The two young Women who argued in favor of keeping DEI part of the academic framework seemed to talk more about feelings and historical wrongs done to black people rather than making a strong argument in favor of DEI. Heather McDonald did not mince words when it came to her chance to speak. As usual she used data, statistics and common sense to back up her arguments.
At least one of the women arguing in favor of DEI said that the DEI programs need to be changed. That, however, does not contradict the necessity to strive to correct historical and present day wrongs against American blacks. The inequities are beyond dispute. People arguing against DEI efforts (especially the one chap on the panel who just a wanted to internationalize things when the debate is about the USA context) don’t seem to think black people matter at all. They don’t realize that black people need to sometimes be treated by black doctors (or at least have people properly trained about the health disparities for black Americans). Likewise black students at PWIs need some black profs on campus. As was also argued, tech companies need black engineers lest they keep making tech (like facial recognition cameras) that don’t take melanin into account. I could list many other examples
I attended this in person and it represented everything I love about MIT. It was an engaging and dynamic discussion without rancor, ad-hominum attacks or any attempts to shutdown one side of the debate. Many thanks to the Free Speech Alliance for hosting this event.
This goes back to the basic premise of individualism vs collectivism. Merit vs victimhood. Heather Mac Donald once again knocks it out of the park with facts. The other side had no rebuttal. Keep up the good fight for individualism!
It wasn't "the MIT community." It was the Free Speech Alliance, and MIT alumni group. in fact, as the President of the MFSA, I was told by multiple people "close to the Institute" two things which both surprised me. The first was that "MIT wasn't reedy" for this discussion. I think the events shows who was right on that one. The 2d was that "many people" thought this was intended (by MFSA) as a means to attack MIT. In fact, we want to improve MIT. If attacking MIT was the goal, we certainly failed.
@@ceddavisThe amount of money behind DEI is astonishing. Only reform of the corrupt 501C3 and influence cabal which controls institutions, hiring, and k-12 education will cure this infection.
Heather McDonald absolutely ran circles around every other person on that stage. It wasn't even close. The DEI side used anecdotes and emotional arguments, they had no rational arguments at all.
it does not bode well that you said "antidotes" where you meant anecdotes 😂 and your name is literally _karen_ but nonetheless yes, DEI is pure poison for all involved.
Fantastic debate and perfect closing statement. DEI is ruined for everyone because of how it was implemented. Perhaps it was never the right philosophy to implement, perhaps it could've been. Time to learn from the DEI project and move on to another solution
As an MIT alumnus I am proud to see the university doing better than it has just a few years ago by fostering open rigorous debate after the best fashion of the institute. I agree that there are historic wrongs that continue to have effects on contemporary society, but woke CRT DEI initiatives are absolutely the wrong solution to a misdiagnosed problem.
I thought one of the last comments from the audience summed this debate best. DEI's defenders here (which I respect for their honesty and participation in this debate) act like the proponents of Communism when they say "sure, it's been an epic failure everywhere it's been tried, it's just that it hasn't been done right". What conclusion you draw is up to you, but I thought that comparison was striking.
That was me actually. As noted by the applause to that question the audience agreed with that sentiment. And, I believe that Kareth and Denise really did as well. I spoke with 'Con' team at length after the debate and these are two fantastic individuals where I found a lot of common ground. We all want the same results of helping disadvantaged students to succeed: it's just in how we accomplish it
@@stephenfriedenthal8312 Thanks for making the comment last night and glad to see you here today. The giant pink elephant in the room was that neither of the "con" team were full-time higher education DIE bureaucrats, so they had no first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day realities. Neither could answer Heather Mac Donald's pointed questions about the effects of DIE on campus life. Both Pamela and Karith seemed sincere and earnest and even willing to listen to the opposing point of view. Unfortunately they were very limited in what they could tell us. That no DIE bureaucrat was willing to participate speaks volumes. If I can't coherently defend my sinecure, I'm not walking into a room with Heather Mac Donald.
@@tygold8554 Exactly. Heather was a force and her 8 minutes were the highlight of the evening for both the breadth and detail. I would be willing to believe that Karith and Denise were themselves taken aback by the contrast between their perception of DEI and how it is actually being implemented. Another highlight was when the older alum held up a stack of MIT researcher job postings demanding fealty and forced speech to DEI statements and compared it to the forced speech of the 1950's with anti-communism statements. That was a powerful statement in itself.
And I guess the corollary is: if everyone that has ever tried to implement it has failed miserably, can it be implemented at all, and is the problem really with the implementers or the ideology?
@@SB-xm5uw I've always laughed at the die-hards who claim that socialism/communism is a sound ideology that has just been misapplied or implemented by the wrong people. DIE is not supposed to "work" in the sense that there is an end goal that can be achieved or problem solved and everyone goes home. The sinecures rely on perpetuation of the alleged problem with no end in sight. Every September there's a new crop of freshmen who need to be indoctrin . . . I mean educated on the prevalence of white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia, colonialism, imperialism and privilege.
IF ONLY: Karith's version/ ideals of DEI were the prevailing practice.. Unfortunately, they are not. The prevailing practice in virtually every university and now...K-12 school is toxic division.
Wonderful debate. The debaters were engaging and represented their sides skillfully. Will gladly watch more of these videos. So glad to see this level of discourse. We need more of this type of discussion. Thanks for providing this content.
Wrong, physics does NOT benefit from anti-racism or DEI, in contrast it hurts physics because people get into educational programs that are unqualified, and this can only drag the discipline down.
