It is striking how banal the McCarthy-era loyalty oath sounds in 2025.
You know, the whole justification for tenure is to allow a faculty member to give a speech like this. You spoke the truth even though doing so was uncomfortable, even embarrassing, for the university. And you did so even though it was uncomfortable for you.
It is striking. I used to abhor those loyalty oaths. I remember that black and white(?) movie of Edward R Murrow(?) and Senator McCarthy, and how disgusted I was by those loyalty oaths. DEI woke loyalty oaths are worse by every measure I can think of. Loyalty oaths merely wanted you to promise to not overthrow the government or belong to a fringe political party which wanted to. DEI woke loyalty oaths want you to stop thinking. There are things worse than violating freedom of association.
First-rate, Bryan. I rarely post a comment on YouTube, but I did on this one. Really well done. And I agree with you that those three points above would have been great, especially the first one. I often used that in my class: "You want balance? When I look at what you learned in K-12 and as an undergraduate, you've seen so much of what I criticize. I AM the balance."
Monday morning quarterbacking, as you're doing above, is valuable: it helps you play better next Sunday.
“Why do I get to speak? I’m speaking because I was invited. But seriously, haven’t you already heard a hundred pro-DEI talks over the last 15 years? Do you truly want to hear the 101st? During those 15 years of orthodoxy, did GMU ever invite critics to speak, or even acknowledge that we’re alive? You want diversity and inclusion? I am the diversity. I am the inclusion.”
That would have been superb. Still, an excellent presentation
"Big Smile" The speaker's mind says to the speaker - ya shudda said this and not that - will happen to all who write their own material. It is a good thing.
On the surface, DEI is a poorly thought-out, ignoble idea, and then it gets worse. We think of the less qualified surgeon, lawyer, accountant, engineer, or pilot that we get stuck with as consumers of their services. BUT what about those admitted to a school with academic rigour, they cannot handle? What about all students accepted to a school or business who just can't handle the workload and fail or are fired? What about all of those who were promised rosy dreams and now have flunked out or been fired? What about them? What have we done to them?
Those who advocate for discrimination based on race are always going to be wrong. Doesn't matter how many times they try to verbal judo the meaning of "anti-racism" ; past wrongs don't justify current evils. The principle of justice says that people can only be rewarded or punished based on what they personally do.
I'd love to posit for them - would it be ok to sentence white prisoners in 2025 to life sentences to petty crimes to make up for Jim Crow in the 60s? How about freeing black killers to address wrongly convicted innocent black killers who were railroaded? How would any of that make sense?
But you'll do exactly that if it's a career. Or a school admission.
Bravo Bryan, fantastic speech. Very sad to hear the comment and see people showing signs while you were talking. If they had different ideas they should debate you and your ideas especially. Trying to oppose the person or trying to disqualify it is not a way to discuss in public.
"DEI is bigotry. If you give educational or employment advantages to some people because of immutable biological characteristics, you disadvantage people who don’t possess those characteristics. This is the definition of discrimination. DEI proponents are indistinguishable from bigots throughout history who wrapped their hatred and tribalism in supposed virtue.
The "pro-diversity/quotas/affirmative action/anti-white/anti-male" arguments are from people such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Robin DiAngelo, and Ibram X. Kendi. Their "critical race theory" and derivative arguments place racial conflict at the centre of every issue at the expense of race-neutral considerations like objective truth and human individuality. This includes asserting that hard work, delayed gratification, maths, and the written word are "aspects of whiteness" and don't apply to black/Black/colored people/People of Color/[insert latest term invented for self-aggrandisement]..."
