Weather

A Victory for Freedom of Expression and Diversity of Perspectives at the University of Washington


I have some very good news to report.

There has been a big win in terms of faculty freedom of expression and diversity of opinion, and certainly a positive development for students at UW.

In one previous blogI talked about a proposed requirement that every University of Washington Teachers looking to advance will have to provide a substantiating statement suitable for and concrete action to support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) agenda.

A highly politicized request reminiscent of the oaths of allegiance against communism in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I noted in my blog that asking all faculty members to support the social/political agenda favored by a section of society not only politicizes the university, but also exhibits “forced speech”, which violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution at a public university.

The proposed requirement has all kinds of potential for abuse, as it provides little guidance on what represents adequate “progress” for a faculty DEI: it is up to the gatekeepers in each individual unit to decide.

The vote

The DEI statement must be approved by at least two-thirds of the faculty in order to be valid. Fortunately, about 40% of faculty members voted no or abstained, resulting in the failure of this erroneous initiative. Such failure of faculty legislation is unprecedented at UW.

The negative vote is Not a fight between left and right in the faculty, between conservatives and progressives, or anything like that. Many faculty members who voted against the measure were quite liberal in their political views and strongly advocated diversity among faculty and students.

Instead, the opposition is based on a strong belief that faculty should never be forced to conform to a certain political opinion or pay homage to a wide range of current trendy ideas.. They believe that the proposed request is not only illegal but also leads to monopolistic political or social views on campus.

If there’s one place where different ideas and perspectives need to be defended, it’s on college campuses. Students are best educated by exposing them to the many ideas of a diverse faculty. Our future depends on this.

Revealed reactions of supporters of the initiative

The anti-democratic nature of the initiative’s sponsors became apparent after its failure. Some supporters pushed to skip the vote and enforce the DEI initiative. Some concepts of democracy seem unknown to them.

For example, the President of the Senate Faculty, who Candlestick As an objective representative of the faculty’s views, sent a hasty message within minutes of the results’ announcement, stating:

“For those of us who have supported this effort, a very disappointing result – but it will not end the work of changing our University and the way we centralize the values ​​of humanity. comprehensive, fair and diverse in our promotion activities and tenure … Law . and that work will continue.

Unbelievable. What does a faculty vote mean if the faculty Senate president still pushes for the go-ahead after the faculty says no?

Similarly, the UW School of Public Health faculty board voted to go ahead with the DEI request.

An example for the nation

The UW faculty vote against the catchy speech drew bipartisan support from national groups dedicated to faculty freedom. For example, Foundation for Personal Rights and Expression (FIRE) give a statement support the UW faculty vote and describe problems with DEI statements enforced by faculty. They also checked how such statements present compelling speech.

The head of the National Inquisition, Dr Jonathan Haidt, found the success of the group’s UW chapter in leading the opposition “thrilling”. And the group, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), has spoken out against faculty DEI claims, such as those proposed to UW

Let me be blunt here: there is a battle going on right here at the UW Campus, and the fight against the mandatory faculty DEI claim is just a battle of wits in the battle for the soul of the University.

Beside, there are those who believe that every potential student deserves equal opportunity and equal opportunity. That UW should never bias in decision-making or opportunities available to students based on their color, ethnic background, religion, politics, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else.

This is the party that believes in equality and equal worth of all people. That UW should treat each potential student as an individual and not as a representative of a group. This is the side I’m on on this road.

The other side, which I will call fair side, do not believe in equality of opportunity, but in results. They believe the university should be biased in its admissions and resources to ensure equal outcomes for all. groupspay particular attention to a small number of favored “under-representatives” groups.

Equity advocates are willing to make preferences based on skin color, ethnic group or gender and use “affirmative action” to prioritize those they support. While such affirmative action is against state law, it happens nonetheless, with “comprehensive admission” and denial of objective measures (such as the SAT or GRE) being public new tools to obscure what’s going on.


You can see why so many faculty members oppose the DEI statement, demanding specific action to support “fairness” in getting promoted at UW.

But the fight at UW doesn’t end with issues of fairness and equality.


Some lecturers and administrators do not believe in the diversity of views, and especially the diversity of political views. They are so certain of the nobility and value of their (usually progressive) views that they feel free to suppress other views. They do not believe that the political views of the faculty should reflect the state or the nation.


A good example is the faculty roster organization operated by the UW chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). This list, read by thousands of UW faculty and administrators, is moderated by left-leaning faculty, rejecting a large number of messages that do not reflect their views.

In some departments (such as my department and Computer Science), faculty members have been openly attacked by deans or other faculty when they express views that differ from “progressive” ideas that have already been established. approved. In my case, the dean and two Deans of the Department of Environment publicly attacked me for speaking out against initiative 1631, a highly regressive gas tax that would pickpocket some groups.” certain progress”. In Computer Science, Stuart Reges was savagely attacked for not paying attention to a land claim. And there are many more examples that I won’t list here.

One reason the proposed DEI statement is so problematic is that it would be a powerful tool for weeding out or discouraging faculty with more moderate political views. In the long run, it will motivate all faculty to think equally in favor of a political, trendy DEI view of a political party.

You will all be affected by the results

The outcome of the battle to preserve diversity of opinion at UW will affect most of you. It will determine whether your child, grandchild or young acquaintance gets equal access to the State’s top university. It will determine whether UW faculty fall into a political/social monopoly, with very negative effects on our ability to research and communicate effectively about important social issues.

Most importantly, it will determine whether UW graduates will be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and perspectives, without which they will be ill-equipped to deal with problems in life or work for the betterment of our state and nation.



Source link

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button