A Professor's perception of DEI and its impact

Editor's Note: The Cadet prefers all contributors are identified with their submissions. However, given some experiences by Cadets and alumni after advancing alternate viewpoints on these issues, we understand the need to protect them while their voices are heard. We are particularly sensitive to the experiences of faculty and their concerns over losing their positions. For reference, a copy of the current facilitator's guuide for DEI training obtained by The Cadet is available at THIS LINK. &emsp;&emsp;Since then-Governor Ralph Northam ('81) fell into disgrace over his own racist medical school yearbook pictures and ordered an investigation of VMI's alleged racist and sexist culture to save face, VMI leadership has implemented a radical new social activist program under the guise of increasing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Unfortunately, this new pursuit is killing the school. The dismal enrollment numbers from this fall furnish the most undeniable evidence of this. There are, of course, multiple reasons for the decline in enrollment numbers from overall decline in college enrollments nationwide, to serious issues with admissions and recruiting. It is encouraging that leadership is trying to address these issues; however, the administration recalcitrantly refuses to accept that its own policies and new social agenda are at least partially, if not significantly, to blame for the decline in not only enrollment but also applications. As a VMI faculty member, this causes me great concern since my job and livelihood are at stake, but also because part of being a professor means I seek truth: tough answers to tough questions. Much evidence exists that Virginians in particular, and Americans at large are sickening of the kind of aggressive wokeness that masquerades under such titles as "Inclusive Excellence." We are told to "open the window" widely and accept all notions of right and wrong, good and bad—or more accurately to deny the existence of such notions, except for that great sin of intolerance—in the name of inclusivity. Yet, the very acts of the administration seek not to widen, but to narrow our view of ourselves and the Institute's view of itself by advocating a race/gender/class-based system of "equity" (proportional representation based on these distinctions) through social engineering and re-education. Unfortunately, this approach fails some tried-and-true tests of logic on several fronts and should be rejected in favor of neutral, merit-based systems of evaluation across the Institute. &emsp;&emsp;First, assuming racism and sexism or any other kind of -ism explains any disparity begs the question because doing so entails assuming a conclusion without giving an argument. Even the rigged (I know because I participated) "audit" by Barnes & Thornburg produced no verifiable proof of systemic racism or sexism at VMI. Yet, the administration implemented its Unifying Action Plan (UAP) in response to a "crisis" and sets the action plan up as a "remedy to any perceived wrongs that may exist": presupposing to answer a question before it was even asked. Such language begs the question of racism and sexism at VMI by responding to an accusation that the administration cannot even confirm as true. Everything is "perceived" and "may" (or may not) actually exist in reality. Still, the action plan goes on to act as if the accusations are true: embracing a basic tenet of Critical Race Theory that anyone who disagrees with accusations of systemic racism is wrong and can be dismissed without consideration. No evidence can exonerate the critic of the action plan or, by extension, criticism of its Office of Diversity and Inclusion. It is the way forward simply because the administration says it is. Such dismissal of the possibility of criticism sets up an irrefutable dogmatism and disqualifies itself from rational discussion. &emsp;&emsp;Secondly, the UAP and current DEI approach to race/gender relations embraces an ad hominem argument. Instead of addressing actual data and trying to understand the underlying reasons for that data, the UAP proposes to achieve a predetermined notion of racial diversity and inclusion at the Institute by "ensur[ing] we are using appropriate and achievable benchmarks which reflect VMI leadership's attention to diversity in the Corps of Cadets, faculty and staff." This intimates that current recruiting, admissions and opportunities for success at VMI are race-based to the detriment of people of color. That simply is not true. To advocate for merit-based, race-neutral standards is not racist; it is the opposite. Resorting to name-calling to put down one's opposition reinforces divisions and does nothing but vilify critics. This extends to anyone on Post who would adhere to traditional views of gender, sexuality and marriage as well. As evidenced by the administration's recently vaunted invitation of Kimberly Dark to speak at an event for the Corps to promote extreme views of these issues without any counterbalance, those who disagree are accused of homophobia or transphobia—labeling the opposition as both sick and immoral. &emsp;&emsp;The UAP and DEI initiatives at VMI set up a false dichotomy: either you accept the teachings and tenets of the vision or you think racism does not exist or is not a problem. There is a third option (and probably more): disparities in achievement need to be understood without limiting the only explanation to racism/sexism. Thinkers such as Thomas Sowell and Carol Swain have demonstrated time and time again that race actually has very little to do with outcomes when other factors such as personal choice, family, culture and values are taken into account. &emsp;&emsp;While we could also detail the hasty generalizations and the use/mention fallacy inherent in the current dominant approach to race and gender relations at VMI, we will stop there. The real issue is not even that the UAP or DEI initiatives are illogical or based on unsound reasoning. They actually divide the Corps in unintended ways by separating it into various identity groups based on race, gender, gender identification, sexual proclivities, class and yet-unknown markers. Instead of focusing on the great things the Institute has achieved through the unity of the Corps, we are now fixated on addressing past wrongs and living constantly in them—unable to acknowledge and move beyond them. Cadets (and faculty) are subjected to a never-ending barrage of sensitivity trainings, cultural events that emphasize differences and leaders who only present one side of an argument and call it diversity. Of course, it is good to have one's beliefs challenged, but there must be balance. Just because an idea is received or traditional does not mean that it is wrong on its face. Just because there is perceived disparity in achievement does not mean that racism or sexism is to blame. That kind of thinking forecloses the possibility of arriving at truth and of making corrections that will address the issue in the long term. College students today are clamoring for true debate and dialogue, but VMI is stifling such exchange and falling in line with the other Virginia four-year public institutions of higher education in its pursuit of DEI. As VMI becomes more like these other institutions, there will be fewer and fewer reasons for the Institute to exist. Why put up with the regulations and requirements VMI demands of its Cadets when you can get the same woke experience anywhere else in the Commonwealth? As an alternative, leadership should set its eye toward articulating and maintaining merit-based and race/gender-neutral standards that call on Cadets to rise above the divisive fray that characterizes our fragmented society.