Diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) have been much in the news in recent months and
even years because DEI “has infested American businesses, colleges, and even
our government,” according to Rob Bluey at The Daily Signal. Chris
Rufo’s Quest to Abolish DEI (dailysignal.com)
Bluey
has two articles from an interview he had with Chris Rufo who has been “reporting
on NPR and the plagiarism plague at America’s leading universities.” Rufo also
discussed “his campaign to abolish DEI….” This post will come from Bluey’s
first article today with a possible second one coming from his second article.
Bluey asked Rufo to give the backstory about NPR.
A month or two ago now, Bari Weiss’s
outfit, The Free Press, had this great story from a longtime NPR editor who
basically confirmed what conservatives have known all along: NPR has drifted
very far to the Left. There’s no ideological balance. It doesn’t represent the
public, and it’s run by people who are committed activists and ideologues who
don’t care about the news. They care about pushing a propaganda line.
Anyone who’s really been thinking about it
could see that, but hearing it from the insider caused something of a stir. And
then on the back of that reporting, I did some other reporting on NPR’s new
CEO, a woman named Katherine Maher, who is just like a caricature of a kind of
far-left managerial leader.
I exposed some of her tweets, which were
almost like parodies, left-wing haikus. They were really kind of poetic in
their own way. And then I really dug into her background as a left-wing
operator, regime-change activist overseas, and then turned the screws on NPR,
which if it would hope to actually be public radio representing the public,
really can’t have someone who is such a kind of left-wing ideologue in charge.
At a minimum, let’s be clear, the public
should not be paying a cent for NPR, and I think that we’ve shifted public opinion
on this in recent months in the right direction.
Rufo
bluntly shared his thought that NPR should not receive any taxpayer funds
because it is strictly leftist propaganda. He then took a leap into plagiarism
at “America’s highest profile university leaders.”
Is it possible to reform NPR? Is it
possible to reform Harvard? Is it possible to wholesale reform the federal
government in the immediate term? No, that is a generational project. But what
I’ve tried to do is demonstrate that at least tactically we can score
victories.
As I’m thinking about different activist
campaigns, I’m always thinking about three points of leverage. How can we find
a target that has a kind of opening where we could do some good reporting, good
investigation, good agitation, so to speak, and then how can we take away their
money? How can we take away their power? How can we take away their prestige?
Ideally, two of those, of course, three of
those [are] great. I’ve found that as a rule of thumb, you need to hit an
institution along two of those axes in order to really be successful at
changing policy, changing staffing, changing kind of programming, changing the
ideological balance. Whatever your specific kind of reform is, it takes an
enormous amount of pressure.
And so one of the things that I’ve been trying
to study as I’ve been working on this in practice is how does that work? How
does pressure work? How do institutions work? How does money, finances, [and/or]
budget work? And then trying to figure out how, through storytelling, through
reporting, through more direct activism, how can you start to shift those
conditions?
The theory is that over time, if we can do
this enough, if we can do this successfully, if we can demonstrate how to wield
power in a meaningful way and in a way that makes things better, you could have
more significant reforms building up over time.
Rufo
and Bluey discussed Rufo’s book “America’s Cultural Revolution” a bit. Then
Bluey asked Rufo about higher education. “How big of a problem is the
plagiarism scandal?”
You’re kind of limited by time resources,
but certainly when we broke the story that the president of Harvard was a
plagiarist, she had plagiarized a large number of passages in her doctoral
thesis. Then there was some additional reporting from Aaron Sibarium at the
Washington Free Beacon. And then some follow-up reporting from me that showed
she had plagiarized the majority of all of her academic papers. She was the
president of the most prestigious university in the world. That’s untenable.
Of course, as we started to look
elsewhere, we’re finding plagiarism everywhere. We’re finding particularly
extreme high rates of plagiarism among DEI administrators. It seems like DEI
administrators at universities have a hard time completing doctoral thesis
without plagiarizing material. And we found them even in some of the more
left-wing ideological academic departments. We’re uncovering plagiarism, but
discovering it is somewhat tedious, time-consuming work.
After
explaining the difficulty of uncovering plagiarism, Rufo stated that “plagiarism
is very much a real problem.” In addition, the work being done by the
plagiarists is “actually awful as a matter of quality … the papers are [not]
good. These papers are awful [and void of substance.” The bottom line is that
the papers do not “create new knowledge or suggest ways to improve our societies.”