Extremely good, refreshing debate. Heather MacDonald brought a ton of useful data and forceful arguments. Karith was extremely respectful, made some good points and also acknowledged DEI has gone of the rails in several instances. Very good discussion. Great, honest Q from student let in to MIT who is struggling -- an "over-admit."
The potentially of every single human being, begins in utero and the most critical time in it’s development, is before it can speak. We do not prioritize the most important job anyone will ever have, raising our children. “Teach your children well.”
Just listened to Pamela Denise Long's opening. To summarize her point as I understand it. She says the problem isn't DEI, its that bad elements have slipped in and are derailing what should be good work. I haven't heard any rebuttal yet but my first thought is this is the motte and bailey. She's telling us its actually good and these bad things aren't actually part of the plan. She is also leaning a lot on the historical wrongs argument that can't stand up to any kind of honest scrutiny. Basically, shes trying to be the nice face of the baying mob. Trying to reason us into the baying mob's justifications for the harm it causes.
Went to my medical school reunion. The Dean got up there in front of 400 alumni and said “ we want to be number one”. In research? 😅n clinical programs? In grant dollars? No. In Diversity. His aim was to make the medical school # 1 in the country in DEI. He said it. The word “excellence” didn’t come out of his mouth one time. The Development office then approach for a donation about 6 months later. I told them no more contributions from me and why. They understood and were even a tad sympathetic. It’s all about self immunization against charges of racism. The emperor has no clothes. Reluctant to discuss for fear of “ causing harm”? No. Fear of being called a racist.
Amazing discussion! I was genuinely impressed with all of the panelists' ability to remain professional and respectful throughout the debate. I wholeheartedly hope America will use this debate as a model for future discourse within academia.
01:18:49 “I’m a pretty smart chick”, I think she is, but that is not the point. Academic excellence is proven by agnostic tests as GPA. And honors got from an easy degree is not as same in a pure science degree.
The problem I have with HMC’s comments which I typically agree with is somewhat apologizing for America’s past. It’s bizarre that anyone nowadays who had literally nothing to do with anything in the past would be held to some sort of collective guilt. How about standing up for the millions and millions of working class Caucasians that have been fleeced since the 60s at least to have their hard earned money be redistributed to largely AAs who want something for nothing? Does anyone feel sorry for those folks? How about all the working class Caucasians that built nice working class neighborhoods in Chicago from scratch only to be forced to move to the suburbs due to crime so the democrats could build their permanent ghettos for AAs?
I can't believe the negative side were so quick to say that it had flaws and needed to be reworked. I thought that was really powerful, considering how staunch it's defenders tend to be. I also thought the statistics and uncomfortable truisms discussed were fascinating. The racial statistics, agreement that white women were the majority of administrative DEI positions, and the cruelty of placing underperforming diverse kids into spaces they can't succeed in: These are radical ideas for a public debate, but clearly well chosen to illustrate the affirmative position. I didn't love that Pamela kept trying to bring it back to Black people in America. On the one hand, I appreciate that she has a focused perspective and a clear vision of who she represents. But this was a larger discussion, as far as I know, and the position probably deserved that representation. As far as I could tell from my single live viewing, Karith didn't provide any factual information. Her arguments were all anecdotal or narrative-based. I don't think this would've been as easy to notice if the affirmative side wasn't rife with statistics at every turn. It was obvious that Heather came to DEBATE and her barely contained volatility was superb. She was keenly listening and knew when to strike and when to back off, for the most part. A-1 debate all around. Thanks for the lovely debate and good job to all the debaters. And the no-nonsense moderator! I wish there had been more discussion about how to proceed past DEI, but I don't know if this was the right platform. I don't really know how to fix it myself. But it's clear that the zeitgeist is turning on the idea of endless inclusion. It's fascinating, as that argument has been gaining traction for years. Everyone, of every kind, must be recognized and respected. And now we're seeing that, while that is true, it doesn't mean everyone gets everything. Instead, it's more like no one should lose an opportunity because of some arbitrary metric, like skin color, gender, or sexual preference. At the same time, there's such an incredible amount of administrative bloat that universities struggle to stay afloat. And it becomes harder and harder to see their value. That is, their noble value. As ways to get taxpayer, foreign, and investor money they're an excellent choice. But to learn knowledge and compete for scholarly merit, they're a waste of time bogged down in an incredibly divisive and niche ideology. It's almost like the first question we have to answer is whether there's anything worth saving in the universities or not.
Exactly right. Her definition of "equity" was totally pussy-footing around what it actually is: redistribution of admission places/jobs/money in order to produce equal outcomes. DIE admins should just own it rather than obfuscate
It was mentioned by the DEI team that African Americans could not own land in the state of Oregon until 2002. Not true. The last of the 1844 Oregon Black Exclusion Laws were repealed in 1926. They apparently removed some remaining “racial language” and “references to the 1857 referendum” in 2002, but no discriminatory laws were active at that time. Smelled like typical activist’s distortion of facts, and it was. But my respect to the DEI team, it is an improvement for anyone involved in their illiberal, authoritarian, neo-Marxist, and dogmatic ideology to even engage in ANY debate or discussion, let alone with an absolute intellectual beast such as Heather Mac Donald.
This is heartening. The negative's strategy: "Defend" but retreat like hell. Remember the earliest instantiations of this, e.g., the screeching Yale Halloween costume girl. How did it get so reasonable all of a sudden?
Yes, reach kids when they're young; eliminate barriers and develop learning cultures when they are young. If they're not eating well at home, remedy that. If certain groups underperform at certain levels of their development, investigate who and learn why, but don't blame it on racism.