"In reality, many meta-analyses have found null, mixed and negative effects for diversity of sex, race and ethnicity:
• In a series of very influential studies (2015; 2018; 2020; 2023) McKinsey reported statistically significant positive relations between DEI and company performance. Indeed, McKinsey is frequently credited for having led the wave of diversity initiatives in the West. However, they appear to have fabricated their data. A paper published in March 2024 in Econ Journal Watch found that McKinsey's results could not be replicated: ''Our inability to [replicate] their results suggests that ... they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.'' https://econjwatch.org/articles/mckinsey-s-diversity-matters-delivers-wins-results-revisited / Matt Walsh's commentary: "What This DEI Consulting Firm Lied About Is Actually Evil", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imLMG7C6oF4
• Does diversity make teams work better? Apparently not! A new, comprehensive preregistered meta-analysis found that, whether the diversity was demographic, cognitive, or occupational, its relationship with performance was near-zero. The paper paints an unsupportive picture of the idea that diversity increases teams performance. Wallrich, Lukas, Victoria Opara, Miki Wesołowska, Ditte Barnoth, and Sayeh Yousefi. "The relationship between team diversity and team performance: reconciling promise and reality through a comprehensive meta-analysis registered report." (2024). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nscd4
• "Diversity is simply a political theory favored by advocates of identity politics. Its origins still define it. "Science" has ever since been playing catch-up-trying to supply a scientific foundation for what is a political objective. The primary function of the business case is to lend a veneer of scientific respectability to the political program of affirmative action for women and non-whites. The scientific evidence does not support the claims made by advocates of diversity in the workplace." Source: Maitland, I. (2018). Why the business case for diversity is wrong. Geo. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 16, 731, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/in-print/volume-16-special-issue-2018/why-the-business-case-for-diversity-is-wrong/
• "The DEI view of justice turns out to be fundamentally incorrect.[…] Long story short: In the First World, the primary cause of unequal success is not unfair treatment, but unequal performance — and the main exception to this rule is mandatory discrimination driven by the ideology of DEI itself. This is all pretty obvious, but DEI uses severe intimidation to make unbelievers feign assent. Which is, by the way, highly unjust.” https://www.betonit.ai/p/gmus-orwellian-just-societies-requirement"
Feel free to copy, share, etc. - and please do let me know (by way of reply to this comment) if you have resources you can recommend that I add.
In this post, I pull together articles critical of DEI — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives. This is not a “balanced” review — advocacy for DEI has been everywhere for the last 5-10 years, so presumably, most of you have been exposed to the ideas of those who advocate it. This is a long post, and provided mainly as reference material, so I first summarize its key points.
It is striking how banal the McCarthy-era loyalty oath sounds in 2025.
You know, the whole justification for tenure is to allow a faculty member to give a speech like this. You spoke the truth even though doing so was uncomfortable, even embarrassing, for the university. And you did so even though it was uncomfortable for you.
It is striking. I used to abhor those loyalty oaths. I remember that black and white(?) movie of Edward R Murrow(?) and Senator McCarthy, and how disgusted I was by those loyalty oaths. DEI woke loyalty oaths are worse by every measure I can think of. Loyalty oaths merely wanted you to promise to not overthrow the government or belong to a fringe political party which wanted to. DEI woke loyalty oaths want you to stop thinking. There are things worse than violating freedom of association.
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
First-rate, Bryan. I rarely post a comment on YouTube, but I did on this one. Really well done. And I agree with you that those three points above would have been great, especially the first one. I often used that in my class: "You want balance? When I look at what you learned in K-12 and as an undergraduate, you've seen so much of what I criticize. I AM the balance."
Monday morning quarterbacking, as you're doing above, is valuable: it helps you play better next Sunday.
“Why do I get to speak? I’m speaking because I was invited. But seriously, haven’t you already heard a hundred pro-DEI talks over the last 15 years? Do you truly want to hear the 101st? During those 15 years of orthodoxy, did GMU ever invite critics to speak, or even acknowledge that we’re alive? You want diversity and inclusion? I am the diversity. I am the inclusion.”
That would have been superb. Still, an excellent presentation
"Big Smile" The speaker's mind says to the speaker - ya shudda said this and not that - will happen to all who write their own material. It is a good thing.
On the surface, DEI is a poorly thought-out, ignoble idea, and then it gets worse. We think of the less qualified surgeon, lawyer, accountant, engineer, or pilot that we get stuck with as consumers of their services. BUT what about those admitted to a school with academic rigour, they cannot handle? What about all students accepted to a school or business who just can't handle the workload and fail or are fired? What about all of those who were promised rosy dreams and now have flunked out or been fired? What about them? What have we done to them?
bravissimo !
Seldom agree with your takes, Mr. Caplan, but that doesn't stop me respecting them. And this one I am fully onboard with.
You are a hero. God bless you for doing this.
Well done, sir.
Those who advocate for discrimination based on race are always going to be wrong. Doesn't matter how many times they try to verbal judo the meaning of "anti-racism" ; past wrongs don't justify current evils. The principle of justice says that people can only be rewarded or punished based on what they personally do.
