizations