風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
DEI - Diversity, Equity, Inclusion 多樣性、公平性和包容性
多樣性 - 不同身份的人 - 種族、宗教、國籍或性取向， 感受到或被重視並發揮作用。
公平性 - 每個人有相同機會，所有員工在公司內獲得相同水平的吸引力、晉升和保留。
包容性 - 為員工創造的安全和保障，因此實際上讓個人感到他們可以被接受。
美國校園首次：MIT激辯學界是否應該DEI？
4月4日星期二，在麻省理工學院（MIT）校園就“學術界應該廢除DEI項目”的主題進行了辯論。希瑟·麥克唐納（Heather Mac Donald）和帕特·坎巴蒂（Pat Kambhampati）支持肯定的立場；帕梅拉·丹尼斯·朗（ Pamela Denise Long）和卡裏斯·福斯特（Karith Foster），為反方代表。美國公民自由聯盟ACLU前任主席納丁·斯特羅森 (Nadine Strossen) 主持辯論。超過250人在現場觀看了辯論，800觀看了辯論的在線直播（辯論結束2小時，YouTube相關視頻點擊已經超過2200）。
辯論由亞當斯密協會的MIT分會和MIT言論自由聯盟 (MIT Free Speech Alliance, MFSA) 共同主辦，並由其他15個言論自由組織（在MFSA的辯論網頁上列出）共同籌辦。 在YouTube上進行了直播，視頻見該鏈接。活動目的是向學生和MIT社區展示，DEI話題可以在大學校園內公開和公平地進行辯論——如何傾聽以及如何交談——通過傾聽，雙方都能受益。 辯論是根據牛津聯盟的辯論規則進行的。承辦方認為，這可能是美國校園內首次就校園DEI 問題進行辯論（請注意，著名的2022年牛津聯盟辯論以詹姆斯·林賽為主角，主題不同：“眾議院認為覺醒文化走得太遠了。”）
MIT言論自由聯盟和亞當·斯密協會並未對辯論有任何官方立場，但認為公開辯論DEI等話題至關重要，尤其是考慮到當下，該問題不僅在高等教育領域而且在國家政治領域日益突出。MIT言論自由聯盟執行主管彼得·博尼利亞（Peter Bonilla）說：“我們對辯論的進行感到非常高興。它表明即使是一個極具爭議的話題，也可以以文明和理性的方式進行討論，它表明MIT有能力舉辦這樣的辯論，我們對此一直有信心。我們感謝出席的學生、教師、校友和行政人員。”
Nadine Strossen：僅通過參與這場辯論，我們所有參與者都同意，一個被視為統一的主要觀點，並非就理所當然。 盡管我們可能不同意這項具體的辯論結果，但我們同意這些問題並非不可辯論。
Pat Kambhampati：不要被取消。 說出你的想法，親切而禮貌地說出來，並聽取其他人的意見。 正如喬丹·皮特森（Jordan Peterson）所說，您可能應該與您不同意的人互動。那樣你可以學到更多，並可能變得更睿智，但不要取消別人。我拒絕被取消，這就是我來這裏的原因之一。
Pat Kambhampati：文化馬克思主義認為，我們都被當成群體，一群人反對另一群，受害者和壓迫者。但這不是大多數社會的運作方式。這肯定也不是波士頓劍橋和2020的運作方式。所以我認為結果平等的想法非常非常危險。多樣性也是危險的，因為我們為什麽要在結果上有多樣性？我們本都不一樣。NBA有多樣性嗎？我們在NFL中有多樣性嗎？ 我們在粒子物理學方麵有多樣性嗎？ 答案是否定的。
Heather Mac Donald：原因是學術技能方麵的種族差異很大。 這是一個令人不舒服的話題，也是大學校園裏的禁忌話題……
Heather Mac Donald：多樣性隻是偏好的代名詞。 但這些偏好對他們所謂的受益人沒有好處。如果MIT出於性別多樣性的考慮錄取了我，並且我的數學SAT成績為600，而我幾乎所有同齡人的成績都接近800，如果我的微積分課不及格，我會很掙紮，因為會影響到班級的平均教學水平。 然而，如果在一個我的同齡人的學業水平與我相匹配的環境，我可能會做得很好。……種族偏好也是如此。他們的受益者在與同齡人資格相匹配的大學中，將在學術上具有競爭力，但是當被拔高到他們沒有準備好的學校時，他們會掙紮，正如許多研究所證明的那樣。
Pamela Denise Long：我想留給你的是這個想法：我們不需要廢除DEI計劃或反種族主義項目。我們真正應該做的是緊急調整這些計劃的運作方式，以便我們最終實現我們國家追求平等目標的變革。如果我們做對了，如果我們現在做對了，如果我們致力於實現結果平等的目標，不僅僅是說我們處於平等的競爭環境中，而且要認識到我們不平等的各種原因，如果我們專注於目標，我們可以在這一代實現平等。
Pamela Denise Long：DEI應該做的是讓教育工作者做好準備，幫助從學前班到大學的所有學生發展必要的知識，避免成為種族主義者，並培養他們的能力，以在他們關注和影響的圈子中打破種族主義。
Karith Foster：“讓我們擁有勇敢的空間”，而不是安全的空間。
Karith Foster：如果做得好，生活可以被改變和提升到一個無限美好的地方，一個充滿知識和同理心的地方，不僅對人類而且對我們自己產生更深刻的理解。上大學不就是為了開闊眼界，接受教育，了解他人，更重要的是了解自己嗎？當 DEI 做得不好時——老實說，它已經左轉了——它會造成無法逾越的恐懼、不信任、報複和冷漠的障礙。
