And in these hours the billionaire has returned to the limelight by publishing a long post denouncing the word ‘white’ in ‘black’, the consequences would be very serious”. Therefore, according to Ackman, Gay’s resignation would not be enough to resolve the problem within the university. Below is the full text of the speech:
Unfortunately, anti-Semitism remains a latent source of hatred even in our best universities among a subgroup of students. A few weeks later, I went to campus to see things with my own eyes and listen and learn from the students and faculty. I met with about 15 faculty members and a few hundred students in settings large and small, and a clearer picture began to emerge. I ultimately concluded that antisemitism wasn’t the crux of the problem, it just was a worrying warning sign – was the ‘canary in the coal mine’ – despite how destructive it was in influencing student life and learning on campus. I came to learn that the root cause of anti-Semitism at Harvard was an ideology that had been promulgated on campus, an oppressor/oppressed framework, that provided the intellectual bulwark behind the protests, helping to generate anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish hate speech and anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate speech. Then I did more research. The more I learned, the more concerned I became, and the more I realized how much I had overlooked DEI, a powerful movement that has pervaded not only Harvard, but the education system in general.
I came to understand that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion were not what I had naively learned they meant. I have always believed that diversity is an important characteristic of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of views, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing and more. What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups deemed oppressed according to the DEI methodology itself. According to DEI, an individual’s degree of oppression is determined based on where he resides, on a so-called intersectional pyramid of oppression where whitesJews and Asians are considered oppressors, and a subset of people of color, LGBTQ people, and/or women are considered oppressors.
According to this ideology, which is the philosophical foundation of DEI as advanced by Ibram X. Kendi and others, one is either an anti-racist or a racist. There is no such thing as “non-racist”. According to DEI ideology, any policy, program, education system, economic system, evaluation system, admissions policy (and even climate change due to its disparate impact on geographic areas and the people who live there), etc. that leads to unequal outcomes between people of different skin colors are considered racist. Consequentially, according to DEI, capitalism is racist, Advanced Placement exams are racist, IQ tests are racist, companies are racist (…). To be considered anti-racist, you must take personal action to reverse any unequal outcomes in society. The DEI movement, which has permeated many universities, businesses, and state, local, and federal governments, is designed to be the anti-racist engine to transform society from the currently structurally racist state to an anti-racist state.
After the death of George Floyd, the already thriving DEI movement took off without any real challenge to its problematic ideology. Why, you might ask, has there been so little reaction? The answer is that anyone who dared to raise an issue that questioned DEI was deemed a racist, a label that could have a serious impact on employment, social status, reputation, and more. Being called a racist caused people to be cancelled, so those who were concerned about DEI and its social and legal implications had no choice but to remain silent in this new climate of fear. The techniques that DEI used to repress opposition can be found in the ‘Red Scare’ and McCarthyism of decades past. If you defy DEI, “justice” will be swift and you could find yourself unemployed, shunned by colleagues, canceled and risking your career and your acceptance in society.
The DEI movement has also taken control of the word. Certain speeches are no longer allowed. So-called “microaggressions” are treated as hate speech. “Trigger warnings” are necessary to protect students. “Safe spaces” are necessary to protect students from trauma inflicted by words that challenge students’ newly acquired worldviews. Campus speakers and faculty with unapproved opinions are silenced, shunned, and canceled. These linguistic codes have led to self-censorship on the part of students and the teachers of private opinions, but no longer shared. There is no commitment to freedom of expressionression at Harvard if not for DEI-approved views. This has led to the quashing of conservative and other viewpoints from Harvard’s campus and faculty, and has contributed to Harvard has the lowest free speech scores among 248 universities evaluated by the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression.
When examining DEI and its ideological legacy, it doesn’t take long to realize that the movement is inherently inconsistent with core American values. Since its foundation, our country has been committed to creating and building a democracy with equal opportunities for all. Millions of people left socialism and communism behind to come to America and start over, as they saw destruction leveled by a society of equality of outcomes. The E for “equity” in DEI is about equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. DEI is racist because reverse racism is racism, even if it is against white people (and it’s notable that I need to point this out). Anti-white racism has become acceptable to many or, alternatively, it is considered acceptable racism. While this is obviously absurd, it has become the prevailing view at many universities across the country. Things may be said about white people today in universities, in business, or otherwise, that if you changed the word “white” to “black,” the consequences for you would be costly and severe.
DEI is inherently a racist movement and illegal in its implementation, even if it claims to work on behalf of the so-called ‘oppressed’. And DEI’s definition of the oppressed is fundamentally flawed. I have always believed that the more fortunate should help the less fortunate and that our system should be designed in such a way as to maximize the size of the overall pie so as to enable us to provide an economic system capable of offering quality services: life, education , housing and healthcare for all. America is a rich country and we have made enormous progress over the decades towards achieving this goal, but obviously we have much more work to do (…).
Having a darker skin color, a less common sexual identity, and/or being a woman does not necessarily make one oppressed or even disadvantaged. While slavery remains a permanent stain on our country’s history – a fact used by DEI to label whites as oppressors – it is not therefore believed that all whites, generations after slavery was abolished, should be held responsible for its evils. Likewise, the fact that Columbus discovered America does not make all modern Italians colonialists. An ideology that portrays a bicameral world of oppressors and oppressed based primarily on race or sexual identity is a fundamentally racist ideology that will likely lead to more racism. A system where you get them advantages by virtue of the color of one’s skin it is a racist system and will generate resentment and anger among disadvantaged people who will direct their anger against favored groups. The country has seen material growth in resentment and anger in recent years, and the DEI movement is a major contributor to our growing divisions. Resentment is one of the most important drivers of racism. And it is the lack of equity, i.e. fairness, in the way DEI operates that contributes to this resentment. I have been accused of being racist by the president of the NAACP, among others, when I posted on
(…) The time has come to reset veritas to Harvard and once again become an example for graduates, with exemplary moral standing and good judgment, who can help bring our country together, advance our democracy (…). We still have a lot of work to do. Let’s roll up our sleeves.”