The pro DEI team presented "arguments" which were nothing more than opinions based on frothy emotionalism and their own take on history. Intelligent aguments ought to be rooted in factual data imo.
Everything seemed so friendly and gentle until Heather's opener. It was truly a scathing indictment, and to be uttered by any white person indicates some serious courage on the part of the speaker.
It's nice that in the last year we are really starting to see the best version of DEI and SJW left coming forth into the arena rather than the clandestine false consensus building we had seen in the past. While even the best version of DEI arguments are still vague and unconvincing, I give these two women a ton of credit for even showing up to this.
I think DEI is well meant but where I am you are required to take 7 hours of DEI training every year. It feels like a punishment. Imagine if you got a letter from the secretary of state that said even though your driving record is spotless you need drivers Ed training or your license would be revoked.
You would think one of the world's most renowned technology universities could figure out the goddamn audio. I may comment on the actual subject of the debate after I get through the poorly recorded introduction. \endrant
I actually enjoyed listening to the panel, it was a civil back and forth. Both parties want the same goal: help black and other minority populations who are not performing well academically. We have a clear case of what works and what worked in the past: parental involvement in childhood education. If all races copied the dedication that Asian parents had for their child's education, we would not have these disparities.
India has been the pilot of all woke/critical theories exported from West(US). It has policies around these the longest time with politics deeply woven into it. Hope India gets to such open decent debate/discussions.
It seems like she has something against African blacks as well considering how she took great pains to distinguish multigenerational “American negros” such as herself from black Africans. I’m assuming this is to cope with the fact the black immigrants outperform black multigenerational Americans. So she has to come up with a worldview that explains why racism is affecting black multigenerational Americans and not black immigrants.
Good initiative. There are too many issues need discussion, for instance, no DEI in NBA/NFL, why? Hope this debate can continue on each branches in DEI.
Oh, because DEI is a mere euphemism for politically correct racism. The left embraces bigotry, provided that it’s directed against whites, especially white male heterosexuals.
re: 38:00 - engineers don’t decide what to build. if there was an oversight in not including period trackers that’s on the management and leadership not engineering
Really liked watching a civil, moderated debate discussion, and audience comments. Really liked the anti-side of Karith and Pamela; if DEI leadership was turned over to these young women, there would be more cooperation, less animus and, just maybe, progress.
I find dei, repulsive. Whether 1.0 or 2.0. Heather McDonald was logical, honest, realistic and correct in her assertion that dei engenders and prolongs ill will.
The team of Foster and Long surprised me by saying that DEI had gone wrong with oaths, pledges, etc. Long gets Kimberley Crenshaw-ish too much. Loved Heather and Pat’s presentation, arguments, and debate. I’m wondering how many DEI officers really believe what they’re selling or are they just collecting a paycheck?
Sure, they said it had issues but they still want it. Not sure that is an honest admission. Like the first person outside of the panel pointed out the DEI officers arent diverse. He pointed out the obvious, the very person's pushing for diversity have little to no diversity in their respective lives. It is telling.
The reason we should not grade on a curve? The incentive is always there for students to cut out those who raise the bar; leaving a ledge from which to push those who put in the effort. Of course, they do this AFTER they ride the same individuals coat tails with group projects. They parlay grades they did not earn with networks cultivated while not studying to gain a foothold yet never reach back for those who did the work leaving little time to form networks of their own beyond the same classmates willing to sell them down the river to get ahead. One group cruises the highway with only perfunctory knowledge while the other is cut loose with little or no support. The first group seldom looks back unless they begin to fail or require expert knowledge. Even then, they devalue those with the knowledge and frequently take credit for their ideas and work. (This seems to have become the utility of social media) There is little incentive to help or elevate those who may outshine them. This becomes a systemic and institutional problem as our leaders and teachers are seldom the "best" available. Instead they are the mediocre who are always in others faces sometimes physically, often socially, and periodically metaphorically.
Gaps in reading, and stem occurs around high school. The requirements really ramp up post 8-9 grade depending on which country you are from. In India it was 8th grade. The degree of difficulty in material goes up markedly. If you fall behind it is difficult to make up. However, if your foundational knowledge is fantastic in High School you can make up for deficiencies in your college education. You will have the required fundamentals to make up for it. This needs to be remedied at the lower levers and not in college. DEI will not help you if you have not learnt the material before you get to college. College will ramp up the difficulty even more. If you could not keep up with things in High School you are bound not to in college years.
The Levering Act was a law enacted by the U.S. state of California in 1950. It required state employees to subscribe to a loyalty oath that specifically disavowed radical beliefs. It was aimed in particular at employees of the University of California.
Sorry sistas.... you're wrong on this one. You're caught in your feelings. You can't change people's individual biases by force...... it must be at the level of "zeitgeist" so that every part of our environment foster the dropping away of biases naturally. I also 100% agree that DEI is CULTURAL MARXISM What the anti-DEI people are afraid to say is that Black Culture needs to change
Inequality can never be erased from life when many life forms eat other living things and all the socio-genetic resources cannot be distributed equally. Also, not all that seems to matter actually matters, and the wise have always lived a simple life. Popular discussions and solutions are too shallow to address the beauty and brutality of life in space-time.
