all right? Good evening, everyone. My name is JR Scott and I am the CO president of the MIT chapter of the Adam Smith society. Along with the MIT free speech Alliance, I would like to welcome you to tonight's debate about academic dei programs. Before introducing our moderator, I would like to take the time to thank a few organizations and individuals without whom this event would not occur. First, I would like to thank our 15 co sponsors, representatives for many of these organizations, set up tables in the four years outside of the debate, and I hope you had an opportunity to interact with all of them from the MIT free speech Alliance, I would like to thank President Chuck Davis, Executive Director Peter bernia, Secretary Bill Frezza, and the rest of the executive committee for their tireless efforts putting up this debate over the past year. Now, to tonight's debate, the proposition to be debated is resolved that academic dei programs should be abolished. As a reminder we are being broadcast live on the alumni free speech alliances YouTube channel, and the recording will be made available for later viewing. I'm honored to introduce the moderator of tonight's debate. Nadine Strossen. Professor Strawson is the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, professor emeritus at New York Law School and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and expression. Her most recent book is hate, why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship. She is also the host and project consultant for free to speak a three hour documentary film series that will be released this fall. Please join me in giving an enthusiastic welcome to Professor Strawson who will introduce tonight's debaters and explain the debate rules. Professor Strawson.
Thank you so much for that warm welcome. Thank you for that very kind introduction Jr. And thanks for all of the work that you're doing to promote free speech at at MIT. Before I introduce our distinguished debaters I want to briefly highlight the importance of tonight's debate. The debate resolution of course raises issues of urgent concern especially with the growing number of laws that target campus dei programs, regardless of our views about D AI in particular, the broad and vague language in some of these laws present general academic freedom concerns. So our debate topic is now more relevant than ever when we began planning it more than a year ago. Yet too many people have argued that these issues should not be subject to debate that debating them causes harm. Moreover, polls show that many people including right here at MIT, don't dare to discuss this topic for fear of being accused of causing harm. So solely by participating in this debate, we participants all agree on one major overarching point which cannot be taken for granted. Much is we might disagree about this specific debate resolution. We agree that these issues are not beyond debate. And now I'm going to put on a prop which is not what you might think it is very timely today. I don't know how if you could all see it but it says make Jas mill great again, as in John Stuart Mill.
And, you know, John Stuart Mill demonstrated what he powerfully explained to be the benefits of questioning and debating even our most cherished ideas. MIT as a world leader in science and technology should also be a world leader in the rigorous examination and criticism of ideas that is essential for pursuing not only scientific truth, but truth in all fields. By the way, as a token of my respect for MIT, even though I went to that other school in Cambridge, but I respect you and I'm wearing your school colors, which are much prettier than my school colors. A couple of years ago, MIT earned criticism for violating academic freedom principles when it canceled the scheduled University of Chicago Professor John Abbott, because some people objected to his extracurricular comments about tonight's very topic. There has been a big silver lining to that cloudy episode on ice Jen continues to galvanize the MIT community's renewed commitment to these free speech principles as embodied in a number of 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 the principles of free speech and to promote it in practice. A new course on free speech that was designed by philosophy professors, Alex Byrne and Brad scow and I had the honor of speaking to their class when they pioneered it and a new dialogues across different series. Spearheaded by community and equity Officer John Dozier. I highly recommend the recent kickoff talk in that series by Heterodox Academy President John Tomasi. And during that talk, John appreciatively endorsed tonight's debate as an important step. Toward modeling and promoting open inquiry here at MIT. Now, let me briefly introduce our distinguished debaters highlighting a few facts that they themselves considered most important, starting with the affirmative team. Heather McDonald is the Thomas W. Smith. fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Two of her recent books are the diversity, delusion and the war on Cops. Heather's newest book is directly relevant to tonight's topic when race Trump's merit and the subtitle is how the pursuit of equity sacrifices excellence, destroys beauty and threatens lives. It will be available two weeks from today on April 18, and you can preorder it now Patanjali comm bomb party who goes by Pat to everyone except his mother, is a chemistry professor at McGill University. He was born in India and has since become a naturalized citizen of both the United States and Canada. Pat is mostly focused on science and jazz and