CHAPEL HILL – Scholar and writer Jay Schalin is out with Part 2 (Read Part 1 here) of an article series for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal on the ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ (DEI) movement, a wave of Woke impossible to ignore in North Carolina higher education, specifically UNC Chapel Hill.
We’re all, by now, quite familiar with the nature this pervasive push throughout not just education, but extending deep into corporate culture, institutional mandates, and popular pressures. If it is to be stopped from completely dominating our culture — replacing American Individualism with a twist Marxian collectivism built on race and identity — it is imperative that we stand up to it in our institutions of higher learning and everywhere else the malignancy has spread in recent years.
Schalin details the reality of this ‘radical political agenda’ in no uncertain terms:
“The phrase “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” is a loaded one; it does not signify noncontroversial principles, as might be assumed, but instead describes a radical political agenda.
Throughout academia, programs and standards based on DEI are proliferating at a rapid pace; this is, in effect, a surreptitious political takeover of the Ivory Tower by academia’s most radical and unhinged elements that has dire repercussions for our society. New directives mandate that, to be hired or promoted, faculty must adhere to—or at least meekly submit to—the tenets of this agenda. Faculty must conceal any reservations they have about the DEI philosophy to be considered for employment or advancement.
Such imposed unanimity of opinion is one of the basic conditions of a totalitarian system.
The University of North Carolina system has not been immune to the spread of the DEI mindset. One alarming development revealing the intention to advance the DEI agenda at UNC-Chapel Hill is a missive from chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz informing the faculty that they will be required to take DEI training.
The message begins: “We remain committed to fostering a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community where everyone feels welcome and inspired to do their best work.” On the face of it, that sounds like a fair goal. But, as explained above and in the first part of this article series, the phrase “diverse, equitable, and inclusive community” does not denote the meaning most people would derive from it.
Next, Guskiewicz says that his administration is starting a new training program, part of which is to “provide our community with a set of common terms.” The message then informs that “subsequent required training” scheduled for the summer of 2021 “will offer common language to better understand how the world shapes and informs our shared values and experiences and will use an interactive platform to explore such topics as identity, power, privilege, and communication.”
This training is directed at faculty, a group of people who are highly educated and possess the vocabulary to discuss issues with considerable facility; the only common language they need is the English language. To provide such a community with a set of common terms to address social issues is to drastically limit the discussion.
For those familiar with the left’s manipulation of language to achieve its political goals, a set of common terms is a means to frame issues in ways that preclude dissenting perspectives. It means altering definitions and limiting language to a narrow set of opinions and giving nonpolitical terms political meanings. It assumes “shared values and experiences” without stating explicitly what those values are. However, we can derive what they really mean from the phrase “such topics as identity, power, privilege, and communication,” which sounds as if it comes straight from critical theory, a cultural Marxist perspective.
This required training is not only condescending to faculty but again suggests that what is intended is indoctrination for those who are not already in agreement—and intimidation for those who actively stand in opposition. [CONTINUE READING]