This is how debates should be, civil and polite. But it's obvious Karinth just can't rid off the victimhood card, seeming to forget that people living today were neither former slaves nor slave owners. She should focus more on trying to resolve the problems that plague the black community today. And it seems, her support for DEI only tends to aggravate it. Eric Smith PhD of York College used to be a DEI supporter who saw it's actually counter-productive. "Diversity, Equity & Inclusion: DEI Training’s Unintended Consequences" by John Stossel
I think you need to re-watch the debate. Those were never my points or words, but thanks for a) misspelling my name and b) completely confusing me with literally the ONLY other black woman who was there....#telling
All you can do is have sympathy for those who insist on using past injustices as leverage in a modern world that's already structured in their favor. I can't imagine being that privileged while simultaneously thinking of myself as a victim. "My people" denotes division in perpetuity. Color blindness is a misnomer, but until we see ourselves as mere fellow Americans with shared interests and skin tone as boring a delineation as hair color, we will continue to swing on a pendulum of division. A pendulum that may take a decade or more to swing back, but will inevitability change directional momentum and serve as a tough lesson.
Whenever someone says he or she is smart but doesn’t test well, I tend to trust the low test scores over the self assessment. Perhaps you’re not as smart as you think.
Whoa Denise Long is incredibly insightful and sincere and authentic! Finally someone who can straddle the concerns of both sides and advance a conciliatory proposition! I’m impressed!!
The pro-DEI team is so interesting. The woman in brown totally gets it...and the woman in green strikes me as part of the off-the-rails problem referred to by her cohort.
When she asks in 44:20 "did you know..." is she even pretending to get the answer whether we know all of it or not? What if I answer yes, we do? What if she stop to assume that she is wiser than the other people and she doesn't need to lecture anyone, but herself? The question is not if we should try to improve lives of all people. The question is gimmicks like DEI isn't the way that leads in the opposing direction to make anyones lives worse. It is more likely to make everyones lives more miserable. Besides that small group of activists who directly grab money thanks to that to themselves. Intentions may be genuine but the competence and methods doesn't guarantee assumed results. That is what DEI fanatics don't want to admit. They assume that if they want to do good the outcome will be good automatically. History proven that it is not the case. The communism failed utterly and now they want to repeat that on our expense.
I think who won this debate is rather obvious as the truth DEI advocates refused to participate in the people who did come admit that DEI needs drastic reform. However as someone who has been a fan of Heather McDonald's works in the past I am rather surprised by the language she uses. Yes there are certain forms of discrimination break into this country since its founding however white supremacy is a modern term, people from 250 years in the past are incapable of founding a country based off a modern term. For example I am Greek ancestry, many of the founders took inspiration from the great thinkers of my inherited culture. However they didn't stop them from discriminating against my ancestors because at the time were not considered to be white. Also the doctor is 100% correct about sensors being the problem. Maybe the DEI pet just lack the lived experience of ever going to silicon valley but there is actually a disproportional amount of people of Asian Indian descent who are programming self-driving cars. It requires one to beat delusional to suggest that a group of people is purposely programming cars not be able to their own bodies. So when the one affirmative DEA lady says that her daughter was a victim of discrimination, that's like the Inquisition bragging about finding a witch. If you belong to an organization who is designed to find racism it will find any gap an fill it with racism because if it doesn't the organization will die and lose it institutional power.
"Being blacks, gay or gender fluidity are not an accomplishment and should have nothing to do with faculty hiring or student admissions." Heather Mac Donald
The two young Women who argued in favor of keeping DEI part of the academic framework seemed to talk more about feelings and historical wrongs done to black people rather than making a strong argument in favor of DEI. Heather McDonald did not mince words when it came to her chance to speak. As usual she used data, statistics and common sense to back up her arguments.
At least one of the women arguing in favor of DEI said that the DEI programs need to be changed. That, however, does not contradict the necessity to strive to correct historical and present day wrongs against American blacks. The inequities are beyond dispute. People arguing against DEI efforts (especially the one chap on the panel who just a wanted to internationalize things when the debate is about the USA context) don’t seem to think black people matter at all. They don’t realize that black people need to sometimes be treated by black doctors (or at least have people properly trained about the health disparities for black Americans). Likewise black students at PWIs need some black profs on campus. As was also argued, tech companies need black engineers lest they keep making tech (like facial recognition cameras) that don’t take melanin into account. I could list many other examples
Exactly
Emotional reaction is all they have because their views are not based on reality. Brainwashed Marxists
I attended this in person and it represented everything I love about MIT. It was an engaging and dynamic discussion without rancor, ad-hominum attacks or any attempts to shutdown one side of the debate. Many thanks to the Free Speech Alliance for hosting this event.
Is that 10-250?
@@kewkabe I wish 10-250 was that nice! This was in building 51
This goes back to the basic premise of individualism vs collectivism. Merit vs victimhood. Heather Mac Donald once again knocks it out of the park with facts. The other side had no rebuttal. Keep up the good fight for individualism!
She is a no bullllsht person
She went scorched earth. She is utterly brilliant and unflappable.
Nowadays it takes huge courage to conduct open discussions on this kind of subjects. Kudos to MIT community.
Only in North America, due to the increasing piety of your secular society.
DEI cancer is spreading faster than ever. It's probably too late at this point if this is the first such debate of this kind.
It wasn't "the MIT community." It was the Free Speech Alliance, and MIT alumni group. in fact, as the President of the MFSA, I was told by multiple people "close to the Institute" two things which both surprised me. The first was that "MIT wasn't reedy" for this discussion. I think the events shows who was right on that one. The 2d was that "many people" thought this was intended (by MFSA) as a means to attack MIT. In fact, we want to improve MIT. If attacking MIT was the goal, we certainly failed.