dogs. However, as a lifelong egalitarian libertarian, Pat also advocates classical liberal principles, including in the DEI discussion. Now for the negative team. Kara Foster is the CEO and founder of in versity solutions. That's a trademarked name. She is a media personality, author and specialist in diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. Keratin asked me to say this but I am in awe of the fact that she has a background as a stand up comic, so I told her she can't possibly be afraid of being a debater after having the courage to do that. Kerith has appeared in two recent films as an advocate for free speech and conscious communication. One was can we take a joke and the other one was no safe spaces. Finally, Pamela, Denise Long who goes by Denise after the initial introduction, is a seventh generation American, a doctoral candidate in organizational development. Denise is researching effective executive leadership for implementing anti racism. When Denise is not writing op eds, including as a columnist for Newsweek, she raged tweets about how dei is off the rails or meditates during 10 mile walks. Now let me outline the debate format. Each speaker is going to have an eight minute opening statement alternating between the affirmative and negative teams. Each opening statement will immediately be followed by three minutes of cross examination by a member of the opposite team. Then each team will have five minutes for rebuttals with the aid of our excellent timekeeper Jr. and my gavel, I am going to strictly enforce time limits when time is up I'm telling all of the speakers I will strictly I will pound the gavel and say time, and the speaker must then stop. I'll allow just a few words to finish up a sentence. Okay. Finally, we'll turn to audience questions. I understand I thought there were going to be standing mics for the questions. Is that not true? Or where are they? Okay, great. So the audience is ahead of me, please feel free to start lining up behind the microphones as we're approaching the end of the rebuttals. So now it's time for our opening statement, our first opening statement from affirmative team Speaker One who is going to be Pat.
Thank you, Nadine. And thank you to the MIT free speech alliance for putting on this event. I believe this event really captures and touches upon the zeitgeist of our times. And I'll make a small joke in homage to Kurth over here as a comedian. What am I a comedy is also one of my loves. And there's a brilliant comedian by the name of Chris Rock, who has come up with this bit called selective outrage and I strongly encourage you to watch it. I think Chris Rock touches upon the issues of the zeitgeist of our time. What he touches upon but misses is selective empathy. And in particular, selective empathy is something that drives me apoplectic. I find it anathema, and in particular, is part and parcel of the diversity, inclusion and equity umbrella. So I think the idea is selected. Empathy is something we should be very afraid of. And that's something that's taking place over here. Having given that little opening salvo I'd like to make four basic points in these eight minutes or seven minutes I have remaining. The first point is why should anyone listen to me? And that's something I always think about as a humble scientist, as that I can offer some value as a chemist or a physicist or engineer, but why should you as a student or a taxpayer or an alumnus Listen to me, what value can I add to this discussion? And the value that can add to this discussion is I've been thinking about these ideas of so called Equity Diversity and Inclusion or race and racism or sex obsessed sexism and caste and caste ism. Ever since I was a child having immigrated from India to America. So I emigrated from a third world country with my parents, my parents experience considerable amount of difficulties and racism, and we never thought of ourselves as victims. We never thought of ourselves as anything more than being lucky to be part of possibly the greatest country on Earth, but certainly a marvelous country that made us able to succeed and fly as high as we want to. So myself and my parents, and my family, we've all benefited from this country. And as a result, I take great pains to defend a lot of the things that this country and related countries have put forth to advance the state of human civilization. As a result, I will not be canceled. And that's the thing that a lot of people worry about is cancellation. And as my friends Jordan Peterson and Gad sad say, Don't be afraid gad sad especially says be a honey badger. Be an academic honeybadger and that's something that I take to heart. 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. Now, the next question is, what about an intellectual approach? Is there an intellectual approach that we should take and the approach that I'd like to propose is the is the primacy of free speech? Free speech is central to human civilization, the foundation of democracy, the advancement of civilization, and it is the means by which we learn. We are not supposed to have safe speech. We're not supposed to have kind speech. We're supposed to have a vast marketplace of free speech and ideas that we can consume, reject, debate, modify, do as we see fit, free speech as the absolutely primary foundation of our civilization, and any efforts to restrict free speech should be looked at with the utmost of fear and concern. The second rather third point is having established an intellectual approach. What is our value proposition? Our value proposition I take from Dorian Albert Yvonne Marinovich, who came up