From WUNC, North Carolina Public Radio: UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees votes to divert DEI funding, redirecting it to campus public safety
From WUNC, North Carolina Public Radio:
The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees has voted to divert $2.3 million away from diversity, equity and inclusion programs and into “public safety.”
The unanimous vote occurred at a special Board of Trustees meeting Monday morning. It is unclear if the diversion of funds would lead to layoffs.
Marty Kotis is vice chair of the board’s budget and finance committee, which initially introduced and passed the “flex cut amendment.” Without citing specific examples, he called DEI programs “discriminatory and divisive.”
“I think that DEI in a lot of people’s minds is divisiveness, exclusion and indoctrination,” Kotis said. “We need more unity and togetherness, more dialogue, more diversity of thought.”
Obvious comment is obvious: Defund DEI.Report
This is the right move, all public universities should follow suit.Report
Without Googling, are you aware of what exactly is going to not happen at Chapel Hill next year, that is happening this year?Report
I’m sorry, I googled before I commented so I guess I lose the game.Report
Can you offer us some examples?
It could be that I will agree with the changes since I already agree that much of what passes for HR diversity stuff is really just bureaucratic butt-covering and lip service without any effort to make actual progress.
On the other hand, I also am cautious because of the recent history of “We need to get rid of PORNOGRAPHY IN SCHOOLS” only to have people ban pride flags and a story about two penguins.
So since you’ve actually done some research, maybe you can help us out here.Report
The reporting suggests that the result will be lots of DEI administrative positions no longer being funded and therefore disappearing from the university. To me that is the correct solution to this issue. You don’t need (or want) someone like Chris Rufo taking over the college and applying conservative culture war to everything. You just want schools to stop employing people whose whole job seems to be going around policing student and professor speech and sex lives and what have you. Firing the people that do that sounds like a good way to accomplish the goal without veering into some other form of stupidity.Report
Given that administrative bloat is a serious problem in higher education I support cutting administrative staff wherever possible.
Does anyone here know what measurable effect on student or faculty these DEI administrators have had, and which will no longer be had?Report
By that measure half the administration can be let go. And probably should be.Report
So…
What I’m gathering in this conversation is that when students and faculty return in the fall, no one will be able to see or experience any changes as a result of this policy, other than a few administrators will be missing.
Which seems odd, right?
Like, if DEI is such a pernicious and destructive force, one would expect something more dramatic.Report
When all you have is costuming, everything becomes theatre.Report
What people do or don’t notice is a pretty tough way to measure anything. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a benefit to a more hands off approach to student life, and fostering a less overbearing environment where people work out more of their personal issues on their own.Report
Like, if a group of students surround a guy wearing a yarmulke and demand to know if he is a Zionist, will the administration take a “hands off” approach and let them “work out their personal issues”?Report
I think it’s the pro DEI side that needs to account for its adherents believing that they are exempt from generally applicable criminal laws, not the anti-DEI side. But hey assuming it falls short of whatever NC’s definition of assault is in the criminal code then sure, ask away. And the yarmulke wearer should be free to ask whatever uncomfortable questions he might be interested in knowing the answer to, or in the alternative, just walking away.Report
Is this different than what would happen today?
I mean, I’m struggling here to find some actual change that will happen, and so far coming up empty.
Which if true, leaves a lot for the pro and anti-DEI partisans to explain.
Like, if it was so beneficial to have, why will no one miss it if it is gone?
And if it is so destructive, why will no one miss it if it is gone?
Was this always just theater?Report
I think a lot of it, though not all, very likely always was and has been theater. I also think when talking about the subject you probably have to do a caveat that an Ivy isn’t a SLAC, which isn’t U of State, which isn’t State U and so on down the chain. I don’t know anything about the status quo with DEI at UNC specifically. If there wasn’t much there to begin with then of course getting rid of its administrators would be less impactful to the day to day experience than if there was a lot.
To me this entire issue has always boiled down to a matter of whether and to what extent the authorities at the university were putting their fingers on the scale. Everyone gets their fingers off the scale and for me the debate goes away.Report
But lets expand this to all universities, and for that matter, all corporations.
If DEI were to vanish tonight, what sort of things would be different when people walk in the doors tomorrow?