@@ceddavisThe amount of money behind DEI is astonishing. Only reform of the corrupt 501C3 and influence cabal which controls institutions, hiring, and k-12 education will cure this infection.
Hats off to Heather Mac Donald. Absolutely Brilliant!!!
Wish to teach students and faculty to tell lies? Require a DEI statement from them.
Heather McDonald absolutely ran circles around every other person on that stage. It wasn't even close. The DEI side used anecdotes and emotional arguments, they had no rational arguments at all.
Well, reason itself is an instrument of oppression, don't you know?
Thank you for expressing my closing thoughts on this debate with such accuracy.
it does not bode well that you said "antidotes" where you meant anecdotes 😂 and your name is literally _karen_ but nonetheless yes, DEI is pure poison for all involved.
@@Johnwilkinsonofficial voice texting will do that, haha.
It was great to have a respectful and civil debate like this. Kudos to the speakers and audience.
Fantastic debate and perfect closing statement. DEI is ruined for everyone because of how it was implemented. Perhaps it was never the right philosophy to implement, perhaps it could've been. Time to learn from the DEI project and move on to another solution
A perfect example of selective empathy is NOT criticizing Black on Black crime.
Surprisingly good! MIT is giving me hope.
As an MIT alumnus I am proud to see the university doing better than it has just a few years ago by fostering open rigorous debate after the best fashion of the institute.
I agree that there are historic wrongs that continue to have effects on contemporary society, but woke CRT DEI initiatives are absolutely the wrong solution to a misdiagnosed problem.
Misdiagnosed problem? How would you define the problem and what solutions would you proffer ?
And why are you using that utter slang term, woke? Just be more specific and find the actual words to use.
As an alum, great to see MIT still has the courage to have an open debate.
MIT is still one of the worst places in America for free speech. You should be ashamed to be associated with these morons.
The fact that the DEI scam even penetrated here at all is laughable and pathetic.
I thought one of the last comments from the audience summed this debate best. DEI's defenders here (which I respect for their honesty and participation in this debate) act like the proponents of Communism when they say "sure, it's been an epic failure everywhere it's been tried, it's just that it hasn't been done right". What conclusion you draw is up to you, but I thought that comparison was striking.
That was me actually. As noted by the applause to that question the audience agreed with that sentiment. And, I believe that Kareth and Denise really did as well. I spoke with 'Con' team at length after the debate and these are two fantastic individuals where I found a lot of common ground. We all want the same results of helping disadvantaged students to succeed: it's just in how we accomplish it
@@stephenfriedenthal8312 Thanks for making the comment last night and glad to see you here today. The giant pink elephant in the room was that neither of the "con" team were full-time higher education DIE bureaucrats, so they had no first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day realities. Neither could answer Heather Mac Donald's pointed questions about the effects of DIE on campus life.
Both Pamela and Karith seemed sincere and earnest and even willing to listen to the opposing point of view. Unfortunately they were very limited in what they could tell us.
That no DIE bureaucrat was willing to participate speaks volumes. If I can't coherently defend my sinecure, I'm not walking into a room with Heather Mac Donald.
@@tygold8554 Exactly. Heather was a force and her 8 minutes were the highlight of the evening for both the breadth and detail. I would be willing to believe that Karith and Denise were themselves taken aback by the contrast between their perception of DEI and how it is actually being implemented. Another highlight was when the older alum held up a stack of MIT researcher job postings demanding fealty and forced speech to DEI statements and compared it to the forced speech of the 1950's with anti-communism statements. That was a powerful statement in itself.
And I guess the corollary is: if everyone that has ever tried to implement it has failed miserably, can it be implemented at all, and is the problem really with the implementers or the ideology?
@@SB-xm5uw I've always laughed at the die-hards who claim that socialism/communism is a sound ideology that has just been misapplied or implemented by the wrong people.
DIE is not supposed to "work" in the sense that there is an end goal that can be achieved or problem solved and everyone goes home. The sinecures rely on perpetuation of the alleged problem with no end in sight. Every September there's a new crop of freshmen who need to be indoctrin . . . I mean educated on the prevalence of white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia, colonialism, imperialism and privilege.
Finally, an uplifting event! Many thanks
IF ONLY: Karith's version/ ideals of DEI were the prevailing practice.. Unfortunately, they are not. The prevailing practice in virtually every university and now...K-12 school is toxic division.
Discussion starts at 36:20
Good job to all of those on the stage. A respectful and intelligent discussion.
Wonderful debate. The debaters were engaging and represented their sides skillfully. Will gladly watch more of these videos. So glad to see this level of discourse. We need more of this type of discussion. Thanks for providing this content.
I truly appreciated this debate. We need more of this open and CIVIL dialogue. Thank you, all!
Wrong, physics does NOT benefit from anti-racism or DEI, in contrast it hurts physics because people get into educational programs that are unqualified, and this can only drag the discipline down.
Extremely good, refreshing debate. Heather MacDonald brought a ton of useful data and forceful arguments. Karith was extremely respectful, made some good points and also acknowledged DEI has gone of the rails in several instances. Very good discussion. Great, honest Q from student let in to MIT who is struggling -- an "over-admit."
The potentially of every single human being, begins in utero and the most critical time in it’s development, is before it can speak. We do not prioritize the most important job anyone will ever have, raising our children. “Teach your children well.”
