Trib Article: BYU faculty members urged to align their teaching, research better with LDS tenets

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Twitter post was Jan 29

 

His social media education work is very needed, imo. I hope it takes off for him. 

[Chum]

On 2/11/2023 at 11:22 AM, Bernard Gui said:

What do you think the mission is now?

I don't know. I was commenting on the vibe that students were a burden.

[Buckeye]

On 2/8/2023 at 11:33 PM, Calm said:

According to this, BYU actually moved up 6 spots in the best graduate programs field of law.  There are some other BYU programs listed. One should be able to check out USNews ranking each year to see standings and if rising or falling.  Doesn’t answer the CFR precisely, but approximates it as a program that loses quality faculty will drop in rating and if academic standards of current students drop (scores on national tests) that would drop ratings as well.

https://news.byu.edu/intellect/byu-law-leads-list-of-byu-graduate-programs-moving-up-in-u-s-news-rankings

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/brigham-young-university-230038/overall-rankings

Looks like you have to subscribe to get all the rankings, but as far as I can tell without signing up, it is free.  2Biz might have a better option he can use though to provide the CFR.

Many schools moved up 6 or so spots this year because a half dozen of the most prominent law schools chose to stop participating. 
 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/top-ranked-yale-law-school-shun-flawed-us-news-rankings-2022-11-16/

[2BizE]

I saw this on Twitter. 

 

[Hamilton Porter]

BYU was never going to be elite elite anyway.  Bright students and a feeder to good graduate and professional programs, solid research school in one or two fields is all we can ask for.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 2/9/2023 at 1:33 AM, Calm said:

According to this, BYU actually moved up 6 spots in the best graduate programs field of law.  There are some other BYU programs listed.

If these changes will hit BYU's academic reputation, the effect won't be immediate.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Hamilton Porter
If not of

[smac97]

On 1/30/2023 at 12:53 PM, smac97 said:

First, BYU is not a state actor.  If the government of the United States (or, in the alternative, the government of Utah) were a "regime" seeking to act in a "totalitarian" way, it might subvert these freedoms at state-run schools, but they have no authority to do so at BYU, which is a private religious institution.

Second, we are fortunate that there are extensive laws on the books which prohibit the state suppression of such freedoms.  

Third, there are real incursions into Free Speech, Free Assembly, etc. at public colleges and universities.  See, for example, this Wall Street Journal article by Ilya Shapiro and Christopher F. Rufo:

Quote

Many Americans despair of reforming the culture of higher education. But a substantial majority of college students attend public institutions, and these schools are subject to state law. If legislators are determined to restore free speech and academic freedom, there’s a lot they can do. In cooperation with the Goldwater Institute, we’ve developed model state legislation based on four reform proposals:

• Abolish “diversity, equity and inclusion” bureaucracies. These offices work actively against norms of academic freedom and truth-seeking, advance primarily political aims, and fuel administrative bloat that raises costs and exacerbates student debt. Administrators at public institutions should maintain official neutrality on controversial political questions extraneous to the business of educating students. Leave compliance with federal and state civil-rights laws to the university counsel’s office.

• Forbid mandatory diversity training for students, faculty and staff. Even when DEI officials claim their training is “voluntary,” it’s often required for faculty who wish to perform basic extracurricular roles, such as serving on hiring committees. Typical diversity training includes unscientific claims about “microaggressions” and “implicit bias” and rejects the basic American principle that everyone should be treated equally. It indoctrinates an ideology of identity-based grievance, guilt and division.

• Curtail the use of “diversity statements” as a means of political coercion. These serve as litmus tests in employment processes to exclude applicants who don’t adhere to critical race theory and other radical beliefs. Although the Supreme Court has long held that requiring loyalty oaths in public education is unconstitutional—as are other forms of compelled speech—universities increasingly require that applicants state their belief in the importance of DEI, cite prior personal efforts to promote DEI and pledge to integrate DEI into their teaching. Applicants for many positions have been eliminated on the basis of diversity statements alone and many universities condition their hiring decisions on the applicant’s ideological conformity.

• End racial and other identity-based preferences. The Supreme Court may do this in a few months anyway by holding that racial preferences violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, in the case of public institutions, the 14th Amendment. Regardless of how the justices rule, discriminating based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin is antithetical to universities’ basic missions. Outlawing admissions and hiring based on these characteristics would curtail universities’ efforts to evade a mandate against them from the high court.

These straightforward reforms would go far in pushing back on some of the negative trends that have afflicted higher education—without intruding on curricula or other aspects of academic life. They would free faculty and students alike to explore intellectual ideas without fearing the thought police.

A recent development re: DEI initiatives (such as are discussed above) : Why Was This Groundbreaking Study on DEI Silenced? (authored by Colin Wright).  

Some excerpts:

Quote

In a stunning series of events, two leading media organizations—The New York Times and Bloomberg—abruptly shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that raises serious concerns about the psychological impacts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) pedagogy. The study, conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University, found that certain DEI practices could induce hostility, increase authoritarian tendencies, and foster agreement with extreme rhetoric. With billions of dollars invested annually in these initiatives, the public has a right to know if such programs—heralded as effective moral solutions to bigotry and hate—might instead be fueling the very problems they claim to solve. The decision to withhold coverage raises serious questions about transparency, editorial independence, and the growing influence of ideological biases in the media.

The NCRI study investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically training programs that draw heavily from texts like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Through carefully controlled experiments, the researchers demonstrated that exposure to anti-oppressive (i.e., anti-racist) rhetoric—common in many DEI initiatives—consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed. Participants were more likely to see prejudice in neutral scenarios and to support punitive actions against imagined offenders. These effects were not marginal; hostility and punitive tendencies increased by double-digit percentages across multiple measures. Perhaps most troubling, the study revealed a chilling convergence with authoritarian attitudes, suggesting that such training is fostering not empathy, but coercion and control.

It looks like some parts of BYU have invested in the DEI concept:

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion: Crucial for Organizational Learning and Health Equity

"Crucial," we are told.

A graduate study course: DEI & Belonging in Counseling

Another course: EXDM 418: Designing for Inclusion and Belonging ("Focus on experiences of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging for individuals, families, and organizations. Address both the business and moral imperatives related to diversity, inclusion, and belonging.")

