I see it rather as a subcult of a broader religion. Including controlling climate, trans etc. Chesterton summed it up, When people stop believing in God they don't believe nothing they believe anything.
I am so happy that Professor Kennedy has come out and said this. I will graduate in May with a PhD from one of the Ivy universities and these DEI statements are the reason I have been applying to academic positions outside the US. As a person of color, (ridiculous that I have to even say it this way) I find it insulting that universities require these statements.
When he says "sensible affirmative action", I can't help but feel he's taking an upper middle class cishetwhiteman perspective on what constitutes "sensible", which is the perspective that DEI was explicitly built to dismantle. Yes, he himself is black, but the idea of "whiteness as a possession" means he can be labelled "politically white", and therefore made into a target by the DEI fans.
If I were ‘a person of colour’ (the term now increasingly used with a tone suggesting this predicament is some sort of literal handicap) I’d be pretty upset.
Seems like a nice, reasonable guy. I agree with much of what he said. But there is no reasonable defense of Claudine Gay. She plagiarized pervasively, even her acknowledgments. A university president need not be a master scholar, but should be able to write at least at the level of an undergraduate student in which plagiarism is a cardinal sin. And the truth is, she was targeted because of her hypocritical response to anti-Semitic, genocidal comments. Her definition of DEI doesn’t include whites or Jews or men or Blacks who express inconvenient facts about police violence (Roland Friar).
He seems compromised and as much of the symptom of the DEI sickness as he pointed out lol. Lots of mental gymnastics to defend an obviously unfit and morally bankrupt diversity promotion. Also, he most certainly knows Gay personally and doesnt want to beat the very dead horse anymore.
100%. Claudine Gay's academic record would barely qualify for tenure at a 2nd or 3rd tier academic institution. She was directly involved in the campaigns to silence and ostracize Roland Fryer and Carole Hooven (Evolutionary Biologist) because their researched undermined the core tenants of DEI ideology about racial profiling in police work and the binary reality of biological sex.
I probably disagree with Freddy on a number of issues but I cannot overlook his essential politeness and balance. Moderators on all sides could learn a lot from his style, his decency and his desire to uncover the the issues. Thank you Freddy, excellent job 🙏🏻
Interesting. I feel I can say basically the same thing but from the other "side" of the interview as it were. I think the guest was honest and sincere, but don't agree with a small number of his points. It may be a style thing, with my being British and the guest being American.
“Being black, gay, or gender-fluid are also not accomplishments, and should have nothing to do with faculty hiring or student admissions. The only thing that should matter when, say, a medical school hires a researcher in pancreatic cancer is whether that oncologist is the best in his field.” Heather McDonald
Agree to a point but with some significant caveats. 1) If someone is rejected from a job because of their racial or other identity category even if they are clearly qualified for the job, then you are not hiring on the basis of qualifications and ability. 2) Students go to college to learn and develop the knowledge and skills to enter the professional work force after their studies. They are not being hired - they are being admitted for appearing to have the qualities for development into future professional work. Different factors apply here.
He's about 80% of the way there, but obviously still deeply embedded in the apparatus of the monster and thus remains beholden to a number of its more indefensible conceits.
But I like how he presents his reasoning and understands the opposite opinion rather than throwing false accusations of “white supremacist”, “right wing” and “racist”.
DEI is an industry that adds little to promoting genuine respect and dignity towards each other. My experience in industry is that DEI has been promoted through the HR bureaucracy. Once you appoint a DEI manager they have to justify their role and the bureaucracy grows. Less time is spent on productive value outputs and more time on internal gesturing. So many people just fake the DEI agenda to get along but in reality they don't like the coercion.
Yep, he never distinguishes between affirmative action (which he wholeheartedly supports) and DEI (which he has some problems with). It would have been nice to know the fine difference(s) between the two by which he supports one and not the other. I think affirmative action had the same aims as DEI, they just had to initially bring on these aims in a less obvious way.
Good job here Freddy but you missed a key question. When the Prof argued that needs testing for affirmative action without regard to race is problematic because it fails to recognize that racism in America today is "hidden", you needed to ask, 'Then how do you even know it's there and operating at such a significant level that it demands a direct, overt, and heavy handed institutional correction to nullify it?' But, other than that, you did great and asked good, probative questions.
I would have loved to hear his answer there. I have a feeling it would have been enlightening, unlike what is available around other parts of the internet...
Professor Kennedy gave the example of two families earning $50,000: one white and one black. He said the black family doesn't have the same opportunities because they can't live in the same places or join the same communities. I wish he would have elaborated on that claim because I think you could follow the thread to the foundational flaw.
