Only the “awakening” should apply

In the early years of the Cold War, loyalty oaths were often required in government and other jobs to ensure that Americans in high places were not in cahoots with Moscow.

Oaths have been criticized by the Liberals because they have often led to irresponsible accusations that have ruined the lives of innocent people. The “blacklists” in Hollywood and in universities aimed at eliminating suspected Communists or anyone who might have had a youthful inclination with such beliefs have also been (rightly) condemned.

It is useful to remember the liberal criticism of such oaths back then because of the way they enforce their own oaths now, with targets of conservative rather than communist persuasion.

Cold War loyalty oaths required people to prove that they were not Communists; the loyalty oaths now imposed by the administrators of our universities require that future employees prove that they are “awake”.

The new loyalty oaths come in the form of “diversity declarations” in which professors applying for teaching positions are required to embrace “diversity, equity and inclusion” (the new holy troika which comes smoothly out of the language of awakened administrators in academia) and explain all the ways in which they have incorporated these values ​​into their lives and work.

As Jonathan Marks notes in a recent Commentary article, such statements are used not only as checks in a box (which would be bad enough) but as a first step screening process for applicants.

At the University of Hartford, for example, a diversity declarations exam precedes the college graduation exam and requires an essay in which applicants demonstrate their “knowledge of what it means to be anti-racist,” as well as “examples of their own. own anti-racism ”. racist values ​​and actions.

Abigail Thompson, professor of mathematics at the University of California-Davis, explains how a number of schools in the UC system are now urging hiring boards to “start the review process by using officially provided rubrics to grade diversity declarations required and weeding out applicants who do not get a score cut. “

In other words, applicants must compete with each other to demonstrate sufficient ideological commitment at first, academic and pedagogical credentials only come into play later.

The point of criticizing such litmus tests is not to oppose diversity per se, but to emphasize that the diversity sought is of a particular gender – race, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual preference – rather than gender. diversity of ideas which one might think that the most appreciated in academic circles ostensibly dedicated to the search for truth and knowledge (and which do not require – even, are contradicted – any form of party line).

Such genuine diversity is already remarkably absent from such places, in large part because it is undesirable by those who wish to demand diversity claims.

Indeed, the strong intuition is that anyone who submits a diversity statement expressing support for the diversity of merit-based (non-ideological) hiring ideas and practices (non-ideological) would not make it through the first step of the review process, no matter what. or university qualifications.

Inclusion in such contexts therefore requires the exclusion of those with conservative ideas, as conservatives tend to oppose systems of racial quotas and preferences that are the logical consequence of the equity movement (and which, if the polls are roughly correct, are also opposed by the vast majority of parents who send their children to college).

As has often been noted, the left’s “long march” through institutions has now given it almost complete control over most of them, and to a lesser extent than academia.

The point in all of this is not to defend diversity; it is about limiting the diversity of ideas as a means of limiting criticism of ideas from the left, including its fetishization of diversity in pigmentation and proportional racial outcomes (fairness). In these circumstances, inclusion means including only those who share leftist beliefs.

In short, the goal is to create ways in which conservatives, or at least conservatives whose honesty requires them not to hide their values, can be kept away from their institutions and higher education. wider.

Decades ago, Communists (or even just suspected Communists) were often denied university appointments; now the radical left returns the favor when it comes to conservatives, filled with misleading Orwellian euphemisms (like “inclusion” and “diversity”, which in such contexts actually mean the exact opposite of what they seem to mean ).

Academic institutions long suspected of informally discriminating against conservatives are now seeking to put in place formal means to do so, with heretics having the choice of lying or not applying, in order to preserve an awakened left-wing monoculture.

You don’t have to bother to punish conservatives for their opinions (and thus violate the once-strong principle of academic freedom) if you don’t hire them in the first place.

As always, this will continue to spread from college to college, as any college that does not have a diversity declaration requirement would fear becoming suspect with a deviant staying away from the herd.

And then it will shift, as the flow tends to go, from academia to government, corporate and public school systems, in no time.

By such stages the awakened revolution is imposed.

Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, earned his doctorate. in Political Science from the University of Illinois.

Source link

Comments are closed.