2022 Marriott Alumni Magazine: In Pursuit of Belonging

An excerpt:

Quote

Recent events and social movements from #MeToo to Black Lives Matter have galvanized DEI efforts—and it’s a moment to seize, say BYU Marriott faculty members and experts from Microsoft, Qualtrics, and beyond. Numerous entities are professing new (or redoubled) dedication to the conversation and to change, broaching topics they had previously left untouched. Awareness has never been higher.

“The worst course a company can take is inaction,” says BYU Law alumna Sara Jones, CEO of InclusionPro. The costs of dodging DEI potentially include expensive lawsuits, employee turnover, and loss of customers.

"The costs of dodging DEI..."

Huh.  That sort of sounds DEI "fostering not empathy, but coercion and control."

Back to the Wright article:

Quote

The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.

Boy, I sure would like to see data regarding the real-world ramifications of DEI training/initiatives.  

Quote

This context makes the suppression of the study even more alarming. The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg, the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives. The editorial decisions were ostensibly justified as routine discretion, yet they align conspicuously with the ideological leanings of those involved. Are these major outlets succumbing to pressures to protect certain narratives at the expense of truth?

Well, I suspect we'll start seeing more scrutiny of DEI in the future.  That's going to be a good thing.

Quote

For Joel Finkelstein, the NCRI researcher leading the study, the editorial reversals are as revealing as the data itself. In communications with reporters, he described the findings as “sobering with likely impact for DEI policy, as well as congressional impacts and potentially civil litigation.” Finkelstein further stated that, “This seems like an effort to suppress research that challenges prevailing narratives around DEI and worryingly, implicates standard practices for egregious harms.”

"{A}n effort to suppress research that challenges prevailing narratives."

We've seen that in other contexts, regarding other ideologies and initiatives whose advocates currently enjoy "prevailing narratives" about them.

Quote

The harm in question goes far beyond the scope of individual programs. Across multiple experiments, the study documented a consistent pattern: exposure to anti-oppressive DEI rhetoric heightened participants’ tendency to attribute hostility and bias to ambiguous situations. In one experiment, participants read excerpts from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, juxtaposed against a neutral control text about corn production. Afterward, they were asked to evaluate a hypothetical scenario: an applicant being rejected from an elite university. Those exposed to the DEI materials were far more likely to perceive racism in the admissions process, despite no evidence to support such a conclusion.

They were also more likely to advocate punitive measures, such as suspending the admissions officer or mandating additional DEI training.

Wow.  I have long suspected that financially-incentivized racebaiters like DiAngelo and Kendi are fomenting racial acrimony so as to make money and notoriety and praise.  I wonder whether further scrutiny and critiques along the foregoing lines will shed further light on this.

Quote

A particularly revealing aspect of the study focused on DEI training centered on Islamophobia, using materials developed by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU). The findings echoed the broader concerns of the study but offered unique insights into how DEI programming shapes perceptions of bias and fairness. Participants were presented with a scenario involving two fictional individuals, Ahmed Akhtar and George Green, both convicted of identical terrorism charges. When participants were exposed to the ISPU-inspired training materials, their perception of Ahmed’s trial was significantly altered—they rated it as far less fair than George’s, despite the trials being described in identical terms.

This discrepancy highlights a core issue with DEI narratives that emphasize systemic oppression. By priming participants to see injustice against specific groups, these trainings appear to cultivate a “hostile attribution bias”—a tendency to perceive prejudice and discrimination even where none exists. While sensitivity to genuine bias is critical, the NCRI findings suggest that DEI interventions like the ISPU materials may create unwarranted distrust in institutions and undermine confidence in objective fairness.

"{T}hese trainings appear to cultivate a 'hostile attribution bias'—a tendency to perceive prejudice and discrimination even where none exists."

"{U}nwarranted distrust in institutions and undermine confidence in objective fairness."

I'd rather not have these things being manifested at BYU.

Quote

Another alarming aspect of the NCRI study involved DEI training on caste discrimination. Participants exposed to materials from Equality Labs—a prominent provider of anti-caste training—were significantly more likely to perceive bias and endorse dehumanizing rhetoric, including adapted quotes from Adolf Hitler where the term “Jew” was replaced with “Brahmin.” The findings suggest that these programs may not only fail to address systemic injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets.

"These programs" also make their advocates a ton of money.  It would not be surprising, then, that they "may not only fail to address systemic injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets."

Quote

Critics of DEI have long pointed to its lack of empirical support, and the NCRI study adds weight to those concerns. Research cited in the report highlights how many DEI programs rely on untested theories or unverified self-reports, with little oversight or accountability. A 2021 meta-analysis found that some initiatives not only fail to reduce prejudice but actually exacerbate it, fueling resentment and perceptions of unfairness. The NCRI study’s findings echo these conclusions, suggesting that far from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution.

"{F}ar from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution."

If borne out, this is ugly stuff, none of which should be at BYU.

Quote

Yet, as troubling as the study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information. In a moment when public trust in institutions is already fragile, the media’s role as a gatekeeper of information becomes all the more worrying. When powerful outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg withhold stories of such significance, they fracture trust with the American people.

"The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information."

Yep.  I think there are other instances of other ideologies getting so "entangled" with (purported) institutional purveyors of "information."  

Quote

The public deserves to know if the tools being deployed to foster “equity” and “anti-racism” are instead causing harm. The NCRI study raises urgent questions about the real social consequences of DEI programming, but it also underscores the need for transparency and accountability in how we address these issues. Suppressing this research does further the goal of making society more inclusive and accepting—it undermines it.

As DEI programs continue to expand across schools, workplaces, and governments, the stakes could not be higher. Whether this research sparks a broader reckoning or remains buried will depend on whether institutions—and the media that hold them accountable—are willing to confront uncomfortable truths.

I hope BYU and the Church are paying attention to developments such as these.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A recent development re: DEI initiatives (such as are discussed above) : Why Was This Groundbreaking Study on DEI Silenced? (authored by Colin Wright).  

Some excerpts:

It looks like some parts of BYU have invested in the DEI concept:

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion: Crucial for Organizational Learning and Health Equity

"Crucial," we are told.

A graduate study course: DEI & Belonging in Counseling

Another course: EXDM 418: Designing for Inclusion and Belonging ("Focus on experiences of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging for individuals, families, and organizations. Address both the business and moral imperatives related to diversity, inclusion, and belonging.")

2022 Marriott Alumni Magazine: In Pursuit of Belonging

An excerpt:

"The costs of dodging DEI..."

Huh.  That sort of sounds DEI "fostering not empathy, but coercion and control."