周二的辯論是在MIT越來越關注言論自由注意到和自由討論一些話題的困難之際舉行的。在新校長Sally Kornbluth 的領導下（她於2023 年1月上任），MIT開始了一個名為“跨越差異的對話”的係列講座。 非刻板學院院長約翰·托馬西 (John Tomasi) 於3月24日在該係列的首屆活動上發表了講話。
有關演講者和辯論的照片和簡曆等更多詳細信息，請訪問https://www.mitfreespeech.org/2023-debate
辯論本身的圖片可在https://rasmusen.org/special/mfsa/2023.04.04_Pictures.docx獲取。 也可以從視頻中屏幕截圖，現在可以在https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elG_zyZya5g上觀看。 有關辯論的會前新聞文章，請參閱 https://www.mitfreespeech.org/media-mention-page上的列表。
MIT言論自由聯盟是一個有1000多位成員的非盈利組織，在著名的卡爾森講座取消後，由MIT校友於2021年10月成立。MFSA也是校友言論自由聯盟的成員，還有康奈爾大學、哈佛大學、普林斯頓大學、耶魯大學和弗吉尼亞大學等機構的姐妹組織。 MFSA 是一個非營利性 501(c)(3) 組織，獨立於MIT。
聯係人：Peter Bonilla，執行董事，peter@mitfreespeech.org，215-531-2171
First of-Its-Kind Debate on a U.S. Campus of Diversity-Equity-Inclusion Occurs Peacefully at MIT
On Tuesday, April 4, the resolution “Academic DEI programs should be abolished” was debated on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Heather Mac Donald and Pat Kambhampati argued the affirmative position; Pamela Denise Long and Karith Foster, the negative. Nadine Strossen, past president of the American Civil Liberties Union, moderated. More than 250 people attended the debate live at MIT, with an additional 800+ watching the livestream (by 2 hours after the debate ended, You-Tube views had hit 2,200).
The debate was hosted by the MIT Chapter of the Adam Smith Society, cohosted by the MIT Free Speech Alliance (MFSA), and cosponsored by fifteen other organizations (listed on MFSA's debate webpage). It was livestreamed on You-Tube, where the recording will continue to be available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elG_zyZya5g. The objective was to show students and the MIT community that Diversity-Equity-Inclusion issues could be debated openly and fairly on a college campus-- how to listen as well as how to talk--- and that by listening, both sides can benefit. The debate proceeded under debating rules similar to the style of the Oxford Union. The sponsors believe it is the first debate on DEI issues to be held on at an American campus. (Note that the celebrated 2022 Oxford Union debate featuring James Lindsay was on a different topic: "This House believes woke culture has gone too far.”)
