Amen. This means a lot coming from Kennedy who is often a foil to eg Glenn Loury in debates. I wish it were otherwise but it always seems to be the case that we can't just taste sour ideas and spit them out, we often drink the entire carton of sour milk and make ourselves sick before we decide not to do that again.
This is...very interesting to say the least. I read a piece some time ago elsewhere (maybe Quillette?) by an older university professor from Russia I believe espousing a similar position and I recalled generally agreeing with the writer in light of the way he presented the issue. However, not only does Prof. Kennedy's take comes across as much less persuasive in comparison, but it has also raised serious doubts in my mind about the supposed nefariousness of the mandated statements as some claim. A description of “orientation toward diversity, equity, and inclusion practices” by an applicant for an assistant professor position in international and comparative education seems like a perfectly reasonable and thoughtful requirement to me, at least at first glance, and I fail to see how instruction would be compromised in following through with stated proposals. Perhaps there are other instances of institutions mandating something that goes well beyond the example presented in this piece, but if what Harvard mandates for its applicants for assistant professor of international and comparative education is representative of standard industry practice, then there's no way I can conceive of it as compelled speech in the same vein as a requirement to address colleagues by their preferred pronouns.
However, what I found most thought-provoking is the assertion that concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion are considered ideologically leftist in nature and thus at odds with conservatism. This begs the question, is this a matter of ideology inherently or by association? I'm not precisely sure which of the bedrock principles of ideological conservatism are violated by a basic commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion but I don't struggle whatsoever to see how such a position puts one at odds with modern American postwar conservatism.
"Candidates for academic positions at Harvard should not be asked to support ideological commitments. Imagine the howl of protest that would (or should) erupt if a school at Harvard asked a candidate for a faculty position to submit a statement of their orientation towards capitalism, or patriotism, or Making America Great Again with a clear expectation of allegiance? Such pressure constitutes an encroachment upon the intellectual freedom that ought to be part of the enjoyment of academic life."
Also, imagine the outrage if someone was expected to profess a belief in a specific god or religion in order to get a job or receive public services. From my understanding, the 1st amendment protects people from being coerced into accepting a particular religion or belief system in order to protect peoples' freedoms. The B-DIE ideology is a belief system. There are many offshoots of Religions. Protestant, Catholic, Pentacostal, Lutheran, etc. They are all branches of the same tree. Same with the many branches of Islam: Sunni, Shia, etc. Religons develop over time and are rooted in a shared ideology. Isn't that what this ideological nonsense has become? It's a religion/belief system that people are being forced and coerced into accepting and they must profess their allegiance to it to get employment and services. I am 100% certain that is not what the founders of your constitution wanted when they wrote it along with the amendments. Most importantly, number 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Btw:
Love the articles you guys post. Used to follow many of you in X, including Dumisami Washington (not sure I spelled his name correctly, but I especially loved his posts). Anyhow, I got banned for "violent speech" after posting something at the high and mighty Academy Awards account. I wrote a song about Justin Trudeau and wrote that someone should smash him over the head with a guitar. I then told the Academy Awards account that perhaps someone should smash them over the head with a guitar. It was in reference to them being so unsupportive towards actual feminism and supporting it and thinking about it on an international scale, where people un countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and otherwise face severe persecution for not wearing the hijab and being forced to convert/accept Islam and Allah. They have been captured by Islamic ideology, which fits in with "rich affluent, white-person" liberal feminism bullshit like a fucking glove, ya know? I know you don't require more of an explanation, but much of Hollywood is so far removed and out of touch with us "regular folk" and what actually happens in these far off nations. When they go there to film and visit, of course they see the "best side" and how lovely it all is. They wouldn't dare show them or speak the truth. I am sure nothing bad happens to those Muslim Uyghur "workers" in the re-education camps in China. Disney filmed Mulan there, it's all beautiful sunshine and rainbows. And in the Arab nations, everyone gets exactly what they need. There is no suffering. Everyone is "equal". No such thing as slavery or human trafficking there. No one gets traded or sold on apps as "housekeepers" or "nannies" in such upstanding places such as Saudi Arabia. I mean none of those nations ever had anything to do with the slave trade. It was all just the white man.
Thank you for having the guts to say this out loud.
This is not just a problem at Harvard. I've personally been burned (or, at least, have what strike me as VERY GOOD reasons to suspect I was burned) on at least three separate interviews in academia for precisely this reason.
Good article. If only one could find a group of professors at Harvard brave enough to sign a petition denouncing this practice! But the more time passes, the unlikelier this becomes because all the new hires will be conformist people, insofar as these are the only people who will sign such pledges to get these positions. So, we know that those hired in recent years and in the near future are opportunists and conformist. How can one change anything with these people? I am afraid Peter Boghossian is right when he says that it has become impossible to reform American universities from within.
The applicants could fight back by telling the truth. "Woke DEI is bunch of crap and I will not even try to advance any of its racist goals." Signing a Woke DEI pledge is like trying to get admitted to the Nazi Party.
As noted above, this piece originally appeared in The Harvard Crimson on April 2, 2024. What isn't mentioned is that it appeared with a companion piece by Prof. of Philosophy, Ned Hall, as part of an on-going series of "contrasting perspectives" from members of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard. Although I think Randy's gets it right, Ned's piece is also well worth reading. Here's the link: https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedom-at-harvard/article/2024/4/2/hall-dont-eliminate-improve/
Amen. This means a lot coming from Kennedy who is often a foil to eg Glenn Loury in debates. I wish it were otherwise but it always seems to be the case that we can't just taste sour ideas and spit them out, we often drink the entire carton of sour milk and make ourselves sick before we decide not to do that again.