Back to the Wright article:

Boy, I sure would like to see data regarding the real-world ramifications of DEI training/initiatives.  

Well, I suspect we'll start seeing more scrutiny of DEI in the future.  That's going to be a good thing.

"{A}n effort to suppress research that challenges prevailing narratives."

We've seen that in other contexts, regarding other ideologies and initiatives whose advocates currently enjoy "prevailing narratives" about them.

Wow.  I have long suspected that financially-incentivized racebaiters like DiAngelo and Kendi are fomenting racial acrimony so as to make money and notoriety and praise.  I wonder whether further scrutiny and critiques along the foregoing lines will shed further light on this.

"{T}hese trainings appear to cultivate a 'hostile attribution bias'—a tendency to perceive prejudice and discrimination even where none exists."

"{U}nwarranted distrust in institutions and undermine confidence in objective fairness."

I'd rather not have these things being manifested at BYU.

"These programs" also make their advocates a ton of money.  It would not be surprising, then, that they "may not only fail to address systemic injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets."

"{F}ar from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution."

If borne out, this is ugly stuff, none of which should be at BYU.

"The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information."

Yep.  I think there are other instances of other ideologies getting so "entangled" with (purported) institutional purveyors of "information."  

I hope BYU and the Church are paying attention to developments such as these.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the Church approaches diversity, equity and inclusion, as with tolerance, equality and covenants in a non-politicized manner. BYU calls it "Belonging." "DEI" has become a politicized anachronym, but the components can be functionally framed within gospel principles. "DEB" may likewise get politicized. This artilce https://universe.byu.edu/2024/02/12/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-banned-in-state-institutions-what-byu-students-think/ indicates that the BYU Office of Belonging will continue to do what it is doing, independent of legislation affecting public systems, in a non-politicized and even-handed manner. I'm sure there are varying points of view and expression within the BYU community, but in the end, from what I've seen, the right thing gets done.

I don't see a problem of politicization represented in the BYU-related links you shared. The same principles seem to be useful in advancing the Church across the globe. The Business program is just trying to be successful in competition, the Nursing program successful at public health. The undergraduate courses are valuable life skills. Teach correct principle and hopefully correct people will govern themselves accordingly.

Edited November 25, 2024 by CV75

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the Church approaches diversity, equity and inclusion, as with tolerance, equality and covenants in a non-politicized manner.

I hope so.  From 2022:

Quote

BYU President Kevin J Worthen has taught that for BYU to achieve its prophetic destiny, it must do things differently from other universities. It must be unique.

As an example, Elder Gilbert cited the recent initiative at BYU to create greater belonging for different races. “Absolutely,” Elder Gilbert agreed, “but mimicking … the world is not the way to do it. The DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs in the world are not the way BYU should do it. We should find a gospel-centered approach. We should be better than we are now, and we should be a light to the world but not replicating the world.”

On the other hand, also from 2022: BYU Classes Teach Ibram Kendi While he has Called Religious Missionary Work Racist

Quote

The “anti-racist” work of Ibram X. Kendi has drawn praise from the Brigham Young University (BYU) community, despite his stance against religious missionary work which is central to the faith of students at BYU who are mostly members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This semester, two syllabi obtained by Natalie Cline, one from a business class for experience design and management, EXDM 350, and another from a social work class, Social Work 623, showed “How to be an Antiracist” as reading material.

The Fall 2022 EXDM course has Kendi’s book as an option for readings out of several others. As well, week 5 of Social Work 623 course, Kendi is taught as part of the section “Theoretical foundations, Race, and Racism.” Pages 13-23 in “How to be an Antiracist,” which contains the quote “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination,” among others which suggest discrimination must be used in order to get equal outcomes between groups, is required reading.

In 2021, Kendi gave a lecture at Manhattan’s Judson Memorial Church, where he compared the ideas of what he called “Liberation” and “Savior” theology. 

When describing Liberation theology, he said that “Jesus was a revolutionary and the job of the Christian is to revolutionize society.” He added that they must “liberate society from the powers on earth that are oppressing humanity.”

“Savior” theology, as described by Kendi, involves the kind of religious missionary work that most Christian churches, including members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, participate in.

In Kendi’s words, for Savior theology “the job of the Christian is to go out and save these individuals who are behaviorally deficient. In other words, we’re bringing them into the church, these individuals who are doing all of these evil, sinful things, and heal them and save them.”

At BYU, a large portion of students have gone to many different nations for this purpose, because it is central to the mission of their faith. Kendi claims that Savior theology “goes right in line with racist ideas and racist theology.”

“That type of theology breeds bigotry,” he concluded.

Despite Kendi’s condemnation of this central aspect of the faith, sectors of BYU have gone out of their way to praise and endorse his work. Kendi’s book “How to be an Antiracist,” for example, was named the BYU Kennedy Center’s “book of the semester.” It has also been called one of the BYU Ballard Center’s “favorites” on their social media in 2020. 

Additionally, professors at BYU have equated Kendi’s ideas to those of leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

As of 2016, 65% of enrolled BYU students had served religious missions.

Hmm.

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

BYU calls it "Belonging."

Yes, I think BYU saw DEI as potentially problematic terminology.  And yet "Kendi’s book 'How to be an Antiracist,' for example, was named the BYU Kennedy Center’s 'book of the semester," and "It has also been called one of the BYU Ballard Center’s 'favorites' on their social media in 2020."

So portions of BYU appear to be endorsing the ideology in all but acronym.

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"DEI" has become a politicized anachronym, but the components can be functionally framed within gospel principles. "DEB" may likewise get politicized. This artilce https://universe.byu.edu/2024/02/12/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-banned-in-state-institutions-what-byu-students-think/ indicates that the BYU Office of Belonging will continue to do what it is doing, independent of legislation affecting public systems, in a non-politicized and even-handed manner. I'm sure there are varying points of view and expression within the BYU community, but in the end, from what I've seen, the right thing gets done.

I hope so.

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't see a problem of politicization represented in the BYU-related links you shared. The same principles seem to be useful in advancing the Church across the globe. The Business program is just trying to be successful in competition, the Nursing program successful at public health. The undergraduate courses are valuable life skills. Teach correct principle and hopefully correct people will govern themselves accordingly.

My question, though, is whether DEI ideology, as espoused by the likes of DiAngelo and Kendi, is a "correct principle."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 25, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

On the other hand, also from 2022: BYU Classes Teach Ibram Kendi While he has Called Religious Missionary Work Racist

And Bruce R McConkie included anti Catholic and other ideas in his book that were contrary to the doctrine of the Church.