@@XardiosoI wonder if the issue is not economics, because they have the same income, is he suggesting that overt racism is keeping the blacks from joining the community of their choice that exposes them to better opportunities?
There was no trap. If you watch the entire thing, they were asked over and over again. What they said was shameful and antisemitic. How do you defend that kind of answer when people get fired for misgendering or teaching something unpopular. There was zero excuse for what they said!
Happy he's speaking out against this. However, his views on Claudine Gay: Didn't deserve it, was 'trapped', it were all women being interrogated... Euhm wow! Very bizarre. I hope he says those things bc he's scared to lose his job or something. If that's his true opinion... why is he even bothering to speak against the coercive DEI apparatus? He should be happy that people are getting coerced, bc no commonsensical person would ever agree voluntarily. Maybe the apparatus is making HIS life difficult for him somehow. People usually don't leave a cult because they stop believing, but because the cult is turning against them and making their life painful. Aka they are personally suffering the consequences of the toxicity of the cult.
he's one of those progressives who complains about DEI and the excesses of progressivism only when they touch them personally. They are perfectly fine when they penalize others.
7:00 He displays a lack of imagination here. Most of those against the DEI ideology do not have wildly different values. We just think the ideology is false on some points and is, practically speaking, counterproductive and damaging to both individual students and the campus culture and mission.
While I respect Prof. Kennedy's right to maintain his position, I don’t see how he manages to do so without a ridiculous amount of mental gymnastics. He acknowledges where race has much less to do with it than economic background and location, but for some reason he still considered race as an important factor when, as far as anyone can tell, it no longer is. It certainly was a factor in the past, but once you have equalised rights and responsibilities, what you really should be focusing on is the bad schools and the bad neighbourhoods, and those things have nothing to do with race whatsoever. Kennedy provides no examples of where race actually is the issue, just platitudes about 'the hidden injuries of race'. If they are hidden, and if they aren't specific, then we cannot ever deal with them. Tell us what the issue is, and we can work towards fixing it. Prof. Kennedy's unwillingness to 'make the first move' just doesn’t make sense either. There's no reason he still can't stand for and campaign for 'sensible' affirmative action, even if the policy you're fighting for doesn't come to fruition straight away. I understand not trusting the university, but why would you just decide to stick with the current, flawed affirmative action system if you believe there are serious problems with it. Basically, I think he's just overthinking it and he still feels some loyalty to race-based affirmative action even when he has already worked out that it is an untenable position to hold.
"The Lord's Prayer was evicted from schools (Abington Township v. Schempp (1963)). School prayer was taken away. Even observing a moment of silence was taken away; cf. Wallace v. Jaffree (1985). Praying at or even before sporting events was taken away (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000))". Great, we have a secular public space. When is the Establishment Clause going to be invoked against the values of the belief system (religion) of DEI wokery in order to maintain the secular space? When is the Black Lives Matter kneeling going to be outlawed? Or does the Establishment Clause only outlaw Christianity in the public space?
That's real, some time ago, most positions I got, I knew I got because the company was trying to fill some type of racial quota and I can tell you the money was good but the struggle to keep up and perform wasn't. Now I would not take a job if I know a company is trying to hire me just to fill their DEI quotas but working from myself for several years I don't have to worry about that. My only issue now is whether or not I hired myself for design and development because of DEI or cheap labor because I've been known to work myself for a month without pay.
As a German it reminds me of the former East German policy “you geht thé job when you are in thé Same politicologies opinion like the former goverment of thé GDR.
Well, this "Prof." is a effectively a lawyer, and lawyers become lawyers, to win arguments. I am wholly unconvinced by most of what he says. "Prof. Silver-Lining" suggests a wishy washy explanation seems to require the least "highly detailed" assumptions, whilst he clearly glosses over serious problems, with political tyranny and cult-like efforts, which cannot be simply swatted aside (e.g. Claudine Gay, plagiarism, Gaza, etc), Harvard Prof. or otherwise. 1 out of 10 for conclusions drawn, 10 out of 10 for intent to "spin". This guy could make the Iraq invasions look justified, in both Gulf wars, even in the face of hindsight 20:20 and the fact that no WMDs were ever found. I would not buy a used car from that man.
24:17 - overall it looks like Prof. Kennedy doesn't WANT to say he approves of race based affirmitive action & equity BUT he actually does want it in practice. Eloquently, but unsucsessfully, trying to play both sides. Having said that - I applaud the respect & general good faith shown by both men.