with this idea of merit, fairness and equality, merit, fairness and equality was merely their marketing statement to discuss classical liberal principles, as discussed by John Stuart Mill, or classical conservative principles, as discussed by Edmund Burke, brilliant people have worked on these ideas far smarter than me far earlier than I have. So what we aim to do is to learn from them. Merit fairness and equality. Merit means I'm going to judge you based upon your merits as an individual and that and that alone not going to judge you by the content of your character, not by the color of your skin or your organs or your religion or your nationality. I only judge you based upon merit, and I certainly have practiced that in my life and certainly as a scientist, and as a professor. Fairness is a fairly straightforward thing we won't belabor that any further. Societies have historically not been fair, and we try to make them more fair. Everyone wants to do that. Equality is the central point. We are equal under the law in American society, what we don't necessarily have equal rights and responsibilities but ideally we should strive for equal rights and responsibilities, as typically discussed by the founding fathers, whether of America or even France, these are brilliant ideas, we should focus on equality. Having said that, what is the opposite of merit, fairness and equality, diversity? Inclusion and Equity? diversity, inclusion and equity? Sounds wonderful. No one wants to say I'm against a version diversity, inclusion and equity. But these ideas are a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I would tell anyone to be absolutely wary of them. Diversity Inclusion and Equity. Let's begin with equity. Equity versus equality is a very different concept. Equity involves redistribution of resources from me to you. If I've earned resources and you haven't earned resources, maybe we should redistribute them this falls under the auspices of what the communist tried to do. And the communists now are becoming repackaged in a modern version called Cultural Marxism. We had economic Marxism a century ago in Moscow in 1920. And now in Cambridge and 2020 we have we have cultural Marxism. The 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. Was a diversity in the Rolling Stones know people do things when they want to with their skill set, and people of all walks of life can come together and create rock and roll or jazz or particle physics or play basketball or soccer. That's the idea. We want to let people of all walks of life have similar interests. add value to human society. That doesn't mean there's a diversity of outcomes. It means there's a diversity of interests. And with that, I'll conclude and thank you for your time.
Now, a three minute cross examination by a negative team member.
So thank you, Pat, for your statements. You mentioned selective empathy, and I'm curious to know the extent to which you feel MF II actually demonstrates neglect selective empathy toward American Negroes were descendants of slaves in United States. That is a body question.
Is my wife still on? Oh, here does? That's an excellent question. And I can say undoubtedly, that I empathize. greatly with the plight of African Americans, indigenous Americans and indigenous Canadians. I'm a Canadian as well, and what has happened to them over the course of hundreds of years. I could not be more sensitive to that. But that doesn't mean that I believe the solutions are the solutions of diversity, inclusion and equity. In my view, the solutions to historic problems are achieved by removal of barriers. That is because my tendency is to be a libertarian, and as a libertarian, I would never force anyone else to be a libertarian either. You can be conservative, you can be liberal, you can be left us, you can be right wing, you can do what you want. But I think the idea is we might have different values, we might have different approaches. But the key point is we shouldn't have selective empathy. And I agree with you, we should have absolute empathy for the plight of African Americans and what they've had to suffer over the course of hundreds of years.
I have a question regarding your approval. I guess. The Chris Rock special. Yeah. I found it quite disappointing. And the reason is as an advocate for free speech, and as someone who does support Dei, I felt that he really was trying to balance he wasn't stretching himself. What was it about that presentation? That speaks to your message of MFA?
In this case, I wouldn't necessarily say as a comedy fan I know you're a professional comedians, so with all due respect. And this is also one of my loves comedy. So this wasn't the best Chris Rock special. It wasn't up there with Dave Chappelle who was to be the goat. Having said that, I liked the idea of selective outrage which captures to me the zeitgeist of our times, and again, connects to select selective empathy. He came up with the idea of selective outrage. That's he'll say his sales pitch. But I've been talking about selective empathy my whole life, especially in the last 10 years. When I see tremendous amount of empathy going to some people but not others. It goes to African Americans but not to Asian Americans. It goes to women but not men. It goes to trans but not straight and the people get the least empathy of all our straight white men. Okay,
that concludes the time for the cross examination. So now we will proceed to negative 10. Speaker Number One who I understand is going to be correct it's going to be I'm sorry, do I have it wrong? I'm so sorry. either order. You are the bosses of your team.
