Adam Kissel, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs, testified at a hearing on DEI policies in Texas. The lone Democrat at the hearing morphed into a diversity administrator.
Kissel writes at the College Fix:
How a state senator acted like a campus diversity administratorThe days of campus DEI are numbered. For the uninitiated, that’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” — the nice-sounding terms that are weaponized by campus DEI offices and officials to suppress free and open inquiry on campus.I testified on April 6 to support a bill in the Texas Senate to stop DEI offices from promoting policies or engaging in activities that treat people differently on the basis of race or other identities. Unfortunately, at one point after our prepared testimony, the panelists were treated like DEI officials treat students.Our testimony went very well. After all, as expected, we won the vote. Dr. Ben Carson, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, was one of the invited panelists along with me and two others. In short, my argument and data showed that DEI programs are generally expensive, counterproductive, and even unlawful. The Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education ultimately passed SB 17 up to the Senate Committee on Education.The discussion with senators after our presentations was civil though pointed. The one Democrat on the subcommittee, Sen. Royce West, was outnumbered on the stage but in the majority in the room, which was filled with opponents of the bill (many of whom were from the University of Texas at Austin). That’s basically how things are at Texas colleges: the red state has blue universities. Being in the majority or the minority depends on where one draws the lines.But then at the end, Sen. West (pictured above) acted much like the kind of oppressive DEI official that the bill seeks to remove from higher education.The senator first asked whether panelists support “diversity.” Consistent with my testimony, I answered that what really makes a university flourish is viewpoint diversity. Using race, or using stereotypes about identity, as a proxy for viewpoint is a fundamental mistake.But my answer did not go over well. The senator proceeded to ask me whether I supported “ethnic diversity.” It was not a fair question. The only expected answer was yes or no. There wasno room to explain, as I had done in my testimony, that treating people on the basis of ethnic identity or ethnic stereotypes is a betrayal of equality and respect for the individual. There was no room to define what it would mean that I do or do not “support” “ethnic diversity.”The roomful of tittering opponents, some of whom had stood and turned their backs at my testimony (blocking the view of the people behind them), was ready to titter some more if I gave the wrong answer. The social pressure was high for me to say, of course, yes, I support ethnic diversity.But I couldn’t give him the short answer he wanted. It was an impossible scenario. So I said: “For what purpose, sir?”The juvenile titters came, as expected. A public hearing like this is mostly for show (the outcome was never in doubt), and we all knew our roles.Sen. West then went down the line, asking whether each of us support diversity, equity or inclusion. He left no room for definitions or explanations. Yes or no? For or against? Our answers had to be a brief form of the kind of mandatory diversity statement that college hiring committees demand of applicants, and which SB 17 would ban.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY