If Cornell Is Serious About Combatting Antisemitism, It Will Immediately Dismantle Its DEI Programs
Cornell Alumnus Weighs In On A Core Campus Problem
The barbaric attack and slaughter of Israeli innocents perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023, triggered appalling manifestations of antisemitism across the United States, including the campuses of what have been considered leading institutions of higher education. My university was no exception.
Since October 7, the Ithaca, New York, campus of Cornell University has been beset by repeated incidents of ugly antisemitism: pro-Hamas demonstrations, encampments, destruction of university property, defacement of university monuments with pro-Hamas graffiti, disruption of university events by keffiyeh-costumed protesters, and posted online threats to kill and rape Jewish students.
In response, Cornell leadership has officially denounced antisemitism — along with hatred and bigotry in all its forms — and has pledged to increase the attention paid to antisemitism in the university’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. The administration has it exactly backwards. DEI programs are not the solution to the antisemitism problem at Cornell, they are the source of the antisemitism problem at Cornell and will continue to be until those programs are completely eliminated.
At first glance, my opposition to DEI programs might seem strange, even troubling. Who, after all, could be opposed to efforts to combat antisemitism by fostering greater diversity, equity, and inclusion? These positive concepts are embedded in the DNA of America and in the democratic founding vision of Cornell as an institution where any person can find instruction in any study.
The problem is not with the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The problem arises from the fact that DEI programs are, in fact, founded on radical political philosophies that pose a grave threat to the very values the programs claim to promote.
Rooted in Neo-Marxist Critical Race Theory and stoked by the murderous anti-Western ideology of Frantz Fanon’s violent decolonization dogmas, DEI programs starkly divide and dangerously discriminate. They show supportive favoritism toward the members of all groups they categorize as the oppressed victims of Western white supremacism, and violent animosity toward the members of all groups they categorize as representatives of oppressive Western white supremacism.
The DEI ideology reviles Jews as the very embodiment of Western civilization and categorizes them as evil oppressors deserving to be met with violent resistance. The disgusting manifestations of virulent antisemitism at Cornell and on campuses across the country are the direct and predictable result of the programs that propagate the poisonous orthodoxies of the DEI ideology.
In driving antisemitism on campuses, divisive DEI programs across the country invariably destroy for everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, the trust and open mindedness and mutually respectful sense of community essential for fruitful academic endeavors.
Administrative functionaries use Maoist-style struggle sessions to denounce and humiliate individuals who dare to dissent from program orthodoxies, and to intimidate those who might think to dissent. They unlawfully compel compliant speech and extract publicly sworn loyalty oaths to enforce uniformity of opinion and restrict the free exchange of ideas.
The functionaries condemn meritocracy and equal protection under the law to justify the pursuit of so-called equity, the discriminatory leveling distribution of status and benefits to favored constituencies at the expense of others not so favored. Tragically, by validating the unlawful concept of identity-based discrimination and perpetuating the soft bigotry of low expectations, DEI administrators deny to those they claim to care about the only source of fairness and opportunity for personal fulfillment – equal meritocratic opportunity based on equal treatment under the law.
DEI functionaries and their followers use mob-backed cancellation tactics to suppress free speech by excluding from the public conversation those who dissent from DEI orthodoxies. They use unlawful discriminatory employment practices to enforce uniformity of opinion by excluding dissenters from opportunities for employment, retention, and advancement.
And they use so-called “bias reporting” systems, Kafkaesque reporting programs that solicit anonymous denunciations of disfavored speech, to suppress dissent and enforce intellectual conformity.
Behind all the appealing but misleading terminology and inversion of customary meaning so reminiscent of Orwellian Newspeak, DEI programs are, in reality, a destructive combination of divisive concepts that entrench indefensible Discrimination, Exclusion, and Inequity.
Divisive, discriminatory DEI programs and their anonymous reporting enforcement mechanisms have no place in a nation founded on the humanity-affirming unifying principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence and the equalitarian rule of law embodied in the Constitution.
And divisive, discriminatory DEI programs and their anonymous reporting enforcement mechanisms have no place at Cornell University, whose defining purpose as a place of learning and human development can only be realized through full compliance with the law and steadfast commitment to freedom of speech, open enquiry, civil discourse, and genuine intellectual diversity; a place where all are respected for their inherent human dignity and afforded their rightful opportunity to increase their learning and pursue the fulfillment of their potential; a place , indeed, where any person can find instruction in any study.
If the leadership of Cornell is truly serious about combatting the ugly antisemitism that has so befouled the campus, they can and should strike a mighty blow for that good cause by immediately dismantling all their DEI programs and forcefully repudiating the poisonous ideologies that define the divisive essence of those programs.
Kennerly Davis, Jr. is a 1968 honors graduate in Government from the Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences, and a former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That’s a big ‘if’.
I have repeatedly called for a database of all known DEI perps. They are truly evil.
Well written Ken!
Things have changed since 1968. I guess you missed the building takeovers in 1969. Downhill since then.
Physics ’71
The problem is that “a steadfast commitment to freedom of speech, open enquiry, civil discourse, and genuine intellectual diversity” must necessarily include those who oppose all of those values. If a university is to be a place “where any person can find instruction in any study”, that must include “the poisonous ideologies” that got us here in the first place. The neo-Marxist “critical studies” is what has caused this whole mess, and yet a university in which there are no orthodoxies and academic freedom reigns must allow this ideology to be taught.
It’s the same problem as the one I raised in the other thread, the so-called “Weimar fallacy” which is no fallacy at all. Free speech and free elections necessarily mean that we allow enemies of those values to compete, and potentially to win, whereupon they will abolish the very values that allowed their victory. There’s no way to stop them without becoming them; all we can do is try to persuade people not to follow them.
Milhouse, I have to say that even though you don’t intend it, somehow you get to the crux of the problem. Yes, free speech does necessarily require that those who we disagree with, or even hate (but I try not to hate anyone) get the floor and have the opportunity to make their case. Sometimes this results in the “bad guys” winning the debate. Not because of the truth of their ideas but because too many of the public were stupid enough to believe those ideas. That result is our fault for not making the cause of freedom clear and persuasive. Almost always, the truth is eventually recognized and the mistake is clear. But it may be too late and the “bad guys” will shut down debate and elections and make their position unassailable.
That is the danger. But to prevent that we have to adopt their tactics and do exactly what we abhor. That is the paradox. We make a choice. I prefer to be honest to myself and allow those whose speech we disagree with (or hate) to have the right to persuade us. If they can.
Why on earth do you imagine I didn’t intend that? It’s not as if what I wrote can be read in any other way.
Often wrong. never in doubt.
That’s not a response, it’s just a gratuitous insult. I make an effort to write very clearly, so my intent can’t be mistaken without carelessness. And what I wrote here is exactly what I’ve written many times.
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
I was wondering the same thing.
“If Cornel is serious…”
You could have stopped right there. It has been made abundantly clear that these “elite” unis are in favor of and promote race hatred of all kinds, antiSemitism being just one favored hatred.
“If Cornell Is Serious About Combatting Antisemitism”
Sorry, Ken — as a computer science pro, I halt immediately upon encountering a logical nullity.
Ken, until the Cornell Board of Trustees shows some common sense and independence from the “Progressive” Administration, and returns to the job of teaching and not indoctrinating, Cornell is lost in the wilderness.