Resolution 165: UFC-F: In Support of the WG-F Recommendation for a Required Educational Program for Faculty

132 thoughts on “Resolution 165: UFC-F: In Support of the WG-F Recommendation for a Required Educational Program for Faculty”

1. I grew up in Ithaca, worked for over 20 years in the Cornell Library System before relocating to another city. The idea that staff too would have to be included in this indoctrination, is very sad to me. Faculty have power and respect and can fight this; staff would decline at their peril. My husband is a retired faculty member from one of the most prestigious private universities in the country. I know he aligns with the Cornell faculty who have written here and would oppose this program.

2. We are asking staff to take a 6 part training that the faculty may not take? Is this fair? If it is valuable, we all take the same training for items like this. If not, why not?

   1. It is not fair and it is not valuable. No one should be compelled to submit to this attitude adjustment regimen — not faculty, not staff, not students.

3. What is the long-term goal here? After reading the report, resolution, and comments, I still do not know. If the goal is to create a society that is better, great. Does this actually do that?

4. Unless directed otherwise by my department, I will vote in favor of the UFC resolution. But I will do so with reservations.

   I’ve participated in Hunter Rawlings’ faculty leadership series, (long) in the past. Those were half-day events, very intelligently structured, and I would honestly have to say that I found them interesting and valuable. Hunter cared deeply about racism, and would certainly have used that model here, if he was still President. I think we all have things to learn in life, and I look forward to learning from the proposed anti-racism training.

   This said, Hunter’s event were all by invitation, and optional. I don’t agree with the mandatory aspects, or the punitive concept for non-participation, and I think the idea that you would make this program mandatory for all faculty year after year is very worrying. It is very hard to see how perpetual repetition could benefit anyone, or how such a policy could ultimately avoid angering even the most moderate faculty members. You would surely alienate many who might have been curious, willing to participate voluntarily, and likely to gain new insights from the experience.

   Offering this annually does make sense to me: if the content is rich and interesting enough, and evolves each year, people would voluntarily return. So a better model is to perhaps mandate it once, but then welcome repeat participation without imposing sanctions on those who decline.

   It seems to me that aggressive, mandatory, repetitious, punitive aspects have the risk of making what should be an educational event confrontational – and that this is evident from the discussion, which has taken on an increasingly harsh and polarized tone. We need our faculty to look forward to this training — not detest it, and not to do it out of obligation.

5. I imagine that the faculty members ceaselessly commenting on how DEI training is a form of indoctrination which offends their right to free speech (despite agreeing that “racism is bad”, as one person so eloquently put it) have spent far more than 2 hours attacking this proposal—2 hours which could have been spent showing that you value students and faculty members of color by doing a simple training.

   I want to extend my thanks to those who are supporting this proposal, acknowledging their biases, and trying to do better, for the benefit of their fellow community members. You truly give me hope for this institution. As we strive to do better, we should fundamentally be seeking to engage in reciprocal care for one another, and your desire to care for your community means the world.

   1. 1. There’s no basis for saying “ceaselessly.”
      2. There’s no contradiction between “DEI training is a form of indoctrination” and “racism is bad.” The “despite” is therefore illogical.
      3. There’s no way of knowing whether anyone at all has “spent far more than 2 hours attacking this proposal.”
      4. “[D]oing a simple training” does not show “that you value students and faculty members of color.”

   2. And if you don’t “engage in reciprocal care for one another” you will not be able to teach or you will lose your job. That truly leaves me bereft of hope for this institution.

6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/03/critical-race-theory-backlash/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2F9u9ZvfuK8MD7_Ii0r_SUr3PY9mGhFCsMC3ZSuBub5wuvalDCYpETY7k

7. The only part of the F proposal that bothers me is the one about teaching evaluations. Ironically, these evaluations have been shown to discriminate against women and minorities, and in general they promote the model of student-as-consumer that undermines education. We should be moving away from using student evaluations, not relying on them.
   As for the rest, I don’t see a great hardship in being required to spend just 2 hours per semester learning things that might make me a better teacher to a diverse group of students or a fairer evaluator of job applicants. I’ve been required to do other trainings that are deemed essential to the health and safety of the community (Covid protocols, sexual harassment procedures). How is this different? We really are talking about the health and safety of the entire Cornell community here.

   1. Nope. We are talking about coerced indoctrination. It is happening in the public schools and now it is happening here. Dressing it up in the language of “health and safety” is subterfuge. This isn’t like Covid protocols or harassment training, as other posts have patiently tried to explain.

      It won’t make me a better teacher, at least not if a good teacher is one who teaches students to think critically. On the contrary, it will make me a worse teacher: one who’s afraid to do anything but follow the party line of anti-racism and critical race theory. Time to see what’s really going on here. Besides, if someone wants to be “trained,” then by all means attend whatever sessions are on offer. Just don’t punish free-thinkers who would like to remain that way.

8. I think there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the intellectual tradition of the Enlightenment, on which Cornell was founded, and the demands being made that Cornell faculty and staff *must* assent to the doctrines of what is being variously called “critical race theory” or “anti-racism”.

   I think the demands that either faculty or staff *must* undergo what is being called “training” (but what to dissidents from critical race theory looks much more like indoctrination) are grossly out of place at Cornell University.

   I think the claims that these demands will preserve academic freedom are being made either in honest and naive error (at best) or in deliberate bad faith (at worst).

   I think advocates for mandatory training in critical race theory show an astonishing incomprehension that there might exist living, breathing human beings at Cornell who disagree with their ideology, not because these dissidents have some fervent desire to oppress non-whites, but because these dissidents do not in fact find one or more of the key concepts of critical race theory to be rationally or morally persuasive.

   I do not for one moment believe the claim that demands on faculty time will be kept down to “two hours per semester”. In other parts of the current initiatives, it is proposed that the degree of one’s activity in political or social causes approved by the proponents of critical race theory should be made a requirement for reappointments of non-tenured faculty, for promotion to tenure, and for further promotion after tenure. This will make it practically certain that faculty will feel pressured to go far, far beyond two hours per semester in their observed support of critical race theory. It will be like a public address by Stalin in the Soviet Union: everybody will be terrified to be the first person to stop clapping.

   Cornell was founded in 1865 by Americans who believed in the concepts of the Enlightenment. Central to these concepts was the idea that through disciplined intellectual effort, held in a balance between free individual thought and free disagreement between individuals, it would be possible for the human species to better its physical, mental, and spiritual condition. This idea was first articulated by Milton in his 1644 essay “Areopagitica”, and further enunciated by Mill in his 1859 book _On Liberty_. Cornell has become a university respected throughout the world because it has, until now, upheld that belief in free speculation counterweighted with free argument. I would like to see Cornell keep doing that. In the event that it allows itself to make its academic life subject to the ideological dictates of *any* doctrine holding itself above rational debate — whether that doctrine is Christianity, or critical race theory — Cornell will be at great risk of a sad decline.

9. As I read them, most of the comments oppose the proposal. Some of them quite strongly. A couple promise civil disobedience.

   Of course, the comments might not reflect the views of the faculty as a whole. Under those circumstances, shouldn’t the University conduct a faculty-wide, secret poll to try to find out what the faculty as a whole really think? Wouldn’t that be the democratic thing to do? And isn’t democracy a value the University Administration values? Perhaps not. Perhaps democracy must yield in the name of anti-racism. But if so, just think about what that means.

   1. Yes. The university should indeed “conduct a faculty-wide, secret poll to try to find out what the faculty as a whole really think.” But I suspect the authorities are afraid of what might be revealed thereby.

10. Idaho is considering a bill that if passed would make what is being proposed here illegal in the state of Idaho. Crazy, right?
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/27/us/critical-race-theory-idaho-bill-trnd/index.html

    1. Update: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/03/critical-race-theory-backlash/

11. Feedback on the WG report and a possible role model for a well done education / training, sent to me (a senator) from a faculty member in my department:

    Early on in this discussion, Dean Van Loan made the important point that when such things are done badly they wind up reinforcing the attitudes and behaviors that they are trying to ameliorate.

