“Note that after signaling that the question was out of bounds by expressing outrage, he then shifted the topic to whether diversity and inclusion were desirable goals. That does not address whether having larger bureaucracies of DEI staff help achieve that goal or how large of a bureaucracy is a reasonable allocation of resources relative to other goals. Why have 52 DEI staff? Why not 520?
The titles of DEI officials at Northwestern suggest a considerable amount of duplication. There is a 'Vice President and Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer,' an 'Assistant Provost, Diversity and Inclusion,' a 'Manager, Diversity and Inclusion,' an 'Executive Director, Campus Inclusion & Community,' a 'Director, Social Justice Education,' an 'Assistant Director, Social Justice Education,' an 'Assistant Director, Multicultural Student Affairs,' an 'Associate Director, Multicultural Student Affairs,' an 'Associate Dean for Leadership Development and Inclusion,' a 'Vice Dean for Diversity and Inclusion,' an 'Assistant Dean, Diversity & Inclusion,' a 'Director of Diversity, Inclusion and Outreach,' and so on.
I could continue listing the word salad of all 52 DEI staff people’s titles at Northwestern, but I think you get the idea that there is a very large bureaucracy with what seem to be overlapping responsibilities devoted to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Does this army of DEI officials help? Our examination of student surveys suggests that students feel no more welcome or included on campuses with large DEI staff than at ones with smaller staffs.
One might think that a president of a major university when asked about how he allocates resources in the midst of promoting a book on being open to criticism and different perspectives might not have been so dismissive. It would have been nice if he had taken the question seriously and provided his rationale for why it is good for Northwestern and good for the goal of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion to have 52 people with nearly identical sounding titles.
Shapiro’s actual response is disappointing. The hypocrisy of dismissing alternative perspectives while promoting a book on being open-minded suggests that even university leaders who make rhetorical commitments to heterodox academic inquiry do not really mean it in practice. It is extra disappointing because Shapiro seems like a good guy and capable university leader. I’ve been particularly sympathetic to him because he has been the target of the progressive cancel mob in his own right. But perhaps that is why, to protect himself, he must have his own fundamentalism that he defends to stave off those who have been pushing to drive him out.
America is losing confidence in the ability of higher education to stay true to its core mission of pursuing truth through open academic inquiry. This interview with Morton Shapiro did nothing to restore that confidence.”
Mixed signals. The Biden Administration and interest groups such as teacher unions have been sending mixed signals about what, exactly, they think Critical Race Theory is and whether this unmistakably discriminatory philosophy is being taught in schools. Jonathan Butcher cleared things up in FoxNews this week, writing that Critical Race Theorists believe "everything in public and private life – your job, government, school – must be considered with respect to racial identities. The theory is 'critical' because advocates based the ideas on Marxist notions of oppressed workers, which stems from a school of thought from the 1930s called 'critical theory'."
He continues: "While progressives decide how to explain away critical race theory’s bigotry, parents and policymakers should call the theory what it is – discrimination – and reject it. We can get that settled before kids go back to school."
Rejecting Critical Race Theory by rejecting compelled speech. Jonathan and our Heritage Foundation colleague Mike Gonzalez released a statement on Sen. Tom Cotton's (R-AR) nonbinding amendment to a budget resolution that says no public official can compel a teacher or student to affirm Critical Race Theory. The amendment passed 50-49, but since the provision is not binding, more work must be done to protect children from the theory's biased applications. Jonathan and Mike said, "The U.S. Senate made a powerful statement in favor of protecting all children from the racism of critical race theory by passing this amendment. Critical race theory is based on the barbaric notion that racial discrimination is necessary in public and private life." You can read their full statement here.