Additionally, I respect Professor Kennedy but, for me, some of his arguments are inconsistent. He is right to point out that administrative positions such as Dean of a Faculty and President of the University are more about politics (he says different skill sets but it’s politics) than academic talent. I think it has always been this way, but it is now more apparent because of the ways academic talent is treated with disdain within these same elite universities. To say then, that the presidents in the senate hearing answered like academics is a reach. They got their positions for being good at politics. They showed what kind of politics got them to their positions and how bad they are as academics. No academic worthy of the title would have given those answers, even in such a hostile hearing.
If you listen to their answers, they repeated university policy. In that sense they were answering "academically" or simply answering in theory. I think the academics are good with university politics, but not with politics in the world at large or common sense politics of everyday people, which is part of the problem. Within the university they were able to censor and act in a totalitarian manner according to their ideology, but once they got out into the real world, they blithely recited the university policy, which on its face seems pro-free speech and was in stark contrast to their actions as a whole (e.g., privileging free speech of pro-Palestine groups over many others who were not woke).
In a country that is so immense in historical, social, and geographical diversity, one should ask why most sociological research does not reflect this diversity of experiences. In Professor Kennedy’s hypothetical of two families from different racial backgrounds, there are other factors beyond race and current income status that need to be taken into account. Do these families live in the same community? How long have they lived there? What is their familial history in the US? I suspect that there will be cases where historical disadvantage can explain current disparities, however I also suspect that there will be more cases showing the opposite. To ignore other factors and the latter cases is just cherrypicking the data. Roland Fryer’s telling of his own experience trying to publish data that does not conform to expectations should make us rethink how readily we accept the findings from sociological research.
His obfuscation when asked directly about his views on equity to engage in 'word salad' ambiguity tells you everything. This guy is raising his own profile without actually risking anything. He's a true believer and a race grifter.
The most I listen the more disingenuous this person becomes. Some real mental gymnastics and 'whataboutery' on Claudine Gay's over promotion. Bit close to the bone to acknowledge there's been promotion of African Americans at Harvard. I hope it sinks or is sued into the ground.
Thanks for providing Prof Randall points. You overlooked his achievements in academic and his work for the last 40 years to put everything on affirmative action. Your degree of intellectual laziness is overwhelming!
He didn't say that. He supports affirmative action, but he's open to a reformed policy that would give preferential consideration on the basis of economic/social disadvantage instead of on the basis of race. However, he feels skeptical that promises of the latter would come to fruition and so doesn't want to give up the former.
The statements made at the Senate hearing by all three presidents were PR statements (unsuccessful PR). They were not academic statements as Prof Kennedy suggested.
Where Claudine Gay is concerned, the two issues that surely need addressing are (1) the plagiarism and (2) the hypocrisy over free speech for some but not for others.
When it gets down to it, DEI is SPECIFICALLY FOR AMERICA, and has nothing to do with anywhere else in the world. Why is it being pushed in the UK for example?
DEI is a Marxist ideology disguised as a noble cause... same as CRT or Social Justice Theory... Its in the literature. DEI applies to the world the same way communism applies.
It is not just the America. It is all western nations and is an academic equivalent to Chinese Communist Party members taking a life long oath to the party right or wrong. The big problem is that for zealots, few will ever be loyal enough and the zealots will, usually for matters of ego, do everything to destroy anyone who disagrees with them for any reason. Would love to hear how this gentleman would change the school systems that are accusing young white children of being cultural preditors.
I'm glad Professor Kennedy is speaking out, but the point at 20:00 seems so wildly out-of-touch and unworkable with the reality of what affirmative action looks like. Firstly, as Freddie mentions, affirmative action was, at least until recently, explicitly race-based. There are plenty of indicators of hardship (school rankings, parental income, family make-up), which could be used and would correlate with race anyway - making it explicitly racial is the problem. You should not be able to write the life story of an applicant and then _only_ change a one-sentence description of their skin color and have that change whether they get accepted, that is just plain old racist. Also, the magnitude of the affirmative action matters. Bumping up a marginal applicant is one thing - but the scale of the discrepancy between the test scores required to again admission by different groups is just too large. It's not just 'a little boost', it's completely different standards. You can't say you're 'in favour of affirmative action' when that is the reality of affirmation action. He's either obfuscating or ignorant, and I doubt he's ignorant.
His left-wing ideology does not permit such blasphemy. To the left, it is all about historic oppression, colonialism, systemic racism... Definitely not about self-agency or the nuclear family.