    I think our analogous Title IX education/training requirement is well done and could be a role model. I think it’s well done because focuses on skills, and there’s nothing like “indoctrination” in it. The starting point is “we all agree that sexual harassment is bad”, and it goes straight into talking about skills and actions: recognizing harassment, and what to do if you see it happen or it is brought to your attention.
    I can’t say that I enjoy doing it, but I don’t feel like I’m having a particular viewpoint forced upon me. If faculty antiracism training could start from “we all agree that racism is bad”, and go directly to talking about skills and actions (how to make the classroom more welcoming, how to make your research group more welcoming, what to do in situation X, situation Y, etc.) I think that could be acceptable to the faculty, and more likely to be beneficial than counter-productive.

    1. Yes. I agree that “racism is bad.” But that statement is a tautology, and therefore meaningless.

       Here’s the problem. The University Administration is trying to restructure Cornell in order to bring it into conformity with the ideology of anti-racism, with the required faculty program being presented as a harmless and ever-so-small step in that direction. Only a racist would object to that! Don’t be fooled. The irony is that the ideology of anti-racism is itself deeply and profoundly racist.

       Look inside. Do you truly believe you need to be told “how to make the classroom more welcoming, how to make your research group more welcoming, what to do in situation X, situation Y, etc.” No. Trust yourself. You are already a good, welcoming person. The problem with the training being contemplated here is that its implicit message — or maybe even its explicit message, who knows? — is just that opposite: Don’t trust yourself. You are really a racist. You may not know it But trust us: You are. And you will be told you are morally obligated to make the world more “welcoming” by seeing and judging people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character. Will that be said openly? Of course not. Will someone look you in the eye and call you a racist? Of course not. That would be counter-productive. Besides, you are simply an ignorant racist — not one of those bad racists — which is why you need to be trained, and to welcome your training, in the first place. You need to be converted. You need to become an anti-racist. The irony is this: if you become an anti-racist all you will manage to have done is to change from being one type of racist into being another type.

       The proposal is NOT like Title IX. As other posts have said, the University’s warrant for forcing everyone to watch the Title IX video is to prevent violations of federal law. It is designed to tell people what the law means and what actions violate federal law. If the proposed required programming is about that — if it wants to force everyone to learn something about federal law, but no more — then fine. But I’m under the impression that it will be more than that. We will be told about implicit bias and structural racism — each a contested concept in some way or another. Or we will be told “how to make the classroom more welcoming, how to make your research group more welcoming, what to do in situation X, situation Y, etc.” in ways that are themselves based on those contested ideas. Any analogy to the Title IX training is a red herring. Don’t fall for it.

       The President is wagering that she’ll be on the right side of history here. She has probably surrounded herself with people who are telling her as much. I’ll take the opposite side of that bet. History, I’d wager, will come down on my side.

12. The whole thing is breathtakingly patronizing and presumptuous, and its chief effect will be to anger a lot of people while terrifically expanding the DEI industry at Cornell. And the faculty most likely to be affected negatively by some of the proposals are those who teach “diverse” texts on sensitive topics. Have the faculty as a whole been accused of being insensitive to difference, callous to students, biased, etc., in recent years? Where is the local study showing that such draconian measures are needed to curb a metastasizing racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. at Cornell? Or is this thought of as an effective way of combatting murderous police cultures?

    1. There is no such study. The proposed programming is part of an ideological agenda that can proceed without the type of evidence you seek. No one should be mistaken about that. If you support that agenda, then you should support the programming. If you oppose it, then you should oppose the programming. Those are the larger stakes involved here. The proponents of the programming do not want you to see any larger stakes — all they are talking about is a couple of coerced hours of your time to “educate” you: what’s the harm in that? — but you should not be fooled.

       If you oppose this agenda because — despite all the talk about systemic racism and implicit bias — you simply do not SEE with your own eyes any “metastasizing racism” at Cornell, then you should trust your own eyes and you should oppose this proposal. You will — should anyone find out about your opposition — doubtless be called a racist. That is the power in the anti-racist ideology. You should find the courage to endure that burden.