I'd love to posit for them - would it be ok to sentence white prisoners in 2025 to life sentences to petty crimes to make up for Jim Crow in the 60s? How about freeing black killers to address wrongly convicted innocent black killers who were railroaded? How would any of that make sense?
But you'll do exactly that if it's a career. Or a school admission.
What's the difference?
Bravo Bryan, fantastic speech. Very sad to hear the comment and see people showing signs while you were talking. If they had different ideas they should debate you and your ideas especially. Trying to oppose the person or trying to disqualify it is not a way to discuss in public.
Thanks for doing this.
Maybe signs do change minds, or at least behaviors, to the degree that some sheep follow the herd.
Those protestors behind you don't look too...ya know, diverse.
Congrats on your courage and the precision of your argument.
So great!
Thanks for speaking out.
In case of interest/use to people, I've compiled anti-DEI resources here: https://controlc.com/c4fa8aba
Excerpts:
"DEI is bigotry. If you give educational or employment advantages to some people because of immutable biological characteristics, you disadvantage people who don’t possess those characteristics. This is the definition of discrimination. DEI proponents are indistinguishable from bigots throughout history who wrapped their hatred and tribalism in supposed virtue.
The "pro-diversity/quotas/affirmative action/anti-white/anti-male" arguments are from people such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Robin DiAngelo, and Ibram X. Kendi. Their "critical race theory" and derivative arguments place racial conflict at the centre of every issue at the expense of race-neutral considerations like objective truth and human individuality. This includes asserting that hard work, delayed gratification, maths, and the written word are "aspects of whiteness" and don't apply to black/Black/colored people/People of Color/[insert latest term invented for self-aggrandisement]..."
"In reality, many meta-analyses have found null, mixed and negative effects for diversity of sex, race and ethnicity:
• In a series of very influential studies (2015; 2018; 2020; 2023) McKinsey reported statistically significant positive relations between DEI and company performance. Indeed, McKinsey is frequently credited for having led the wave of diversity initiatives in the West. However, they appear to have fabricated their data. A paper published in March 2024 in Econ Journal Watch found that McKinsey's results could not be replicated: ''Our inability to [replicate] their results suggests that ... they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.'' https://econjwatch.org/articles/mckinsey-s-diversity-matters-delivers-wins-results-revisited / Matt Walsh's commentary: "What This DEI Consulting Firm Lied About Is Actually Evil", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imLMG7C6oF4
• Does diversity make teams work better? Apparently not! A new, comprehensive preregistered meta-analysis found that, whether the diversity was demographic, cognitive, or occupational, its relationship with performance was near-zero. The paper paints an unsupportive picture of the idea that diversity increases teams performance. Wallrich, Lukas, Victoria Opara, Miki Wesołowska, Ditte Barnoth, and Sayeh Yousefi. "The relationship between team diversity and team performance: reconciling promise and reality through a comprehensive meta-analysis registered report." (2024). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nscd4
• "Diversity is simply a political theory favored by advocates of identity politics. Its origins still define it. "Science" has ever since been playing catch-up-trying to supply a scientific foundation for what is a political objective. The primary function of the business case is to lend a veneer of scientific respectability to the political program of affirmative action for women and non-whites. The scientific evidence does not support the claims made by advocates of diversity in the workplace." Source: Maitland, I. (2018). Why the business case for diversity is wrong. Geo. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 16, 731, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/in-print/volume-16-special-issue-2018/why-the-business-case-for-diversity-is-wrong/
• "The DEI view of justice turns out to be fundamentally incorrect.[…] Long story short: In the First World, the primary cause of unequal success is not unfair treatment, but unequal performance — and the main exception to this rule is mandatory discrimination driven by the ideology of DEI itself. This is all pretty obvious, but DEI uses severe intimidation to make unbelievers feign assent. Which is, by the way, highly unjust.” https://www.betonit.ai/p/gmus-orwellian-just-societies-requirement"
Feel free to copy, share, etc. - and please do let me know (by way of reply to this comment) if you have resources you can recommend that I add.
Lee Jussim: The Downsides of DEI. March 30, 2025
A Compendium of Resources
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-downsides-of-dei
In this post, I pull together articles critical of DEI — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives. This is not a “balanced” review — advocacy for DEI has been everywhere for the last 5-10 years, so presumably, most of you have been exposed to the ideas of those who advocate it. This is a long post, and provided mainly as reference material, so I first summarize its key points.