Just listened to Pamela Denise Long's opening. To summarize her point as I understand it. She says the problem isn't DEI, its that bad elements have slipped in and are derailing what should be good work. I haven't heard any rebuttal yet but my first thought is this is the motte and bailey. She's telling us its actually good and these bad things aren't actually part of the plan. She is also leaning a lot on the historical wrongs argument that can't stand up to any kind of honest scrutiny. Basically, shes trying to be the nice face of the baying mob. Trying to reason us into the baying mob's justifications for the harm it causes.
An astute observation. And true.
Heather is a legend! Pat pulling some major weight too!
Such an impressive group of Master Debators
😂
Went to my medical school reunion. The Dean got up there in front of 400 alumni and said “ we want to be number one”. In research? 😅n clinical programs? In grant dollars? No. In Diversity. His aim was to make the medical school # 1 in the country in DEI. He said it. The word “excellence” didn’t come out of his mouth one time.
The Development office then approach for a donation about 6 months later. I told them no more contributions from me and why. They understood and were even a tad sympathetic. It’s all about self immunization against charges of racism. The emperor has no clothes.
Reluctant to discuss for fear of “ causing harm”? No. Fear of being called a racist.
Amazing discussion! I was genuinely impressed with all of the panelists' ability to remain professional and respectful throughout the debate. I wholeheartedly hope America will use this debate as a model for future discourse within academia.
Great debate! Thanks for posting it publicly!
DEI is racism. It's inappropriate anywhere. Why are we even debating this?
01:18:49 “I’m a pretty smart chick”, I think she is, but that is not the point. Academic excellence is proven by agnostic tests as GPA. And honors got from an easy degree is not as same in a pure science degree.
Fantastic debate
DEI initiatives in academics should absolutely be abolished.
The problem I have with HMC’s comments which I typically agree with is somewhat apologizing for America’s past. It’s bizarre that anyone nowadays who had literally nothing to do with anything in the past would be held to some sort of collective guilt. How about standing up for the millions and millions of working class Caucasians that have been fleeced since the 60s at least to have their hard earned money be redistributed to largely AAs who want something for nothing? Does anyone feel sorry for those folks? How about all the working class Caucasians that built nice working class neighborhoods in Chicago from scratch only to be forced to move to the suburbs due to crime so the democrats could build their permanent ghettos for AAs?
That was a great debate. These sides need to get together and forge a new path with ideas from both sides.
That "study together" example actually argues against dei and shows what is the right thing to do.
Quite. Different study habits = different results.
How does it argue against DEI? Please expound
I can't believe the negative side were so quick to say that it had flaws and needed to be reworked. I thought that was really powerful, considering how staunch it's defenders tend to be. I also thought the statistics and uncomfortable truisms discussed were fascinating.
The racial statistics, agreement that white women were the majority of administrative DEI positions, and the cruelty of placing underperforming diverse kids into spaces they can't succeed in: These are radical ideas for a public debate, but clearly well chosen to illustrate the affirmative position.
I didn't love that Pamela kept trying to bring it back to Black people in America. On the one hand, I appreciate that she has a focused perspective and a clear vision of who she represents. But this was a larger discussion, as far as I know, and the position probably deserved that representation.
As far as I could tell from my single live viewing, Karith didn't provide any factual information. Her arguments were all anecdotal or narrative-based. I don't think this would've been as easy to notice if the affirmative side wasn't rife with statistics at every turn.
It was obvious that Heather came to DEBATE and her barely contained volatility was superb. She was keenly listening and knew when to strike and when to back off, for the most part.
A-1 debate all around. Thanks for the lovely debate and good job to all the debaters. And the no-nonsense moderator!
I wish there had been more discussion about how to proceed past DEI, but I don't know if this was the right platform.
I don't really know how to fix it myself. But it's clear that the zeitgeist is turning on the idea of endless inclusion. It's fascinating, as that argument has been gaining traction for years. Everyone, of every kind, must be recognized and respected. And now we're seeing that, while that is true, it doesn't mean everyone gets everything. Instead, it's more like no one should lose an opportunity because of some arbitrary metric, like skin color, gender, or sexual preference.
At the same time, there's such an incredible amount of administrative bloat that universities struggle to stay afloat. And it becomes harder and harder to see their value. That is, their noble value. As ways to get taxpayer, foreign, and investor money they're an excellent choice. But to learn knowledge and compete for scholarly merit, they're a waste of time bogged down in an incredibly divisive and niche ideology.
It's almost like the first question we have to answer is whether there's anything worth saving in the universities or not.
Exactly right. Her definition of "equity" was totally pussy-footing around what it actually is: redistribution of admission places/jobs/money in order to produce equal outcomes. DIE admins should just own it rather than obfuscate
they would like to save their jobs/ grifts in my estimation.
It was mentioned by the DEI team that African Americans could not own land in the state of Oregon until 2002. Not true. The last of the 1844 Oregon Black Exclusion Laws were repealed in 1926. They apparently removed some remaining “racial language” and “references to the 1857 referendum” in 2002, but no discriminatory laws were active at that time. Smelled like typical activist’s distortion of facts, and it was. But my respect to the DEI team, it is an improvement for anyone involved in their illiberal, authoritarian, neo-Marxist, and dogmatic ideology to even engage in ANY debate or discussion, let alone with an absolute intellectual beast such as Heather Mac Donald.
Great wide open discussion. Thank you!
This is heartening. The negative's strategy: "Defend" but retreat like hell. Remember the earliest instantiations of this, e.g., the screeching Yale Halloween costume girl. How did it get so reasonable all of a sudden?