13. There has been very little discussion so far with respect to whether or not the punitive program outlined by the Dean of Faculty would, in fact, achieve the aims that he has described. From that perspective, we should consider how a training program with a punitive component might be received by our colleagues. My own feeling is that there are severa; categories into which faculty might fall. First, there are those who would welcome this exercise in intellectual coercion as a validation of their own political position. Since the content of the proposed training program is already abundantly available in courses, programs, formal presentations, and other forms at Cornell, their satisfaction would primarily arise from the fact that this material would be imposed on their colleagues who differ in some way from their political position. They might also enjoy the training program for some other reason but the effect on their beliefs would otherwise be minimal. Second, we should also acknowledge that there are colleagues who would be intimidated in some way by the fact that the University chose to impose such a training program on them. A few colleagues might be influenced by the imposition of the requirement and would simply comply, perhaps indifferently. For others in this category, imposition of this requirement might persuade them to conform to whatever the training program prescribes (we should always remember that we do not know what it might prescribe). Third, there will be other colleagues who would comply with the requirement but resent the coercive imposition of political views. The impact on this group might well be counter-productive with respect to the intentions of the requirement. Fourth, there might be a few who would refuse to comply with this requirement. Because they will be punished under the President’s proposal, as now developed and revised by the Dean of Faculty, there is little doubt that many of these colleagues will be sincere in their refusal in that, for one thing, they view the President’s proposal as an infringement on academic freedom. There is also little doubt that punishment of these conscientious objectors is intended to tell them that there is no place for them in this University. (I was surprised by a question from a colleague that there would be no “black list.” There has to be such a list of those who choose not to comply because they would have to be identified in order to punish them.) We can and should debate how many colleagues fall into each of these categories and, in addition, whether the characterization of their responses is plausible. But, however that debate unfolds, this is clearly a very mixed bag.

    Richard Bensel rfb2

14. Now that we have had another session devoted to resolutions “S” and “F,” we might review, once again, where the process has taken us. For the Faculty Senate meeting on April 21, 2021, the Dean of Faculty revised, once again, the text of these resolutions. These revisions were, once again, not approved by the committees from which they ostensibly (according to the text of the resolutions) originated. But the University Faculty Committee, which as far as I am able to tell has had no role in the committee deliberations, is now sponsoring the resolutions. This UFC action is consistent with the Dean of Faculty’s involvement in the process since the latter chairs both the committees and the UFC. If the Dean of the Faculty wished to avoid seeking the approval of the committees for his revisions, it was perhaps natural that he would ask the UFC to sponsor his revisions. The purpose of all these procedural manipulations is to bring before the Faculty Senate, in one way or another, President Pollack’s proposed training program. However, the many procedural manipulations, including the fact that the presiding officer at our sessions has been anything but the “impartial moderator” specified in Article XI of our own rules, has thoroughly undermined the legitimacy of the entire process. There are several things we might do. One might be to simply return the resolutions to their respective committees and start the process all over again. If we did that, we might also ask the Dean of Faculty to let the process in these committees come to a natural conclusion including the endorsement a formal report. Another way to go might be to invite the President to participate in an open date with one of those who opposes her proposal to punish those faculty who do not wish to be told to think as she wishes them to think. As the Dean of Faculty has repeatedly informed us, the original impetus for this program has, all along, been the President’s demand that we approve her program so it would be only natural that she come before us and, in an open debate with someone advocating an opposing position, defend her proposal. If we go this way, the selection of that opponent should not be left up to the Dean of Faculty and the UFC because they have already strongly committed themselves to the President’s position. I would be happy to volunteer as that opponent in such a debate and would be equally happy if someone as strongly opposed were to volunteer instead. In fact, I would strongly prefer the latter.
    Richard Bensel rfb2

15. I oppose this proposal. I have been teaching here for over 20 years. I owe a great debt of gratitude to this University. And I am truly grateful, which is partly why I write: to try to persuade University officials – with words they are free not to read, unlike what they have planned for me – is a grave error. It will, in a materially subtle but symbolically profound way, change this University from an institution dedicated to truth-seeking into one dedicated to something else. With the passage of this proposal, no one should continue to fool themselves: the emperor has no clothes.

    I have passed my 20-plus years here at Cornell not really caring, frankly, about what the University administration does. Fine. Fine. Fine. Yes. Yes. Yes. I get it. Do what you will. No problem. Just leave me to teach, read, write, and think. What a great gig, as they say these days. Oh, and don’t forget to pay me. Thanks. We will all get along.

