DEI results in a double standard and in admitting "oppressed" activists to elite schools. This completely undermines reasoned and informed debate which should be at the core of any true education.
Anyone can have a say, but a donation should not allow one to specify how it will be spent unless there is an agreement. For example, a donor might agree to fund a building for a particular purpose, or to fund a professor in a particular department. The donor should not be picking professors, so the university should not agree to that, but the donor should be able to terminate the arrangement if not satisfied with the quality of professors being given the position. There have long been sponsored professorships. I think it has worked fairly well until recently. When I was in college, decades ago, I don’t remember any controversy about a professor or administrator (including president) resembling this one. There was a demonstration supporting a few assistant (untenured) professors who were being released, that’s all.
"My dear boy, all of us are bound by the Vedic injunctions to the divisions of varṇāśrama according to our qualities and work. These divisions are difficult to avoid because they are scientifically arranged. We must therefore carry out our duties of varṇāśrama-dharma, like bulls obliged to move according to the direction of a driver pulling on ropes knotted to their noses."
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
DEI results in a double standard and in admitting "oppressed" activists to elite schools. This completely undermines reasoned and informed debate which should be at the core of any true education.
He’s absolutely right. It is really about DEI and its corrupting influence.
They need to get rid of her from Harvard completely. No faculty position! She’s a fraud and turn it around and accuse donors.
DEI is code for best and brightest need not apply
So how is that supposed to work? Donors are expected to give massive amounts of money w/o a say in how that money will be spent?
Anyone can have a say, but a donation should not allow one to specify how it will be spent unless there is an agreement. For example, a donor might agree to fund a building for a particular purpose, or to fund a professor in a particular department. The donor should not be picking professors, so the university should not agree to that, but the donor should be able to terminate the arrangement if not satisfied with the quality of professors being given the position.
There have long been sponsored professorships. I think it has worked fairly well until recently. When I was in college, decades ago, I don’t remember any controversy about a professor or administrator (including president) resembling this one. There was a demonstration supporting a few assistant (untenured) professors who were being released, that’s all.
Academic freedom to plagiarize? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to plagiarize.
when they hired DEI at SEI investment I knew it was just an act to appease the “my feelings are hurt” group.
Go Woke, GO Broke
The donors from Qatar determine things. Talk about that cowards.
Wonder what MLK would think of DEI and policies where people are judged by the color of their skin, and not by the content of their character.
DEI should vet their hires before embarrassing the movement.
I like this guest. he understands both sides but the reporter overlooks his answer than give a stupid statement.
"My dear boy, all of us are bound by the Vedic injunctions to the divisions of varṇāśrama according to our qualities and work. These divisions are difficult to avoid because they are scientifically arranged. We must therefore carry out our duties of varṇāśrama-dharma, like bulls obliged to move according to the direction of a driver pulling on ropes knotted to their noses."
Elon was right,
Elon and Kanye.
97 per cent at Harvard…no surprise tho