To the editor:
In a salvo posted in the normally even-handed Inside Better Ed, “Diversity Statements Are the New Faith Statements,” an emergent danger to tutorial freedom and mental honesty emerges. Professor of philosophy at modest, really-localized liberal arts Fort Lewis University in Durango, Colorado, Justin P. McBrayer is also a “writing fellow” at Heterodox Academy (HxA). In this statement, he contradicts reliable philosophers and genuine proponents of educational liberty and no cost speech.
As it brands itself on its site, HxA is neither heterodox nor an academy. It is an orthodoxy having difficulties to arise to the ideal of regular conservatism. It is the university-based mostly equal of Fire (Basis for Person Legal rights in Education), the defender of “free speech” for only people with whom only it agrees. This is not Free of charge Speech as the Initial Modification of the U.S. Constitution, the AAUP, the ACLU, or most universities and colleges define it. (I refer readers to HxA’s site and scan its website posts. They do not go through like a scholarly team.)
Even though serving as “writing fellow” of HxA, according to his personal site, McBrayer is also a dean of liberal arts and an instructor in philosophy, together with logic, ethics, and epistemology. His “new book” seems to be his only ebook. It is not a work of philosophy.
Despite his vital opinions on spiritual institutions’ “statements of religion,” his time at Fort Lewis College is inseparable from own and skilled spiritual functions like service on the Govt Committee of the Society of Christian Philosophers. The School site lists him as associate dean not dean.
As “writing fellow,” McBrayer presents himself as a representative of HxA. He is a promoter who violates recognized tactics of philosophical approach, logical interpretation and assessment, norms of rhetorical follow, uses of evidence, and scholarly honesty. In this, he speaks on behalf of the professed radical and anti-mental orthodoxy of HxA.
From the terms of his title, McBrayer violates the basic tenets of dependable intellectual daily life. Not only are the broad variety of diverse forms of “diversity statements” not a one or basic generalizable device, but they are not synonymous with “statements of faith.” That assertion can only be highly developed by disregarding all responsible evidence, engaging in untrue equivalencies and illogic, and committing a roster of unacceptable rhetorical tricks. To all intents and purposes, that is McBrayer’s and HxA modus operandi, a redefinition of philosophy: a leap from logic, scientific technique, and epistemology, to radical metaphysics and a new aged orthodoxy hardly ever read in the halls of respectable larger schooling. It bears no partnership to acknowledged tactics of tutorial freedom or free of charge speech.
Returning to HxA’s system for the politics of falsity, just one undefined generalization follows one more, hardly ever with systematic evidence or assessment. Rhetoric ranges from “When I was in graduate faculty and applying…. My programs fell into two piles….” He falsely distinguishes “religious” from “secular” institutions without having defining either or noting their several variations. He then entirely erases all distinctions. These are rhetorical online games not philosophical arguments.
McBrayer gives 4 short snippets from task descriptions with only very selective, very limited bits of quotations, two from non-public and two from public institutions. This does is not a foundation for generalization. The proof and the snippets frequently contradict just about every other. This is not philosophy practiced as satisfactory educational carry out.
In the conclude, McBrayer implies that visitors ought to accept his illogical, undocumented rhetorical “statements of faith” on no a lot more than faith. This only half-nod to systematic facts is one reference to an American Company Institute “report on DEI statements.” By alone, that can not be taken on both religion or as evidence about DEI.
Justin McBrayer, exactly where is your logician’s, methodologist’s, or simple text reader’s lens? “Diversity statements” do not “function like faith statements…. they” do not “function in similar techniques and have structurally comparable consequences.” Not even the AEI “report” helps make that argument.
You fill a whole web page with self-contradictory and proof-free of charge assertions about “all types of claims” with neither anecdotal nor much more required systematic evidence, obvious rhetoric of argumentation, and recognition of the elementary norms of scholarship and educational speech alone.
Or am I misreading you? Are you attempting a inadequately executed parody? Drawing on your personal rhetoric, may possibly I borrow your “dog whistle” to inquire “eminently” the solution to this semi-significant question?
–Harvey J. Graff
Professor Emeritus of English and Historical past and Ohio Eminent Scholar
Ohio Condition University
Supply website link