He ended this part of the discussion by stating that it is the fraudulence that
“gets people’s attention.” He concluded by saying that he considers the
plagiarism campaign to be “quite fun,” and promising that more stories will be
produced in the future.
The
discussion then switched to critical race theory or diversity, equity, and
inclusion policies. Bluey suggested that these “policies have diminished the
importance of merit” and asked if there was “any hope” for change or if change
is already taking place. Rufo gave Bluey hope.
It’s already changing in many places.
One good example is that many universities
after COVID scrapped the requirements for SAT scores for college admissions.
And the reason was, I think, twofold. One is that they were correctly sensing
that affirmative action, which is nice euphemism for racial discrimination, was
going to be correctly deemed unconstitutional by the courts, which has
happened. And they also, in a deeper way, they’ve been grappling with what are
very real racial disparities for a variety of complex social scientific
reasons.
All of the educational interventions,
hundreds of billions of dollars, have not been sufficient in closing what’s
called the achievement gap and, therefore, closing a disparity in college
readiness. So rather than comply with the law, and rather than be honest about
disparities, college administrators said, “If it’s going to be illegal and if
we’re giving up on closing disparities, we should just scrap the requirement
for test scores.”
The
theory did not work, just as many people could see. If we want “the best
universities … the best students … a fair and equal process,” doing away with
requirements does not work. Rufo indicated that some universities are pulling
back and reinstituting SAT requirements. Some of them have done away with “their
DEI statements voluntarily.” Seven red states have “abolished the DEI
bureaucracies,” and “upwards of 20 states” are expected to follow them.
“Public
opinion has also shifted,” and people are recognizing that things do not work
according to their theory. However, Rufo admitted that the fight is just
beginning even though conservatives are now in a better position for fighting
the battles.
Bluey
asked for practical advice for students about the worth of attending colleges
and universities. Is education worth the cost? Rufo answered that it was a “hard
question” as well as “a very personal question” that each family must answer
for themselves. However, he gave “two components to the right answer.
The first is that there is a popular line
or meme in some conservative circles: Don’t go to college, go to trade school,
drop out of college. College is not a good investment. College is indoctrination
center. College is not the right way.
Frankly, some of the trades are very
lucrative, and the highest paying trades are probably more lucrative than the
lowest paying college majors. But still, in general, there is a return on a
college education. Politically speaking, a good functioning and successful
conservative political movement has to have college graduates and elite college
graduates. That’s a fact.
[Rufo emphasized that the Founding Fathers
were college graduates – “lawyers, large landowners, physicians, scientists,
merchants. Those are high prestige, high education, high intelligence kinds of
fields.”]
Given that we’re now 250 years later in a
more complex economy with higher levels of general education with larger
post-secondary institutions, the idea that we could have a successful political
movement without a large number of very smart, very educated people, I think is
misguided. It’s actually a completely wrong position.
The second part of the answer is then,
therefore, what do you do as an individual? Then it becomes a little more
complex. But what I would say is that if you are a child or if you’re a young
person, if you have intellectual gifts, you should absolutely go to college,
and you should absolutely go to the best college that you can get into for your
desired field of study for whatever personal calculations you have to make.
If you have your head on straight, if you’re
independent-minded, if you can connect with the right people, it’s still a
worthwhile endeavor and we should not give up on universities. We should fight
to make universities better. That’s my view.
The
discussion went on to cover K-12 public schools with Bluey asking if there is
any hope for reform in public schools. Rufo explained that parents are looking
at their alternatives and options. Parents are also “demanding an education
that reflects their values, not the values of university humanities
departments.” Rufo indicated that we are seeing some changes.
Parents
have more options for educating their children now than at any previous time in
America. The public schools must be reformed, according to Rufo, because they
are not going away. However, states are beginning to allow “parents to take
their education dollars anywhere to any school of their choice. That is a game
changer. It changes the whole system.” Rufo continued, “it makes public schools
better and more competitive, and it gives parents this great resource where
they can take typically between $7,000 and $8,000 per year per child to any
institution of their choice. That’s going to, over the long term, create better
options.”
Bluey
told Rufo that his “investigative reporting and activism” led to the changes.
Rufo then admitted, “It’s still hard as a parent. The policy fight is much
easier, but the fight still “requires a huge effort” that must be adapted to “your
kids’ personalities and whatever struggles and challenges they’re facing.” Rufo
advised parents to “Do the best that you can, except that no school and no
system is going to be perfect,” just try to do the best that your means can do.
I
encourage you to stay tuned because I may have more information from Rufo in
the following days.