What you saw as wiggle room, I saw as intellectually honesty: He has a firm point of view, and clearly explains it; but he also understands the arguments against his position and makes space for those arguments.
@@Crismans843 But wiggle room in your case is for the sake of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting. I intended "making space" to mean "I acknowledge that opponents to my position have some valid points."
@@Crismans843 Maybe! Most of the DEI stuff makes my blood boil. In this case, I was just gratified to hear a liberal academic who didn't sound 100% B@tsh!t CrAzY. Take care. :)
That comment at the end about needing people to ask questions. It seems to me that we have plenty of people asking questions but they are dismissed, censored and ridiculed, usually by the institutions and governments.
Can we just take a moment to acknowledge how brave this professor is? As a “person of the left” he will be tarred and feathered for daring to speak out against this woke orthodoxy.
😂 yep. He could be a straight out commie (dont think is), but after saying this stuff he'll be labeled a card carrying Klan member. But maybe not for much longer
Very sound and clear, first time I've enjoyed someone that speaks DEI with support in the right way and critical in a specific way. And the real problems
Who decided it was societies responsibility to solve destructive legacies which seem to be voluntary continuation of destructive cycles? those cycles can only be stopped by the individuals and and communities that suffer them. You can lead a horse to water all day long....you cant make him drink.
Suspicion is the deepest problem that keeps us from helping the most needy in society in a sensible way, and pushes both sides to simplistic and antagonistic policies. Truthfulness is the only solution. I don't agree with everything Prof. Kennedy said, but I thought it was a great interview!
A very interesting interview - I didn't agree with everything that Prof Kennedy said, but kudos to him for speaking out about DEI, and for daring to voice opinions in these Orwellian times. Good questions from Freddy too - unsettling subject matter addressed courageously.
Voices like Kennedy's are the key to depolarizing our politics and restoring much needed credibility into our institutions. We need nuanced, challenging and sincere debate based on objective facts to once again supplant what amounts to toxic, relativist identity politics. There seems to be hope. There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel!
Kennedy is a great thinker, I disagree with him on this, I am a merit based person and I hate separation of people by race. A rising tide raises all boats. That being said, he's very reasonable and a great person to have this discussion, I would love to see him talk this issue out with Glenn Loury. Knowing Loury, this probably has already been done, and I just didn't watch that episode of his show
I just recently found your channel. God I love your content! For context: I am a retired professor of chemistry/biochemistry in Canada with a left leaning ideology. As a Scientist, I have been disheartened by policies, both institutional, and governmental, that ignore science, that are blind to reason, and that are orchestrated and/or sustained by the uninformed or easily manipulated. Keep it up UnHerd.
The term "Equity" is not ambiguous. It means Equally of Outcome. It is also something that is impossible short of causing everyone to exudate in misery and deprivation. This is one of the core false beliefs of Marxist ideology, that everyone can be made equal. They cannot and attempting to do so will always fail.
I would love a Colman Hughes and Randall Kennedy discussion. Colman Hughes explains DEI benefits blacks like himself who come up from a mid-upperclass community. Usually, the black kids from the poorer communities would be overwhelmed with the workload of an Ivy League school. Just imagine through affirmative action sending Asians to the NBA
So close and yet so far. The point he concedes on DEI are taken back with his stance on maintaining affirmative action. I don't even understand his belief that the black family making $50,000 is somehow still at a disadvantage to the white family. Based on what? Is he assuming they live in a bad neighborhood? Attending bad schools just because they're black? These old time fighters for civil rights don't want to move on from battles that have already been "won". (I can nitpick there but I won't). They want to keep relitigating or making assumptions based on old information. He acknowledges that affirmative action has a negative consequence of making a person feel questioned but still seems to think that there's a benefit. Whose benefit? It doesn't make the person feel better to be questioned in their competence even if they put in the work for their accomplishments. It doesn't make society feel better because resentment and suspicion builds. Basically, we're all tired of it. It helps no one. Let it go.