Just because some ideas may be wrong, doesn’t mean we should dump everything from a writer.

Of course I am assuming you believe we should accept much of Mormon Doctrine as truth.  Perhaps I am wrong in this.

Edited November 25, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope so.  From 2022:

On the other hand, also from 2022: BYU Classes Teach Ibram Kendi While he has Called Religious Missionary Work Racist

Hmm.

Yes, I think BYU saw DEI as potentially problematic terminology.  And yet "Kendi’s book 'How to be an Antiracist,' for example, was named the BYU Kennedy Center’s 'book of the semester," and "It has also been called one of the BYU Ballard Center’s 'favorites' on their social media in 2020."

So portions of BYU appear to be endorsing the ideology in all but acronym.

I hope so.

My question, though, is whether DEI ideology, as espoused by the likes of DiAngelo and Kendi, is a "correct principle."  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the popularity of Kendi's book at BYU had more to do with a paradigm of finding that which is good in it, rather than the ideological paradigm for justifying contention. I'll add it when I can locate it, but a talk in General Conference referencing the BLM flare-ups a few years ago touched on embracing a sentiment for equality without embracing violent and contentious means to attain it.

I can't find a date on the article; has BYU commented per the end of the article? I see nothing wrong with hearing a perception that is difficult to accept -- I suspect the Missionary Department on occasion has benefited from such viewpoints after verifying their accuracy (they seek out feedback on their own as well). It's always good to correctly, and charitably, distinguish culture from gospel. And many people we teach and convert often share, or more often, have been exposed to, such points of view or the basis for them.

I've read one book from each author, and I found DiAngelo to be the more extreme. But I found helpful insights in both books. I think 4 years on, BYU professors can use what turns out to be more trustworthy sources on the subject for their courses, and if there is time, compare then-and-now sources and teach the students how to critique them. I think comparing ideologies among like scholarly works would fall under a separate course (let the student choose their subject matter while the professor guides them through the process of thorough critique).

I think BYU has the right, intellectually and morally, to reign in professors. I think they strive not to do this on the basis of a professor's paradigm or its driving ideology (if there is one), but on the basis how of undermining Church doctrine and policy in their teaching and extra-curricular activities with students or that call the students' attention.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

On the other hand, also from 2022: BYU Classes Teach Ibram Kendi While he has Called Religious Missionary Work Racist

And Bruce R McConkie included anti Catholic and other ideas in his book that were contrary to the doctrine of the Church.

Over a half century ago, yes.  And that was wrong then, too.

And Kendi is not an apostle.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just because some ideas may be wrong, doesn’t mean we should dump everything from a writer.

Kendi's book is akin to The Bible as regarding DEI.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course I am assuming you believe we should accept much of Mormon Doctrine as truth.  Perhaps I am wrong in this.

I accept it as Elder McConkie's personal opinions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Kendi's book is akin to The Bible as regarding DEI.

Which even if canon we don’t assume it’s infallible.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the popularity of Kendi's book at BYU had more to do with a paradigm of finding that which is good in it, rather than the ideological paradigm for justifying contention. I'll add it when I can locate it, but a talk in General Conference referencing the BLM flare-ups a few years ago touched on embracing a sentiment for equality without embracing violent and contentious means to attain it.

I can't find a date on the article; has BYU commented per the end of the article? I see nothing wrong with hearing a perception that is difficult to accept -- I suspect the Missionary Department on occasion has benefited from such viewpoints after verifying their accuracy (they seek out feedback on their own as well). It's always good to correctly, and charitably, distinguish culture from gospel. And many people we teach and convert often share, or more often, have been exposed to, such points of view or the basis for them.

I've read one book from each author, and I found DiAngelo to be the more extreme. But I found helpful insights in both books. I think 4 years on, BYU professors can use what turns out to be more trustworthy sources on the subject for their courses, and if there is time, compare then-and-now sources and teach the students how to critique them. I think comparing ideologies among like scholarly works would fall under a separate course (let the student choose their subject matter while the professor guides them through the process of thorough critique).

I think BYU has the right, intellectually and morally, to reign in professors. I think they strive not to do this on the basis of a professor's paradigm or its driving ideology (if there is one), but on the basis how of undermining Church doctrine and policy in their teaching and extra-curricular activities with students or that call the students' attention.

@smac97

The talk I had in mind was this one: (Love Your Enemies, President Oaks): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/17oaks?lang=eng

But searching for it, I found the topic covered here also: (Let God Prevail, President Nelson): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/46nelson?lang=eng

Also noteworthy Newsroom items from the same timeframe:

01 June 2020 https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-shares-social-post-encouraging-understanding-and-civility#:~:text=,2 Nephi 26:33

15 January 2021 https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-leaders-condemn-violence-and-lawless-behavior-during-times-of-unrest

 

Edited November 25, 2024 by CV75

[smac97]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the popularity of Kendi's book at BYU had more to do with a paradigm of finding that which is good in it, rather than the ideological paradigm for justifying contention.

I would hope that is the case as to BYU personnel.  My assessment, though, is that Kendi is a racebaiting grifter with the calculated objective of fostering racial acrimony and contention for the purpose of gaining wealth and notoriety for himself.  The demise of his Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, with nary a stitch of work product despite having received $55 million dollars, is a pretty good indicator of that.

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'll add it when I can locate it, but a talk in General Conference referencing the BLM flare-ups a few years ago touched on embracing a sentiment for equality without embracing violent and contentious means to attain it.

From Pres. Oaks:

Quote

What revolutionary teachings for personal and political relationships! But that is still what our Savior commands. In the Book of Mormon we read, “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another” (3 Nephi 11:29).
...
The Savior’s teaching not to “contend with anger” is a good first step. The devil is the father of contention, and it is he who tempts men to contend with anger. He promotes enmity and hateful relationships among individuals and within groups. President Thomas S. Monson taught that anger is “Satan’s tool,” for “to be angry is to yield to the influence of Satan. No one can make us angry. It is our choice.” Anger is the way to division and enmity. We move toward loving our adversaries when we avoid anger and hostility toward those with whom we disagree. It also helps if we are even willing to learn from them.

From the above link about Kendi:

Quote

The recent turmoil at Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, with more than half its staff laid off and half its budget cut amid questions of what it did with the nearly $55 million it raised, led to whoops of schadenfreude from Kendi’s critics and hand-wringing from his loyal fans.