This is...very interesting to say the least. I read a piece some time ago elsewhere (maybe Quillette?) by an older university professor from Russia I believe espousing a similar position and I recalled generally agreeing with the writer in light of the way he presented the issue. However, not only does Prof. Kennedy's take comes across as much less persuasive in comparison, but it has also raised serious doubts in my mind about the supposed nefariousness of the mandated statements as some claim. A description of “orientation toward diversity, equity, and inclusion practices” by an applicant for an assistant professor position in international and comparative education seems like a perfectly reasonable and thoughtful requirement to me, at least at first glance, and I fail to see how instruction would be compromised in following through with stated proposals. Perhaps there are other instances of institutions mandating something that goes well beyond the example presented in this piece, but if what Harvard mandates for its applicants for assistant professor of international and comparative education is representative of standard industry practice, then there's no way I can conceive of it as compelled speech in the same vein as a requirement to address colleagues by their preferred pronouns.
However, what I found most thought-provoking is the assertion that concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion are considered ideologically leftist in nature and thus at odds with conservatism. This begs the question, is this a matter of ideology inherently or by association? I'm not precisely sure which of the bedrock principles of ideological conservatism are violated by a basic commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion but I don't struggle whatsoever to see how such a position puts one at odds with modern American postwar conservatism.
Glad to see this reposted essay by Professor Randall Kennedy.
⭐️
"Candidates for academic positions at Harvard should not be asked to support ideological commitments. Imagine the howl of protest that would (or should) erupt if a school at Harvard asked a candidate for a faculty position to submit a statement of their orientation towards capitalism, or patriotism, or Making America Great Again with a clear expectation of allegiance? Such pressure constitutes an encroachment upon the intellectual freedom that ought to be part of the enjoyment of academic life."
Also, imagine the outrage if someone was expected to profess a belief in a specific god or religion in order to get a job or receive public services. From my understanding, the 1st amendment protects people from being coerced into accepting a particular religion or belief system in order to protect peoples' freedoms. The B-DIE ideology is a belief system. There are many offshoots of Religions. Protestant, Catholic, Pentacostal, Lutheran, etc. They are all branches of the same tree. Same with the many branches of Islam: Sunni, Shia, etc. Religons develop over time and are rooted in a shared ideology. Isn't that what this ideological nonsense has become? It's a religion/belief system that people are being forced and coerced into accepting and they must profess their allegiance to it to get employment and services. I am 100% certain that is not what the founders of your constitution wanted when they wrote it along with the amendments. Most importantly, number 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Btw:
Love the articles you guys post. Used to follow many of you in X, including Dumisami Washington (not sure I spelled his name correctly, but I especially loved his posts). Anyhow, I got banned for "violent speech" after posting something at the high and mighty Academy Awards account. I wrote a song about Justin Trudeau and wrote that someone should smash him over the head with a guitar. I then told the Academy Awards account that perhaps someone should smash them over the head with a guitar. It was in reference to them being so unsupportive towards actual feminism and supporting it and thinking about it on an international scale, where people un countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and otherwise face severe persecution for not wearing the hijab and being forced to convert/accept Islam and Allah. They have been captured by Islamic ideology, which fits in with "rich affluent, white-person" liberal feminism bullshit like a fucking glove, ya know? I know you don't require more of an explanation, but much of Hollywood is so far removed and out of touch with us "regular folk" and what actually happens in these far off nations. When they go there to film and visit, of course they see the "best side" and how lovely it all is. They wouldn't dare show them or speak the truth. I am sure nothing bad happens to those Muslim Uyghur "workers" in the re-education camps in China. Disney filmed Mulan there, it's all beautiful sunshine and rainbows. And in the Arab nations, everyone gets exactly what they need. There is no suffering. Everyone is "equal". No such thing as slavery or human trafficking there. No one gets traded or sold on apps as "housekeepers" or "nannies" in such upstanding places such as Saudi Arabia. I mean none of those nations ever had anything to do with the slave trade. It was all just the white man.
Nice article!
Read another article the other day which is an assessment of Implicit Bias. Very interesting!
https://open.substack.com/pub/unsafescience/p/has-research-on-implicit-bias-produced?r=ub7jx&utm_medium=ios
FBT is a huge fan of both Lee Jussim and Paul Bloom (and good friends with Lee)!
Thank you for having the guts to say this out loud.
This is not just a problem at Harvard. I've personally been burned (or, at least, have what strike me as VERY GOOD reasons to suspect I was burned) on at least three separate interviews in academia for precisely this reason.
Good article. If only one could find a group of professors at Harvard brave enough to sign a petition denouncing this practice! But the more time passes, the unlikelier this becomes because all the new hires will be conformist people, insofar as these are the only people who will sign such pledges to get these positions. So, we know that those hired in recent years and in the near future are opportunists and conformist. How can one change anything with these people? I am afraid Peter Boghossian is right when he says that it has become impossible to reform American universities from within.
The applicants could fight back by telling the truth. "Woke DEI is bunch of crap and I will not even try to advance any of its racist goals." Signing a Woke DEI pledge is like trying to get admitted to the Nazi Party.
AMEN!
thank you for publishing this important message.
As noted above, this piece originally appeared in The Harvard Crimson on April 2, 2024. What isn't mentioned is that it appeared with a companion piece by Prof. of Philosophy, Ned Hall, as part of an on-going series of "contrasting perspectives" from members of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard. Although I think Randy's gets it right, Ned's piece is also well worth reading. Here's the link: https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedom-at-harvard/article/2024/4/2/hall-dont-eliminate-improve/
Check this out
1 Giving Stank 304 a New Meaning https://shorturl.at/fmxyV
2 Who Needs the Devil When Steph Curry is Around https://shorturl.at/svAR9