I did not find Professor Kennedy a particularly insightful or compelling interview subject. Though his calm and evenhanded demeanor was laudable and refreshing after seeing so much airtime given to culture war ideologues and pugilists. It was refreshing to hear him espouse some opinions that seem like common sense to me but I recognize are loathsome heresies in progressive DEI circles. Good to know there are still some at the Ivies who think free speech and intellectual inquiry unencumbered by revolutionary ideology are worth preserving. And good on Professor Kennedy for pointing out the obvious idiocy of the defund the police movement. Some of his specific remarks caught my attention. He asserted that black and white families with identical incomes are not on equal footing due to the complicated history of race in the U.S. Specifically, he cited the inability of the black family to live in the same location and community as the white family. I don't know where he gets that idea from. In the U.S. today a black family can live wherever they can afford housing. This premise appears to be frozen in the Jim Crow era. He doesn't persuasively justify race-based affirmative action and he even seems reluctant to name it directly. Professor Kennedy said there cannot be rampant racism at Harvard based on Claudine Gay's tenure as president of the university. By that logic, the U.S. cannot have rampant racism after twice electing Obama as president. Professor Kennedy defends Gay by saying she has the skills needed for an administrator, not a scholar/academic. Then he defends her pitiful performance before Congress by citing her role as an academic. So which is it? Accomplished academic? Skillful administrator? Perhaps neither.
My government employer has mandatory systemic racism training that i avoided by not being fulltime and being in the police dept , and not bring paid for my time in the training. And yes, it has religious overtones. In fact, i have the proof that this same government employer discriminated against me in my job application and job offer. DEI is a well paid job program for some well connected
This guy is a hypocrite. What he essentially says is that, I am a professor, do not enforce DEI when you look at our job applications but affirmative action is ok to employ when universities select students.
It’s ironic that DEI is technically discriminating against people. Can you discriminate without discriminating? Regardless, of the desires to avoid discrimination, any time you take anything too far, you go full circle and become the thing you’re trying to avoid. They’ve ended up just discriminating against a different set of people who don’t fit in to the new ideals and new beliefs. What’s the difference? Just the beliefs about who should be discriminated against. I’m sure someone would argue there is a difference, but there isn’t.
I am so happy that the good professor with the perfect resume assembled in the days of Affirmative Action will be willing to work next to confirmed eugenic rascists coworkers who will campaign for racial purity in academic faculty. He is truly an enlightened individual.
Gosh, I wish he would have adjusted his camera, couldn't someone have said something? and he really shouts down, I 'd be in the back row of any of his lectures. I will tell you this, anyone who comes from a loving and supportive family is leaps and bounds ahead of someone who comes from a torn apart childhood, no matter how materially privileged they may seem to be.
DEI isn't needed; there are laws against discrimination already on the books, and pro bono lawyers happy to take cases when they occur and are deemed winnable.
Does this meet the D.I.E ... I'm 1/2 PR, 1/2 DR, been in a wheelchair 2x, raised w/o a dad (father died), my stepfather was 1/2 Navajo 1/2 Black. My teachers were Jewish, Italian, Irish, Sicilian, White, Black and WWII Vets, Korean War Vets, Vietnam Vets too. Plus hippies that protested! Oh and my father was tortured in DR by Trujillo Regime, and his brother a dr was killed. And my last arrest it was Spic Lt cop that was racist against me and not the other cops. ... Now tell me something about me!
At last, an academic voice of reason.As universities around the western world fall in line behind Harvard, will this restore them to their proper functioning?
It is simple, just like any sports league if you want the best (which I presume a top Ivy League might want) you pick by meritocracy. If not you water down the accreditation.
He is so ambivalent about the positives of DEI and Affirmative Action. But then acts as though we will go back to Jim Crow without AA. He is living in 40 years ago...while he sits at Harvard!! Good grief.
“Racism is not dead, but it is on life support. Kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as racists!” Thomas Sowell
Take a stroll into any Research I university science complex: You will see a "White" (male or female) lab named after him by a pharmaceutical company heading a team of indentured post-docs from China and India that want to keep their student visas.
These measures can have really negative smdll scale impacts. In the UK we have Widening Participation meaning that people who havent made the academic grade but have physical or mental health problems/disabilities or come from socially deprived backgrounds, are given places. In many cases, this sets them up to fail as they are less likely to be able to cope physically, mentally, financially & acdemically. This often leads to them needing to drop out, leaving them without a degree but with an enormous debt and a sense of personal failure
I think it's even worse than they are stating. By having these DEI statement requirements for academics you are essentially being told to limit your research interests to DEI. No wonder the field has advanced inexorably.
Crafted by AI: "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) are fundamental values at our organization. We are committed to fostering an environment where every individual, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, ability, religion, or background, feels respected, valued, and supported. We strive to cultivate a culture that embraces diverse perspectives, promotes equitable opportunities, and actively works to dismantle barriers to inclusion. Through ongoing education, inclusive policies, and intentional actions, we aim to create a workplace where all voices are heard, celebrated, and empowered to thrive."