He had become a symbol of what was right or wrong with America’s racial reckoning since the police murder of George Floyd. To some, Kendi was a race-baiting grifter; to others, he was a social justice hero speaking harsh truths.
...

More interesting is that many major universities, corporations, nonprofit groups and influential donors thought buying into Kendi’s strident, simplistic formula — that racism is the cause of all racial disparities and that anyone who disagrees is a racist — could eradicate racial strife and absolve them of any role they may have played in it.

After all, this reductionist line of thinking runs squarely against the enlightened principles on which many of those institutions were founded — free inquiry, freedom of speech, a diversity of perspectives. As one Boston University professor wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal, that academia backs Kendi’s mission amounts to a “violation of scholarly ideals and liberal principles,” ones that betray “the norms necessary for intellectual life and human flourishing.”
...

In 2019, Kendi took the ideas further, pivoting to contemporary policy with “How to Be an Antiracist.” In this book he made clear that to explore reasons other than racism for racial inequities, whether economic, social or cultural, is to promote anti-Black policies.

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination,” Kendi wrote, in words that would be softened in a future edition after they became the subject of criticism. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” In other words, two wrongs do make a right. As practiced, that meant curriculums that favor works by Black people over white people are one way to achieve that goal; hiring quotas are another.

Among the book’s central tenets is that everyone must choose between his approach, which he called “antiracism,” and racism itself. It would no longer be enough for an individual or organization to simply be “not racist,” which Kendi called a “mask for racism” — they must instead be actively “antiracist,” applying a strict lens of racism to their every thought and action, and in fields wholly unrelated to race, in order to escape deliberate or inadvertent racist thinking and behavior. “What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what — not who — we are,” Kendi wrote.

Yeesh.  Quite a bit different from Pres. Oaks' counsel.

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

I can't find a date on the article; has BYU commented per the end of the article? I see nothing wrong with hearing a perception that is difficult to accept -- I suspect the Missionary Department on occasion has benefited from such viewpoints after verifying their accuracy (they seek out feedback on their own as well). It's always good to correctly, and charitably, distinguish culture from gospel. And many people we teach and convert often share, or more often, have been exposed to, such points of view or the basis for them.

I've read one book from each author, and I found DiAngelo to be the more extreme.

More extreme that Kendi's call for "present discrimination" and "future discrimination"?

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

But I found helpful insights in both books. I think 4 years on, BYU professors can use what turns out to be more trustworthy sources on the subject for their courses, and if there is time, compare then-and-now sources and teach the students how to critique them. I think comparing ideologies among like scholarly works would fall under a separate course (let the student choose their subject matter while the professor guides them through the process of thorough critique).

I think BYU has the right, intellectually and morally, to reign in professors.

I agree.

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think they strive not to do this on the basis of a professor's paradigm or its driving ideology (if there is one), but on the basis how of undermining Church doctrine and policy in their teaching and extra-curricular activities with students or that call the students' attention.

I think advocating "present" and "future" racial discrimination amounts to undermining the counsel of the Brethren, which roundly condemns all forms of invidious discrimination and racism.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 26, 2024 by smac97

[2BizE]

There was a current discussion topic recently called “Church and Control”. Maybe this discussion should be included in that topic as well. 

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

A recent development re: DEI initiatives (such as are discussed above) : Why Was This Groundbreaking Study on DEI Silenced? (authored by Colin Wright).  

Some excerpts:

It looks like some parts of BYU have invested in the DEI concept:

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion: Crucial for Organizational Learning and Health Equity

"Crucial," we are told.

A graduate study course: DEI & Belonging in Counseling

Another course: EXDM 418: Designing for Inclusion and Belonging ("Focus on experiences of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging for individuals, families, and organizations. Address both the business and moral imperatives related to diversity, inclusion, and belonging.")

2022 Marriott Alumni Magazine: In Pursuit of Belonging

An excerpt:

"The costs of dodging DEI..."

Huh.  That sort of sounds DEI "fostering not empathy, but coercion and control."

Back to the Wright article:

Boy, I sure would like to see data regarding the real-world ramifications of DEI training/initiatives.  

Well, I suspect we'll start seeing more scrutiny of DEI in the future.  That's going to be a good thing.

"{A}n effort to suppress research that challenges prevailing narratives."

We've seen that in other contexts, regarding other ideologies and initiatives whose advocates currently enjoy "prevailing narratives" about them.

Wow.  I have long suspected that financially-incentivized racebaiters like DiAngelo and Kendi are fomenting racial acrimony so as to make money and notoriety and praise.  I wonder whether further scrutiny and critiques along the foregoing lines will shed further light on this.

"{T}hese trainings appear to cultivate a 'hostile attribution bias'—a tendency to perceive prejudice and discrimination even where none exists."

"{U}nwarranted distrust in institutions and undermine confidence in objective fairness."

I'd rather not have these things being manifested at BYU.

"These programs" also make their advocates a ton of money.  It would not be surprising, then, that they "may not only fail to address systemic injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets."

"{F}ar from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution."

If borne out, this is ugly stuff, none of which should be at BYU.

"The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information."

Yep.  I think there are other instances of other ideologies getting so "entangled" with (purported) institutional purveyors of "information."  

I hope BYU and the Church are paying attention to developments such as these.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

What development?

This is just screaming about how two media news outlets “suppressed” a study by not reporting on it. Did they look into why they didn’t report on it?

This is a standard rhetorical trick. You can talk about how the study is being fought against and is “groundbreaking” but they don’t have to defend why it was groundbreaking. The ‘not being published’ thing supposedly proves it.

It is so suppressed it took me one Google search to find it and I am halfway through before realizing this is garbage. Their explanation of the Hindu caste system is just historically wrong. Then they say that American Hindus don’t think in terms of caste because they say they don’t which is just……no.

Then we get to where they replace “Jews” with “Brahmins” in Hitler speeches and no…..just no. Jews were a persecuted minority in Germany before the Nazis took power. Trying to make that comparable to the Brahmin who are the social and economic elites in the caste system is just so wrong I don’t have words for it. Why not use the lower ranks of the caste system you complete weirdos?

Are the authors so enamored with the idea that the elites are being persecuted that they didn’t notice this? Or are they so brain-fried that they think Jews are the elites? Both answers have disturbing implications. 