    But this proposal is different, very different. Despite the bureaucratic language its proponents use, intentionally or not, that disguises what’s at stake, what’s at stake should not be lost on anyone. This proposal will use coercion to force me and every other member of this faculty to listen to the Word. We are to open our hearts to a new gospel. That is not how it is sold, of course. But that is what it is. It is a proposal proclaiming a moral duty, as one post puts it. Or, as it might be put, a sacred duty. If we want to be good people, we must listen.
    That is a powerful call to anyone of good faith. But it is a call people of good faith should resist. Be kind. Be generous. Be compassionate to anyone in suffering or in need. But, still, resist this call.

    One’s moral duty is not to submit to this proposal, but to oppose it. No University wishing to retain that title should coerce action in a misguided effort to coerce thought. Far from being a University, it becomes an anti-University. It becomes an anti-University in the service of anti-racism. Some members of the faculty may applaud that transfiguration. I do not. If a colleague believes I have said or done something that is wrongful and that I am culpable for having said or done it, then I believe they are obligated to tell me. Call me out. Set me straight. And if I believe they are right, then I believe I am obligated to apologize, sincerely, and to try to make amends. And I will. But I do not believe anyone should enlist the University’s punitive apparatus in a misguided and (I believe, ultimately) counter-productive effort to facilitate such callings-to-account and such efforts-at-amends. More fear. More silence. That, I believe, will be the corrosive effect of the new gospel, coercively proclaimed.

    I have searched my conscience as my faith requires me to do. I do not believe that I have committed any sin, in my thoughts or in my words, either in vincible ignorance or with full consent of the will, in my interactions with colleagues, friends, or students.

    You can force me to listen to a lecture on microaggression and implicit bias, in the belief that it is all for my own good: for my education. But you should not. Moreover, you needn’t bother. Although I’m not all that familiar with the literature on microaggression, I believe I have more than a passing familiarity with the literature on implicit bias, attitudes, prejudice, and so on (the language describing the phenomenon at issue varies). I don’t doubt “implicit bias” is a something, and not a nothing. But, to make what should be a very long story very short, I am not persuaded the required programming will improve the University’s collective IAT score (if that’s its aim), nor that an improved collective IAT score will fix a problem or collection of problems (vaguely described) that some people see, but others don’t. Racial disparity? Yes. I can see that. That’s a problem. Yes. Fix that problem. But don’t try to fix it by trying to convert me to the new gospel.

    The University can hire – for a hefty price, no doubt – an expert and well-credentialled diversity consultant. They can tell me that I just can’t see the aggression. Only some can see it, and the training will help me see it too. They can tell me I cannot see the bias. Only some can see it, and the training will help me see it too. It is “in the atmosphere,” as one post put it. You can take a test, like the IAT: it will help you see the bias really is there, lurking in the recesses of your mind. Your inability to make quick matches on a computer program will prove to you that you are not saved. The problem is to be found in “structures” and in the “implicit” parts of the mind. It cannot be found in the actions or beliefs or desires of any identifiable human being, because that’s not where it lives. But it is out there. You need to believe. That, so far as one can tell, is the Word the University will coerce everyone to hear. But I prefer to put my faith in what I can see with my own eyes and what I know in my heart. No. I will not confess that I have sinned. Does that mean I am a racist, and an unrepentant one at that? Perhaps. But if so, I will take that up with my maker when the time comes.

    1. I would encourage anyone who opposes this proposal, or anyone who has doubts about this proposal, to consider the ideas put forward by the Foundation Against Indoctrination and Racism. You can find those ideas at https://www.fairforall.org/

       If you agree with those ideas, you should consider joining the organization, as I have. If you believe the required faculty programming is ill-advised — that the anti-racism movement has gone too far — then the only way to stop the revolution is to organize and to support organizations devoted to a better way, organizations like FAIR. But beware: if you join an organization like FAIR, you should be ready to be called a racist. That’s how the anti-racist movement acquires power.

       So far as I can tell, FAIR is trying to live up to the ideals of Dr. King, and not those of Dr. Kendi. I believe the world Dr. King hoped to see is a better world than the world Dr. Kendi wants to see. The former world is one of hope: hope that we can all be united in our common humanity. The latter world has given up on that dream. It is an impossible dream. We will forever be sorted into one of two categories: oppressor or oppressed. That Kendian dystopia may represent our collective fate, but I’m not yet ready to give up on the dream. I’m not yet ready to embrace the ideology of anti-racism, and I therefore oppose the punitive faculty programming.

Comments are closed.