ASU Dean won’t allow public debate of “decolonizing” philosophy

When I asked this Dean if we could have a public debate about the philosophy of “decolonizing,” he told me, “No.” Ideas cannot be publicly discussed under his watch. We must simply accept his opinions about decolonizing. This imbalance of power is what causes the “chilling effect,” where those who dissent are afraid to speak up out of fear that those in power will harm their careers.

Recently, this same Dean posted this graph with the words “and yet.” Others commented, saying this proves we need DEI, and it is hard to work with the dominant culture (sounds racist?).  What conclusions can be drawn from this graph?  The radical secular professors I know conclude this graph shows that “whiteness” has “colonized” the university, and it must be “decolonized.”  However, that conclusion does not follow from the information in the graph.

We can ask three questions: does this different representation need to be fixed, how can it be fixed, and what is its cause?  Radicals like this Dean assume the cause is “whiteness.”  This is the term they use to judge all people who share a skin color. All interpretations that blame “whiteness” assume that if the percentages of a population are not represented in a profession, then this must be due to “whiteness”.  However, information is needed to prove this assumption rather than blindly assert it. There are other interpretations that make more sense.

First, next to this graph, there need to be two more: one measuring religious affiliation and one measuring political affiliation. These kinds of polls have already been taken and show that professors do not represent the population in terms of Christianity or conservatism. What conclusion can be drawn about equity from that information?

If we follow this Dean’s line of thinking, we would have to conclude that the secular academy discriminates against Christians and conservatives. That has certainly been my experience in the school this Dean is over. Why hasn’t he done anything about that kind of discrimination?

Whenever you bring up the imbalance of atheists and liberals in the academy, the defense suddenly becomes “meritocracy.”  I have even heard a Dean say (not the one mentioned above) that it is because atheists and liberals are smarter. When can merit be appealed to as an explanation?

Second, what are other explanations for the information in the graph besides “whiteness” and “structural racism”?   These kinds of answers beg the question (argue in a circle): “whiteness” kept a candidate out of a job, and we know this because that is what “whiteness” does. The Dean and other radicals should stop relying on racist answers and actually look into sociological causation to find real solutions to the problems they’d like to fix. They will be more successful at problem-solving and will stop dividing the student body they are supposed to serve. Thomas Sowell has done good work on this, and although radical leftists like to insult him, they haven’t been able to refute him.

By contrast, it can actually be shown that there are discriminatory practices against hiring conservatives and Christians. DEI statements are meant to weed out religious and political viewpoints that are not radical leftist. That is why those statements do not survive legal challenges. Discrimination is wrong.

As an intellectual, this Dean should know he must do more than post a graph and assume his conclusions are self-evidently true. This is the same Dean I asked if we could hold a public debate at our school over these issues, and he said, “No, there will be no debate.” He uses his position of authority to force his opinions on others but would cry foul if that were done to him.

Parents and students, you need to know that public debate about these ideas is not allowed in my school. So, you will apply to ASU without knowing what you will be subject to in the classroom. Stay informed. Watch how these professors and Deans post on social media to get a good window into the quality of their thought process.