There are lots of reasons to consider that a study is not newsworthy. Not all are parts of the weird culture war some are engaged in. And this stuff is perfect fodder for it. No one engages with the study itself. It is all about how the meanie news organizations aren’t talking about it which somehow counts as suppression.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would hope that is the case as to BYU personnel.  My assessment, though, is that Kendi is a racebaiting grifter with the calculated objective of fostering racial acrimony and contention for the purpose of gaining wealth and notoriety for himself.  The demise of his Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, with nary a stitch of work product despite having received $55 million dollars, is a pretty good indicator of that.

From Pres. Oaks:

From the above link about Kendi:

Yeesh.  Quite a bit different from Pres. Oaks' counsel.

More extreme that Kendi's call for "present discrimination" and "future discrimination"?

I agree.

I think advocating "present" and "future" racial discrimination amounts to undermining the counsel of the Brethren, which roundly condemns all forms of invidious discrimination and racism.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think BYU takes a well-balanced approach to faculty standards.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would hope that is the case as to BYU personnel.  My assessment, though, is that Kendi is a racebaiting grifter with the calculated objective of fostering racial acrimony and contention for the purpose of gaining wealth and notoriety for himself.  The demise of his Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, with nary a stitch of work product despite having received $55 million dollars, is a pretty good indicator of that.

Do you ever fact-check anything before you post it? Or do you just trust everything you read that seems in any way congenial to you?

There was an audit of the organization. Did you check the results?

Also you are lying. The organization has produced work and continues to do so. Stop spreading lies.

https://apnews.com/article/ibram-kendi-center-for-antiracist-research-bu-d65a731f78a88240b27fead9d40c84df

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do you ever fact-check anything before you post it? Or do you just trust everything you read that seems in any way congenial to you?

There was an audit of the organization. Did you check the results?

Also you are lying. The organization has produced work and continues to do so. Stop spreading lies.

https://apnews.com/article/ibram-kendi-center-for-antiracist-research-bu-d65a731f78a88240b27fead9d40c84df

Washington Times: What’s really behind the problems at Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research

Quote

As student journalists at Boston University’s Daily Free Press and reporters at The Boston Globe helped uncover recently, DEI guru Ibram X. Kendi has recently come under scrutiny for the apparent meltdown of his Center for Antiracist Research, which has soaked donors for up to $50 million in contributions over the past three years while failing, it seems, to do much beyond enrich Mr. Kendi, defraud benefactors, and terrorize lower-level staff workers before firing them en masse.

 

According to the Free Press, university administrators were tipped off about “multiple high-level employees leaving [the center] suddenly and allegations of a workplace culture that included fear of retaliation and discrimination,” combined with a “pattern of amassing grants without any commitment to producing the research obligated to them.”

As the Free Press quotes one center staffer saying: “It’s pretty hard for me to imagine they blew through $30 million in two years. … There’s been a lack of transparency about how much money comes in and how it’s spent.”

"{H}is Center for Antiracist Research, which has soaked donors for up to $50 million in contributions over the past three years while failing, it seems, to do much beyond enrich Mr. Kendi, defraud benefactors, and terrorize lower-level staff workers before firing them en masse."

Daily Caller: ‘Secrecy And Paranoid Behavior’: New Report Details How Ibram Kendi’s ‘Antiracism’ Center Imploded

Quote

Interviews conducted by The New York Times with former staff at Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University paint a picture of poor financial decisions and “paranoia” that hamstrung the center’s success.

Kendi, an academic routinely criticized for his radical left-wing views on race, founded the Center for Antiracist Research in June 2020 following the death of George Floyd and, concurrent with a wave of activism sweeping the country, his center was showered with tens of millions of dollars from liberal philanthropists to fulfill its mission. Just a year later, however, fundraising dried up, staffers were voicing discontent and the center was in a state of administrative disarray, paving the way for its decline, the NYT reported.
...

Faith in Kendi’s project dried up fast however, with donations dropping to just $420,000 in 2021 as the willingness of donors to pay for racial justice initiatives dropped sharply after 2020, according to the NYT.

By 2021, Kendi was feeling like a failure, a sentiment he shared with Yanique Redwood as he was interviewing her to become the center’s executive director, the NYT reported.

Kendi ultimately gave Redwood the job, according to the NYT. Prior to starting her new role, Redwood conducted a series of interviews with the center’s staff, after the end of which she reported being worn out by all the frustration she encountered.

Staff, for instance, complained about being required to take on jobs they were neither hired to do nor qualified to complete.

“Everyone was overwhelmed,” Redwood told the NYT. “There were too many promises being made to funders. Products were being promised that could never be delivered.”

Staffers also told Redwood they were unsure of what the center’s specific mission even was. Once she actually started her job, Redwood uncovered total disorganization when examining the center’s finances.

“Nothing was in place,” she told the NYT. “It was unbelievable that an institution like that, with so much spotlight on it, just did not have systems. I understood why I was being brought in.”
...

Early in the center’s history, stakeholders had attempted to dissuade Kendi from creating an all-encompassing repository of anti-racist data, urging him instead to constrain his focus to avoid sloppy data, overburdened staff and unoriginal work, the NYT reported. Kendi ignored their advice.

Research output at Kendi’s antiracism center was low, having produced just two pieces of original academic research between its founding and November 2023.

"{H}aving produced just two pieces of original academic research between its founding and November 2023."

Huh.

The College Fix: Kendi’s ‘antiracist’ center has been largely inactive since 2023

Quote

There has been no apparent activity at Ibram Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research in the past year, according to a College Fix review of his website.

Kendi launched the center in 2020 to “use the blocks of thoughtful and exhaustive public scholarship to build an antiracist future for America,” but laid off half of its staff last year amid a shift to a fellowship model, resulting in a decline in visible activity.
...

There is no clear proof that fellowships or anything like that are in the works. “We are growing! If you are passionate about antiracism and dedicated to our mission, we want to work with you! Check out our open roles below,” the “Career Opportunities” page lists. There are no currently open roles.

A 2023 cohort of interdisciplinary research and policy teams is listed on the center’s website, but a 2024 cohort is not. Similarly, 2023-24 research affiliates are listed, but 2024-25 affiliates are not, with the website not saying when the next application period will begin.

A student internship is listed on the website, but the application form has been closed since before May 2023. The application portal for the center’s Scholar in Practice Postdoctoral Fellowship also closed in 2023, and there are no current job openings at the center.
...

