2020-21 May 5

6 thoughts on “2020-21 May 5”

1. Thanks for your note.

   The DoF offce is not involved in the processing of bias cases. See Policy 6.4

   I am guessing that you, like me, would like to see hard data that quantifies the scope of the problem. We attempted that–take a look at the slides from the Apirl 21 Senate.

   I am convinced that we have widespread racial problems on campus mainly through conversations that I have had this past year with faculty and students who I trust. I have had many fewer such conversations that point to a free speech / academic freedom problem. But I do know that open discussion is something that certainly needs improvement on campus. A truly excellent implementation of the UFC-F proposal would address both concerns. A mediocre implementation will have the opposite effect. Why not try? We are supposed to know more about education than any other profession. !

   Reply

   1. Again, if you see any deficiency in how the University addresses specific and identifiable instances of wrongful conduct, then by all means fix those processes. Bring specific and identifiable perpetrators to justice.

      As for “widespread racial problems” on campus, your evidence is “conversations.” Well, I’m guessing others would draw the opposite conclusion based on their conversations. Besides, I’d still like to know what the content of those “conversations” was. Did they involve specific instances of wrongdoing? If so, then I assume they were dealt with accordingly. Or did they involve vague accusations or suspicions of some sort? If the former, then again, use or fix the available remedial mechanisms. if the latter, then no one should be moved to action, especially the action being contemplated by UFC-F.

      The claim against UFC-F is incredibly simple: A University does not use coercion to compel members of its faculty to listen to anything associated with or grounded in a controversial normative theory or program. Period. What you must concede is that coercion is at the heart of UFC-F. That makes a “truly excellent implementation” of the proposal an oxymoron. If you are then to attempt to justify its enactment, you must also concede that you are prepared to coerce people — people you address as colleagues — in the service of some greater good, which you believe will result from the coercion, but others emphatically do not. You must concede, in other words, that you are prepared to use your ostensible colleagues as means to an end. I submit to you that doing so crosses a line this University should not cross in its pursuit of “diversity.” And that line will be crossed by this proposal: no one will be fooled by any Orwellian euphemisms meant to obscure that simple fact.

      If the controversial nature of DEI training is something its proponents cannot fathom, then perhaps the reason is that the -ism through which they see the world has become as all-encompassing and consuming for them as is the -ism they detect in those they condemn.

      Reply

   2. “Our surveys show that 80% of corporations with diversity training make it mandatory, and 43% of colleges and universities with training for faculty make it mandatory. Employers mandate training in the belief that people hostile to the message will not attend voluntarily, but if we are right, forcing them to come will do more harm than good.[19]”

      https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf

      Reply

   3. The vast majority of comments posted on these forums are, by choice, anonymous. That alone should indicate the kind of free speech problems that exist.

      Reply

2. I received this letter from the President of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni on April 14:

   https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.cornell.edu/dist/3/6798/files/2021/05/ACTA.pdf

   It expresses deep concerns about the Working Group S and Working Group F Reports. My reply:

   https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.cornell.edu/dist/3/6798/files/2021/05/ACTA-CVL.pdf

   The President’s response to my reply

   https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.cornell.edu/dist/3/6798/files/2021/05/Cornell-Response-Formatted-V.2.pdf

   Just an FYI.
   CVL

   Reply

   1. In your reply to the ACTA you state: “Colleagues who have been on the receiving end of bias and prejudice and [sic] will disagree with this characterization as will many others. If you want to argue against WG-F then I wouldn’t go about it by minimizing the racial problems that we have on our campus.”

      Could you please describe with specificity exactly what the actions were in which one member of the faculty placed another member of the faculty “on the receiving end of bias and prejudice?” I’m assuming that these incidents must be much more widespread than I had realized. In any event, alleging that a member of the faculty has placed another member of the faculty “on the receiving end of bias and prejudice” is on its face a very a strong accusation, one I assume you would not make lightly or without strong evidence. If the University has not responded appropriately to such action, I would be interested to know why not. Surely as Dean of the Faculty you would not have allowed such incidents to go unremedied. Does not the University already have in place mechanisms designed to deter and punish such alleged biased and prejudiced actions? If so, then isn’t coerced education otiose, especially because it’s coerced, not to mention the chilling effect it will have on free thought and expression? I would have no objection to subjecting those found responsible, after due process, for putting other members of the faculty “on the receiving end of bias and prejudice” to the compelled education being contemplated. But surely faculty not found so responsible still enjoy a presumption of innocence, or am I mistaken about that?

      Reply