The MIT Free Speech Alliance and Adam Smith Society do not take official position for or against the debate proposition but consider it essential that topics such as DEI be openly debated, especially considering the issue’s increasing prominence not just in higher education, but on the national political stage. Peter Bonilla, Executive Director of the MIT Free Speech Alliance, said, “We were very happy with how the debate went. It showed how even a highly contentious topic can be discussed in a civil and rational manner, and it showed that MIT is well equipped to host just such a debate, as we’ve always believed. We thank the students, faculty, alumni, and members of the administration who attended.
Nadine Strossen: Solely by participating in this debate, we participants all agree on one major overarching point which cannot be taken for granted. Much as we might disagree about this specific debate resolution, we agree that these issues are not beyond debate.
Pat Kambhampati: Don't be canceled. Say what you think, say it kindly and politely and listen to other people. And as Jordan Peterson says you should probably interact with people with whom you disagree. So you can learn more and hopefully become smarter, but don't cancel others and I refuse to be canceled. That's one of the reasons why I'm here.
Pat Kambhampati: Cultural Marxism suggests that we are all collectives of one group against another victims and oppressors. This is not how most of society works. And that's certainly not how Cambridge and 2020 works. So I think the idea of equity is very, very dangerous. Diversity is also dangerous, because why should we have diversity in outcomes? We're all different. Do we have diversity in the NBA? Do we have diversity in the NFL? Do we have diversity in particle physics? And the answer is no.
Heather Mac Donald: The reason is large racial differences in academic skills. This is an uncomfortable subject and one that is taboo on a college campus….
Heather Mac Donald: Diversity is simply a codeword for preferences. But those preferences do no good to their alleged beneficiaries. If MIT admitted me, for the sake of gender diversity, and I had a 600 on my math SAT, whereas almost all of my peers had close to 800, I would struggle in if not fail my calculus class, because the teaching would be pitched to the class average. I would likely have done perfectly well, however, at a school where my peers matched my own level of academic preparation. ,… So too for race preferences. The beneficiary of them would be academically competitive in colleges where their qualifications matched those of their peers, but when they are catapulted into schools for which they are not prepared, they struggle, as numerous studies have demonstrated.
Pamela Denise Long: What I want to leave you with is this thought: we do not need to abolish DEI programs or anti-racism. What we really ought to do is to urgently nuance how those programs function so that we ultimately achieve the change that is the aim of equality in our nation. And if we do that right, and if we do that now, if we commit to honoring the goal of equality, not just saying we're at an equal playing field but recognizing the various reasons we are not and how could we be if we focus on the goal, we can accomplish equality this generation.
Pamela Denise Long : What DEI ought to do is prepare educators to help all students from Pre-K through college develop the necessary knowledge to not be racist and develop their competencies to disrupt racism in their circles of concern and influence.
Karith Foster: “Let’s have bravespaces,” instead of safe spaces.
Karith Foster: When done well, lives can be transformed and transported, to an infinitely better place, one infused with knowledge and empathy, generating a deeper understanding not just of humankind but of ourselves. And isn’t that why one goes to university, to broaden their horizons, to get an education, to learn about others, but more importantly, to know thyself? When DEI is done poorly—and let us be absolutely honest, it has taken a left turn--- it creates insurmountable barriers of fear, mistrust, vengeance, and indifference.
Tuesday’s debate came as MIT has shown increased attention to free expression and the discussion of difficult issues. Under President Sally Kornbluth’s new leadership (she arrived in January 2023), MIT started a lecture series called “Dialogues Across Differences.” John Tomasi, President of Heterodox Academy, spoke at the series’ inaugural event on March 24.
Further details such as photos and bios of the speakers are available at https://www.mitfreespeech.org/2023-debate. Pictures from the debate itself are available at https://rasmusen.org/special/mfsa/2023.04.04_Pictures.docx . Screenshots can also be taken from the video, which is now viewable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elG_zyZya5g. For pre-event news articles on the debate, see the list at https://www.mitfreespeech.org/media-mention-page.
The MIT Free Speech Alliance is a nonpartisan organization with over 1,000 members founded by MIT alumni in October 2021 following the cancellation of the prestigious Carlson Lecture. MFSA is a member of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, together with sister organizations at Cornell, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and the University of Virginia, among other institutions. MFSA is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization and is independent of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