The COVID Racial Data Tracker ceased collecting data in March 2021, while the most recent COVID Stories were published two years ago. The latest post on the Antiracist Tech Initiative blog was from August 2023, as was the most recent update from the Racial Data Lab.

On a page titled “What We’re Working On,” nothing is listed from this year.

No policy reports or convenings have been published since 2022, and no amicus briefs have been submitted by the center since 2023. The Model Legislation Project also has not been updated this year.

The Antiracist Legal Education Project advertises an event from September 2023 as “upcoming,” while the annual Antiracist Book Festival was not held in 2023 or 2024.

A Vertex Symposium, which is also described as an annual event, has not occurred since 2022.

Fox News: Fed-up staff seethe over Boston U's antiracist center: 'Colossal waste of millions of dollars'

Quote

Current and former staff at Boston University's Center for Antiracist Research, gave a scathing assessment of its leadership, fiscal management and inability to meet goals, in Thursday's student newspaper.

"The Center has very, very much failed to deliver on its promise. It’s been a colossal waste of millions of dollars," Spencer Piston told the student newspaper, The Daily Free Press. Piston is an associate professor of political science, who works as the faculty lead in the Policy office at the Center for Antiracist Research "CAR."

Staff and faculty spoke out after CAR recently laid off at least 15-20 employees. Boston University explained that center was restructuring to a "fellowship model." But former staff claimed its founder, Ibram X. Kendi, had told them the past model was not "financially sustainable."

Piston claimed the center operated within a "culture of secrecy" and had never been transparent about how it managed the millions of dollars in grants and gifts it received since its inception in 2020. 

"It’s pretty hard for me to imagine they blew through $30 million in two years," he told the student newspaper. "There’s been a lack of transparency about how much money comes in and how it’s spent from the beginning, which comports with a larger culture of secrecy."
...

"There’s a mismatch between the amount of money that CAR has received from these grants and what they’ve actually produced," an anonymous source told the campus newspaper. "You can juxtapose that with other research centers either at BU or other universities that have received a tiny fraction of what CAR has received and has produced a lot more."

The Daily Free Press described how the center had failed to produce promised research, despite Kendi touting data science as a "pillar" of his center in 2020.

Opinion Piece in the Washington Examiner: Ibram Kendi’s ‘antiracist center’ was a multi-million dollar grift all along

Quote

Kendi (who changed his name from Ibram Rogers) won a think tank at Boston University out of the riots and the white guilt that he and others pushed on liberals during that time. Now, three years later, the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research has laid off almost its entire staff. The supposed research center produced little research, burned through some $43 million, most of which is unaccounted for, and is now all but shuttered as it transitions to a “fellowship model,” with Kendi still serving as its director.
...

The main point probably was never to fix racism or perform “antiracist” research. The point was always to line grifters’ pockets off of the white guilt of liberals and the major corporations they run (or harass into acting on that same guilt), in this case to the tune of $43 million in grants and donations that were burned through in just three years. Just as Kendi secured lucrative deals from Netflix or was paid $20,000 by Fairfax County Public Schools for an hour-long virtual lecture, Kendi wasn’t concerned about white or black. The only color he seemed to care about was, and maybe has always been, green.

If the allegations are true, Kendi’s racial grift helped enrich him off the back of a cultish liberal embrace of the racial obsession that Kendi and others were peddling. At the end of the day, the Center for Antiracist Research being effectively shut down after producing almost no real research is not a failure. It succeeded in exactly what it was designed to do, just like the Black Lives Matter organization and every other race hustler project that spawned off the back of, or was rejuvenated by, those 2020 riots.

AllSides.com: What Caused the Turmoil at Ibram Kendi's Antiracism Center?

Quote

From the Right: Jeffrey Blehar (Lean Right bias) argued Kendi is part of an “intellectually insulting racial-grievance subculture” composed of “enterprising grifters” that have profited off of racial guilt in America. The allegations and investigation, Blehar concludes, signify a “real cultural backlash coalescing.” The “academic racial grift cycle” will not end “until universities have a serious financial reckoning.” A writer in the Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias) argued the reports prove that DEI initiatives in academics “contributes nothing, wastes money, and fuels a bubble of empty courses, professions, and promises.” 

From the Left: Michelle Goldberg (Left bias) stated, “it’s important to understand that the center’s apparent implosion is more the result of a failed funding model than a failed ideology. It exemplifies the lamentable tendency among left-leaning donors to chase fads and celebrities rather than build sustainable institutions.” In the Daily Beast (Left bias), a former professor at the Center for Antiracist Research detailed their experience at the center, culminating in their departure once “the dysfunction at the center became intolerable.” The writer determines Kendi to be a “cautionary tale,” stating, “Celebrity is seductive. But celebrity should not be confused with leadership ability.”

Daily Caller: Bush, Bowman, Gay, Kendi. All Disintegrated. Their Commonality? Woke Acolytes Are On The Run

Quote

After reaching the heights of cultural status following the 2020 “Summer of Love,” racial lecturers and diversity chiefs are squarely on the back foot as America tires of their divisive rhetoric, analysts told the Daily Caller. Former Harvard President Claudine Gay, scholar Ibrahm X. Kendi and Democratic Reps. Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri have all either been fired, lost funding or lost their Congressional races.
...

Down Goes Kendi

Another casualty of the downfall of the racial reckoning is Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi became a darling in left-wing circles after he published his 2016 book “Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America.” The book spurred the creation of a Netflix documentary and a follow-up book, “How to Be an Antiracist.” 

Kendi’s emergence as the authority on antiracism prompted lucrative speaking tours. He charged public colleges like Arizona State University and the University of Virginia anywhere between $20,000 and $35,000 per gig to lecture their students on racism.

"He charged public colleges like Arizona State University and the University of Virginia anywhere between $20,000 and $35,000 per gig to lecture their students on racism."

Quote

He’s the recipient of a National Book Award and the McArthur “Genius” Grant for “transforming how many people understand, discuss and attempt to redress America’s longstanding racial challenges.”

But his celebrity academic status peaked in 2020 when he founded The Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University. The Center received over $50 million in donations. Donors included Twitter founder Jack Dorsey and corporations like Peloton and Stop & Shop.

...

Kendi’s movement, while well-funded, has not necessarily produced success.

Despite the $50+ million funding boon, the Center for Antiracist Research laid off more than half of its 36 employees in 2023. Further allegations from former staffers laid out severe mismanagement, though Boston University investigated the center and said they did not find any issues regarding its finances.