I'll do it. All right. So much of the argument for merit, fairness and equity equality. Sorry. MFE focuses on black students and black Americans in particular, and we American Negroes are 80% of the black population. So when this criticism about what black folk get, it's really about me and my people. So MFE notes that black Americans get special treatment from the government are a protected group, and institutions offer American Negroes special set asides. They're right. And negros should forever maintain a special relationship with our nation that enslaved us since 1776. And for those of us who were in this land before America became an actual nation of its own American Negroes are those black families who were emancipated from the threat of slavery in 1865. We are those folk who endured 100 years of abhorrent on imaginable unconstitutional discrimination, until 1960. And those of us who have consistently experienced disproportionate negative impact of social policy, even until today, myself included MFE ignores or dismisses or marginalizes the accumulated burdens and accommodations required by that history. Proponents are not interested in the pre existing obligations of our nation state. And so since they're done with it, they figure the academy should be as well, but they're wrong to push institutions into their way of thinking adherents of MFE mimic the most flamboyant proponents of dei and what do I mean when I say that? I mean, they to bastardize the American Negro legacy, for example, MFE sacred text, which is an op ed published by Newsweek that claims that diversity, equity inclusion and anti racism violates the ethical and legal legal principle, upon which equal protections is rooted in my feed doctrine further claims that special considerations to negros replicates the harm during the 1900s that negros endured if that scrambles your brain, it should. That argument is wishful thinking in the formal sense, it's a moral failing, and it's a deviation from the original content of the post Civil War 14th amendment and its equal protections clause, specifically 14 A was written because of the threats facing the newly freed slaves, but it was also written to ensure that those emancipated slaves and their progeny receive the rights and that those rights were so secure that no one who disagreed with them, could form a majority and just override it. Justice Catan g brown Jackson reiterated the original intent of the 14th amendment and her opening arguments or the opening arguments of Merrill V. Milligan, a current SCOTUS case that questions federal government oversight of Alabama's actions of affecting black citizens voting recall that Alabama was a Confederate state and the oversight of voting rights and access is a Federal obligation because those states have consistently sought to undermine negros even until today. In every generation, Negro families face some version of thought leadership and opposition to our protections. That current version is MF II. Proponents of MFE say that dei can make things worse, and they're right. And here's how di makes things worse when advocates attempt to shoehorn the ambitions of all people into the backs onto the backs of the descendants of us 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 is 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 slaves is wrong and egregious. Having said all that, the reality is that all those people exist. And what we miss out on the opportunity to do between D D, E I and MFE is to figure out what do we do? With the reality of the humans who live alongside us? Instead of arguing about philosophy, we ought to put our minds together to problem solve that issue. And that does not require at any point taking away marginalizing or defaming the protections that me my ancestors, and every single person born into my family from this day forward, should always have d i also gets antiracism wrong when it teaches an oppressor oppressed narrative based on skin color. What dei ought to do is prepare educators to help all students from pre K to 12 Pre K through college, excuse me develop the necessary knowledge to not be racist and develop their competencies to disrupt racism in their circles of concern, and influence. And of course, what we have to do is build educators capacity to do that well, and in the interest of free speech, what we know is no one teaches us how to have these conversations at all, let alone how to do them well, let alone how to forgive each other and show grace when we totally mess it up, which we will that's part of the learning process. So what I want to leave you with is this thought we do not need to abolish dei programs nor anti racism. What we really ought to do is to urgently nuanced how those programs function so that we ultimately achieve the change that 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, thank you.
Thank you, and now a three minute cross examination by an affirmative team member who I believe is going to be kept.
Oh, thank you, Denise. And thank you for your very heartfelt comments. I'm going to tell you that personally for what it's worth, and I'm just one individual. I happen to agree with most of what you said, I empathize with you. I empathize with the plight of African Americans. And the question that I would raise is not whether we agree with you, but what should we do and how should we proceed? One should we have the ability to freely debate things without fear of being canceled? And to the questions of EDI are not specific to America and African Americans, but are a global issue? I live in Canada despite being an American citizen. I'm a dual citizen. There the issue is often involve indigenous people. And some of you might question that some of you might know is that the ETI approach isn't purely applied to African Americans. How do you feel about its application to women and other minorities whether in America or elsewhere in the world, not just African Americans?
