Nadine Strossen: Solely by participating in this debate, we participants all agree on one major overarching point which cannot be taken for granted. Much as we might disagree about this specific debate resolution, we agree that these issues are not beyond debate.
Nadine Strossen: A couple years ago, MIT earned criticism for violating academic freedom principles, when it cancelled the scheduled lecture by University of Chicago Professor Dorian Abbot, because some people objected to his extra-curricular comments about tonight’s very topic.
But there has been a big silver lining to that cloudy episode. It galvanized the MIT community’s renewed commitment to these principles, as embodied in several concrete steps:
--including the founding and flourishing of the MIT Free Speech Alliance;
-- the faculty’s adoption of a robust speech-protective policy, with specific recommendations for improving the free speech climate here;
--welcome actions by your new President, Sally Kornbluth, both to endorse free speech in principle and to promote it in practice;
--a new course on Liberalism, Toleration, and Freedom of Speech taught by MIT Philosophy faculty members Alex Byrne and Brad Skow (in which I was honored to be a guest last fall);
--and a Dialogues Across Difference series spearheaded by Community and Equity Officer John Dozier.
I highly recommend the recent kick-off talk in that series, by Heterodox Academy President John Tomasi. During that talk, John appreciatedly endorsed tonight’s debate as an important step toward modeling and promoting open inquiry here at MIT.
Pat Kambhampati: Don't be canceled. Say what you think, say it kindly and politely and listen to other people. And as Jordan Peterson says you should probably interact with people with whom you disagree. So you can learn more and hopefully become smarter, but don't cancel others and I refuse to be canceled. That's one of the reasons why I'm here.
Pat Kambhampati: Cultural Marxism suggests that we are all collectives of one group against another victims and oppressors. This is not how most of society works. And that's certainly not how Cambridge and 2020 works. So I think the idea of equity is very, very dangerous. Diversity is also dangerous, because why should we have diversity in outcomes? We're all different. Do we have diversity in the NBA? Do we have diversity in the NFL? Do we have diversity in particle physics? And the answer is no.
Heather Mac Donald: The reason is large racial differences in academic skills. This is an uncomfortable subject and one that is taboo on a college campus.
Heather Mac Donald: Diversity is simply a codeword for preferences. But those preferences do no good to their alleged beneficiaries. If MIT admitted me, for the sake of gender diversity, and I had a 600 on my math SAT, whereas almost all of my peers had close to 800, I would struggle in if not fail my calculus class, because the teaching would be pitched to the class average. I would likely have done perfectly well, however, at a school where my peers matched my own level of academic preparation. , So too for race preferences. The beneficiary of them would be academically competitive in colleges where their qualifications matched those of their peers, but when they are catapulted into schools for which they are not prepared, they struggle, as numerous studies have demonstrated.
Pamela Denise Long: What I want to leave you with is this thought: we do not need to abolish DEI programs or anti-racism. What we really ought to do is to urgently nuance how those programs function so that we ultimately achieve the change that is the aim of equality in our nation. And if we do that right, and if we do that now, if we commit to honoring the goal of equality, not just saying we're at an equal playing field but recognizing the various reasons we are not and how could we be if we focus on the goal, we can accomplish equality this generation.
Pamela Denise Long : What DEI ought to do is prepare educators to help all students from Pre-K through college develop the necessary knowledge to not be racist and develop their competencies to disrupt racism in their circles of concern and influence.
Pamela Denise Long: Proponents of MFE say that DEI can make things worse, and they're right. And here's how it makes things worse: When advocates attempt to shoehorn the ambitions of all people onto the backs of the descendants of U.S. slaves and our legacy. DEI is derailed when activists say men who want to be women are equal to women and allow those men access to women's hard earned rights. DEI is derailed when they say that minor-attracted people have just a sexual preference that we should adapt to and accept. That is also a derailing of DEI and to hook that to our legacy of U.S. slaves is wrong and egregious.
Karith Foster: Let’s have bravespaces, instead of safe spaces.
Karith Foster: When done well, lives can be transformed and transported, to an infinitely better place, one infused with knowledge and empathy, generating a deeper understanding not just of humankind but of ourselves. And isn’t that why one goes to university, to broaden their horizons, to get an education, to learn about others, but more importantly, to know thyself? When DEI is done poorly—and let us be absolutely honest, it has taken a left turn--- it creates insurmountable barriers of fear, mistrust, vengeance, and indifference.