The center was so dysfunctional that it failed to even establish an antiracist study program at all, a former employee for the center, Phillipe Copeland, alleged in a Daily Beast op-ed.

"The center was so dysfunctional that it failed to even establish an antiracist study program at all."

Quote

“The rumbles of discontent were turning into an earthquake and people kept leaving. No matter how hard people tried, things didn’t improve,” Copeland wrote.

He described how the one positive of his time there, an antiracist fellowship he created, ultimately became a negative as he was fired from the position. “I’m also still waiting for someone to explain how taking a fellowship away from the Black faculty member who created it is ‘antiracist,'” Copeland wondered.

“I came to the Center for Antiracist Research with hope and passion. I left with nothing but grief and exhaustion,” Copeland wrote. “The center that so many believed in is now effectively dead.”

Reilly framed Kendi as a well-meaning but ultimately under-qualified figure whose success was more about the luck of opportunity than anything.

...

Kendi’s is yet another chapter in America’s post-George Floyd racial reckoning. While the center is still active, its current public list of employees is down to just fifteen. The downfall, while likely attributable to Kendi’s and others’ mismanagement, may also signal the waning of the intensity and interest in racial politics that defined the months after the death of George Floyd.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Washington Times: What’s really behind the problems at Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research

"{H}is Center for Antiracist Research, which has soaked donors for up to $50 million in contributions over the past three years while failing, it seems, to do much beyond enrich Mr. Kendi, defraud benefactors, and terrorize lower-level staff workers before firing them en masse."

Daily Caller: ‘Secrecy And Paranoid Behavior’: New Report Details How Ibram Kendi’s ‘Antiracism’ Center Imploded

"{H}aving produced just two pieces of original academic research between its founding and November 2023."

Huh.

The College Fix: Kendi’s ‘antiracist’ center has been largely inactive since 2023

Fox News: Fed-up staff seethe over Boston U's antiracist center: 'Colossal waste of millions of dollars'

Opinion Piece in the Washington Examiner: Ibram Kendi’s ‘antiracist center’ was a multi-million dollar grift all along

AllSides.com: What Caused the Turmoil at Ibram Kendi's Antiracism Center?

Daily Caller: Bush, Bowman, Gay, Kendi. All Disintegrated. Their Commonality? Woke Acolytes Are On The Run

"He charged public colleges like Arizona State University and the University of Virginia anywhere between $20,000 and $35,000 per gig to lecture their students on racism."

"The center was so dysfunctional that it failed to even establish an antiracist study program at all."

Thanks,

-Smac

So you are withdrawing your statement that they produced nothing and now are insisting they just didn’t produce enough?

Or are you standing by your original statement that I said was a lie and helping me out by producing evidence to discredit yourself?

 

Was it a bad idea to set up a center and put an academic guy who writes books in charge of a large pile of money with a vague mandate when he has no administrative experience? Probably. Was it a huge grift? Doubt it. Does it mean that the guy’s book is utter trash and what he said is total garbage and he should be vilified by every media outlet that hates any attempt to fight racism? Apparently.

I mean, Joseph Smith wrecked the Kirtland Safety Society due to mismanagement and everyone knows that means the Book of Mormon is just a deranged fever dream.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you are withdrawing your statement that they produced nothing and now are insisting they just didn’t produce enough?

I should have said "with nary a stitch of work product in recent years..."  So yes, I retract, correct the record and apologize for the error.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[JAHS]

This thread is a couple years old but a recent news report seems to be related:

Some professors are leaving BYU in fear of increasingly stringent evaluations of their loyalty to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to a new investigation by the Salt Lake Tribune.

The intrigue: The exposé comes one week after the church-owned Deseret News published a story claiming that faith-based schools provide "more intellectual freedom than anywhere else."

Driving the news: In an effort to make BYU's religious culture more orthodox, church education commissioner Clark Gilbert told a group of prominent members that church leaders "will not stand for a contrary opinion by professors," and that he would "get them out."

What's inside: Gilbert characterized BYU professors as belonging to one of four categories of adherence to the faith's teachings, the Tribune reported:

The "Faithful Core," who "teach with the Holy Spirit"
The "Supportive Center," who support the church but not as enthusiastically "as church leaders think they ought to"
The "Secular First," who treat nonreligious "truth" as equal to the gospel of the church
"Open Foes," who publicly disagree with some church teachings
Catch up fast: BYU requires all students and staff to obtain an "ecclesiastical endorsement" from their clergy. Anyone who has been a Latter-day Saint may not obtain that endorsement from any other faith community.

In 2022, the church began to require that clergy vouch for new BYU hires' agreement with leaders and affirm the candidate hasn't used pornography recently.
What they're saying: BYU is "not safe … for anyone who doesn't fit the orthodox mold," trumpet professor Jason Bergman told the Tribune. Bergman left Provo for Indiana University's prestigious music school.

The other side: In its story, the Deseret News covered a panel in which professors at BYU, Seton Hall (Roman Catholic) and Samford (Baptist) said fusing faith with scholarship was more "expansive" than a strictly secular approach.

BYU enjoys a "climate of open inquiry," one psychology professor said.
Yes, but: A history professor who recently left BYU said female candidates were more likely to be "canceled" after approval by academic departments because they were "not a mission fit."

A recently retired law professor said he was offered a part-time adjunct role but declined it because the review process was "creepy and Orwellian."
Multiple adjunct faculty who support LGBTQ+ rights saw their contracts discontinued without explanation after BYU added a requirement that staff specifically support church teachings on marriage and gender.
What we're watching: Whether BYU can recruit or retain top scholarly talent as instructors weigh opportunities at competing schools that don't require fealty to a religious group.

If not, BYU's academic reputation could suffer over time.

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The "Secular First," who treat nonreligious "truth" as equal to the gospel of the church

This seems like a poor label. First implies above or superior, not equal. Maybe they felt that Secular Equivocalist didn't roll off the tongue well.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The exposé comes one week after the church-owned Deseret News published a story claiming that faith-based schools provide "more intellectual freedom than anywhere else."

I suspect faith based schools provide more freedom for less liberal and especially for faith based professors (who likely cannot speak of their faith easily when teaching at secular universities) than do many secular universities, but the reverse may be true as well…more secular universities may be a better fit, feel more freedom than a religious university for more secular professors.

The DN article was a panel of three professors from three different faith based colleges.  So as far as I can tell the evidence they presented for more freedom is anecdotal.