Yes, reach kids when they're young; eliminate barriers and develop learning cultures when they are young. If they're not eating well at home, remedy that. If certain groups underperform at certain levels of their development, investigate who and learn why, but don't blame it on racism.
The pro DEI team presented "arguments" which were nothing more than opinions based on frothy emotionalism and their own take on history. Intelligent aguments ought to be rooted in factual data imo.
What they are all talking about is equality of opportunity which is not DEI !!
Everything seemed so friendly and gentle until Heather's opener. It was truly a scathing indictment, and to be uttered by any white person indicates some serious courage on the part of the speaker.
It's nice that in the last year we are really starting to see the best version of DEI and SJW left coming forth into the arena rather than the clandestine false consensus building we had seen in the past. While even the best version of DEI arguments are still vague and unconvincing, I give these two women a ton of credit for even showing up to this.
Yes, it should.
I think DEI is well meant but where I am you are required to take 7 hours of DEI training every year. It feels like a punishment. Imagine if you got a letter from the secretary of state that said even though your driving record is spotless you need drivers Ed training or your license would be revoked.
You would think one of the world's most renowned technology universities could figure out the goddamn audio. I may comment on the actual subject of the debate after I get through the poorly recorded introduction. \endrant
The fact that the DEI staff at the university refused to turn up to this debate says so much about the DEI at the university
The answer is YES! The argument in favor of DEI was embarassingly irrelevant.
Yeh it’s always some emotional clap trap
I actually enjoyed listening to the panel, it was a civil back and forth. Both parties want the same goal: help black and other minority populations who are not performing well academically. We have a clear case of what works and what worked in the past: parental involvement in childhood education. If all races copied the dedication that Asian parents had for their child's education, we would not have these disparities.
India has been the pilot of all woke/critical theories exported from West(US). It has policies around these the longest time with politics deeply woven into it. Hope India gets to such open decent debate/discussions.
That green outfit speaker got some hate in her voice.
It seems like she has something against African blacks as well considering how she took great pains to distinguish multigenerational “American negros” such as herself from black Africans.
I’m assuming this is to cope with the fact the black immigrants outperform black multigenerational Americans. So she has to come up with a worldview that explains why racism is affecting black multigenerational Americans and not black immigrants.
Good initiative. There are too many issues need discussion, for instance, no DEI in NBA/NFL, why? Hope this debate can continue on each branches in DEI.
Because let’s be real, DEI really means pro black and the NBA and NFL are vastly disproportionately black. It’s really that simple
Oh, because DEI is a mere euphemism for politically correct racism. The left embraces bigotry, provided that it’s directed against whites, especially white male heterosexuals.
Thank you MIT.
I would have loved this in life chat. Thought partner, awesome
I love the idea of switching “safe spaces” to “brave spaces”. Great idea!
Thank you.
The section of dialogue ending 59:59 is pure word salad psycho babble.
re: 38:00 - engineers don’t decide what to build. if there was an oversight in not including period trackers that’s on the management and leadership not engineering
The sad thing is that there's even a debate about it.
If the opposition here were typical examples those promoting DEI, I don't think most people would have a problem with it.
Really liked watching a civil, moderated debate discussion, and audience comments. Really liked the anti-side of Karith and Pamela; if DEI leadership was turned over to these young women, there would be more cooperation, less animus and, just maybe, progress.
MacDonald simply intellectually dwarfs the opposition
Even her debating partner, who was interesting and intelligent, did not have anywhere close to her level of erudition
Facts
She handles it like a seasoned attorney cross examining a witness.
She uses facts for her feelings
She goes a scorched earth on these philistines.
I find dei, repulsive. Whether 1.0 or 2.0. Heather McDonald was logical, honest, realistic and correct in her assertion that dei engenders and prolongs ill will.
Any chance this could be posted on podcast form for listening on the go?
I wonder if these lefty ladies will try to make NBA & NFL teams more diverse ? No ? Why not ?
I wish those for DEI came up with better arguments. It goes to show how shallow DEI is. The best they can come up is weak.
Heather is brilliant.
Was she actually bragging about graduating "with honors" in Occupational Therapy? God help us.
OTs get paid pretty good.
The team of Foster and Long surprised me by saying that DEI had gone wrong with oaths, pledges, etc. Long gets Kimberley Crenshaw-ish too much. Loved Heather and Pat’s presentation, arguments, and debate. I’m wondering how many DEI officers really believe what they’re selling or are they just collecting a paycheck?
Sure, they said it had issues but they still want it. Not sure that is an honest admission.
Like the first person outside of the panel pointed out the DEI officers arent diverse. He pointed out the obvious, the very person's pushing for diversity have little to no diversity in their respective lives. It is telling.
The reason we should not grade on a curve? The incentive is always there for students to cut out those who raise the bar; leaving a ledge from which to push those who put in the effort. Of course, they do this AFTER they ride the same individuals coat tails with group projects. They parlay grades they did not earn with networks cultivated while not studying to gain a foothold yet never reach back for those who did the work leaving little time to form networks of their own beyond the same classmates willing to sell them down the river to get ahead. One group cruises the highway with only perfunctory knowledge while the other is cut loose with little or no support. The first group seldom looks back unless they begin to fail or require expert knowledge. Even then, they devalue those with the knowledge and frequently take credit for their ideas and work. (This seems to have become the utility of social media) There is little incentive to help or elevate those who may outshine them. This becomes a systemic and institutional problem as our leaders and teachers are seldom the "best" available. Instead they are the mediocre who are always in others faces sometimes physically, often socially, and periodically metaphorically.
HEATHER SLAYS
1:23:22 Katherine Birbalsingh, Katherine Birbalsingh, Katherine Birbalsingh.
Proof in the pudding
"Entropic Socialism", the great leveling makes for a tasteless melting pot.
Excellent.
Gaps in reading, and stem occurs around high school. The requirements really ramp up post 8-9 grade depending on which country you are from. In India it was 8th grade. The degree of difficulty in material goes up markedly. If you fall behind it is difficult to make up. However, if your foundational knowledge is fantastic in High School you can make up for deficiencies in your college education. You will have the required fundamentals to make up for it. This needs to be remedied at the lower levers and not in college. DEI will not help you if you have not learnt the material before you get to college. College will ramp up the difficulty even more. If you could not keep up with things in High School you are bound not to in college years.
The Levering Act was a law enacted by the U.S. state of California in 1950. It required state employees to subscribe to a loyalty oath that specifically disavowed radical beliefs. It was aimed in particular at employees of the University of California.
Sorry sistas.... you're wrong on this one.
You're caught in your feelings.
You can't change people's individual biases by force...... it must be at the level of "zeitgeist" so that every part of our environment foster the dropping away of biases naturally.
I also 100% agree that DEI is CULTURAL MARXISM
What the anti-DEI people are afraid to say is that Black Culture needs to change
No confidence
Inequality can never be erased from life when many life forms eat other living things and all the socio-genetic resources cannot be distributed equally. Also, not all that seems to matter actually matters, and the wise have always lived a simple life.
Popular discussions and solutions are too shallow to address the beauty and brutality of life in space-time.
This is how debates should be, civil and polite. But it's obvious Karinth just can't rid off the victimhood card, seeming to forget that people living today were neither former slaves nor slave owners. She should focus more on trying to resolve the problems that plague the black community today. And it seems, her support for DEI only tends to aggravate it.
Eric Smith PhD of York College used to be a DEI supporter who saw it's actually counter-productive.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion: DEI Training’s Unintended Consequences" by John Stossel
I think you need to re-watch the debate. Those were never my points or words, but thanks for a) misspelling my name and b) completely confusing me with literally the ONLY other black woman who was there....#telling
Yes definitely
All you can do is have sympathy for those who insist on using past injustices as leverage in a modern world that's already structured in their favor. I can't imagine being that privileged while simultaneously thinking of myself as a victim. "My people" denotes division in perpetuity. Color blindness is a misnomer, but until we see ourselves as mere fellow Americans with shared interests and skin tone as boring a delineation as hair color, we will continue to swing on a pendulum of division. A pendulum that may take a decade or more to swing back, but will inevitability change directional momentum and serve as a tough lesson.
Whenever someone says he or she is smart but doesn’t test well, I tend to trust the low test scores over the self assessment. Perhaps you’re not as smart as you think.
Yes
Whoa Denise Long is incredibly insightful and sincere and authentic! Finally someone who can straddle the concerns of both sides and advance a conciliatory proposition! I’m impressed!!
I knew a guy once who got into pharmacy school by working super hard while others got a pass. I don't really think it hurt him any.
You can't be FOR DEI AND FREE SPEECH in this climate.
I like the Heather lady. She made sense to me.
We need more asian players in NBA, NFL, and so on... there are too few.
The pro-DEI team is so interesting. The woman in brown totally gets it...and the woman in green strikes me as part of the off-the-rails problem referred to by her cohort.
Amazing event
Yes.
When she asks in 44:20 "did you know..." is she even pretending to get the answer whether we know all of it or not? What if I answer yes, we do? What if she stop to assume that she is wiser than the other people and she doesn't need to lecture anyone, but herself?
The question is not if we should try to improve lives of all people. The question is gimmicks like DEI isn't the way that leads in the opposing direction to make anyones lives worse. It is more likely to make everyones lives more miserable. Besides that small group of activists who directly grab money thanks to that to themselves. Intentions may be genuine but the competence and methods doesn't guarantee assumed results. That is what DEI fanatics don't want to admit. They assume that if they want to do good the outcome will be good automatically. History proven that it is not the case. The communism failed utterly and now they want to repeat that on our expense.
"Honestly at this point they can make that shit up."
The answer is yes.
Even the negative is saying that the current DEI needs to change.
I think who won this debate is rather obvious as the truth DEI advocates refused to participate in the people who did come admit that DEI needs drastic reform.
However as someone who has been a fan of Heather McDonald's works in the past I am rather surprised by the language she uses. Yes there are certain forms of discrimination break into this country since its founding however white supremacy is a modern term, people from 250 years in the past are incapable of founding a country based off a modern term.
For example I am Greek ancestry, many of the founders took inspiration from the great thinkers of my inherited culture. However they didn't stop them from discriminating against my ancestors because at the time were not considered to be white.
Also the doctor is 100% correct about sensors being the problem. Maybe the DEI pet just lack the lived experience of ever going to silicon valley but there is actually a disproportional amount of people of Asian Indian descent who are programming self-driving cars. It requires one to beat delusional to suggest that a group of people is purposely programming cars not be able to their own bodies.
So when the one affirmative DEA lady says that her daughter was a victim of discrimination, that's like the Inquisition bragging about finding a witch.
If you belong to an organization who is designed to find racism it will find any gap an fill it with racism because if it doesn't the organization will die and lose it institutional power.
You are only a victim if you think you are. End victimhood by changing attitudes.
"Being blacks, gay or gender fluidity are not an accomplishment and should have nothing to do with faculty hiring or student admissions." Heather Mac Donald