Like, lets just toss out a few examples.Report
It would probably take a full post to really dig into this.* Things I’d hope to see by elimination of a university DEI program are:
-no discipline or other sanctions against students or professors merely for expressing an opinion in an appropriate forum, like a class room, while complying with the rules of the forum
-no mandatory diversity statements or required endorsements of any particular political or other stances by professors or students
-no more university sex police, if there’s a suspected crime call the cops (as a Title IX issue this may not strictly fall within DEI but you asked for my ideal so I am sharing)
-no more officially or unofficially endorsed hecklers vetos, protest outside all you want, but any interference no matter the issue is not tolerated or rationalized
-no special treatment for identity based studies or extra influence granted to their worldview in decision making of any sort, particularly, hiring and firing decisions or with respect to student life (note I’m not saying they have to go away, that would also be illiberal to me, just that they aren’t special or due any special deference)
I’m sure there are other things I could think of, but note, this list is all about what I think should stop happening, to the extent it is, not things I think should start happening. I would love it if public universities officially endorsed political neutrality but that is a much bigger debate than DEI.
*I’m also taking for granted here that SCOTUS has done away with race based consideration in admissions, to the extent you could call that DEI. I agree with getting rid of it, but I concede it is also a much larger legal and political issue.Report
OK this is a good place to start.
So starting at #1; Are these examples of people punished for expressing an opinion?
And as I have documented so many times before, everyone including you agrees that there are acceptable boundaries on speech, and acceptable forms of censure or punishment, depending on what speech we’re talking about.
#2 Again, what sort of statements are we talking about here?
Is it more “I promise to respect all faiths” or is it more like “I swear allegiance to Joe Biden”?
#3 This sounds pretty good actually; Universities shouldn’t be investigating crimes.
#4 I like the idea of a rule forbidding heckling.
#5 I honestly have no idea what this is about in practice.Report
Chip: #2 Again, what sort of statements are we talking about here?
There are Universities where resumes which don’t include a pledge to increase DEI aren’t considered for employment.
As a matter of policy, the DEI adherents in HR don’t forward the resumes to the appropriate department.Report
If you are asked to submit X for your application, and you choose not to submit X then why would you expect to have your application forwarded?Report
If you’re applying to be a professor of engineering then “devoted to DEI” is not one of the requirements.
Why should devotion to a seriously flawed ideology be one of the U’s top priorities?
And this jars pretty seriously with Chip’s entire “it’s not proven to have any effect”.
Picture Universities hiring people based on their horoscopes. “He’s sub-standard in every way but he’s an Aquarius, he’s what we want”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion#Mandatory_diversity_statements_within_academiaReport
Again when you just use the nebulous phrase “increase DEI”, it can mean different things.
I’ll stipulate without evidence that most universities only accept resumes from people who say they will strive to have a diverse set of viewpoints and voices, because this seems innocuous and worth supporting even if it is really just happy talk.
What would be your example of a bad version of demanding a prospective hire “increase DEI”?
Like, demanding they use that exact phrase? or something else?Report
I think the applicability really depends on how far any institution has gone with (or really against) some of these concepts. There’s all kinds of anecdata I’ve come across about each that I listed, some (like at FIRE) better documented than others. It seems like the most off the rails are the Ivies and other private institutions which also have the most freedom to do what they want. What I think should be happening is public universities deciding that they won’t go there, and to the extent they have in some ways or another, backing off from it. Hence my original comment, which I stand by, even if at the end of the day not much is changing at UNC.Report
This seems like vaporous game of motte and bailey, like a desperate search for standing where no one can manage to tell us what harm was caused or to who.Report
I would say it is operating within the constraints of the OT comment section. I can’t add a bunch of links without it getting stuck in the filter. Even if I could it opens up the question of how many links it would take for you to agree with me that this constitutes an issue worth having an opinion on. Ten? Twenty?
One hundred?
A post on the subject might be able to advance it but I have yet to see a battle of the links result in anything productive. I just try to participate in good faith.Report
Can we measure the harm done by getting rid of DEI?
That might be a good measuring stick of how much and what kind of good it’s doing.Report
Why you asking me? This was just my original question.Report
What’s the argument for the reason we should keep it?
It’s not “it does so much obvious good!”
Is it a jobs program?Report
I think the issue with #3 is that this means the victim and perpetrator are going to be on the same campus until the the criminal matter is resolved. I guess they assume anybody on college accused of sexual assault will be able to get bail and would be out and about during the trial. In order to prevent this, you have the university determine if there is enough evidence to kick the perp out.Report
Those are good points.
I withdraw my comment on #3.Report
See I can’t make you google around on this, but what if I told you there were hundreds of lawsuits over the process, and a decent number where the courts held that the process was so bad it violated the civil rights of the accused? Or where the alleged victim actually said the sex acts were consensual but the school sanctioned anyway?
I’m not saying there’s no room for nuance on where to set the policy. But I would say there is a real issue here, even if it is hard to substantiate in the context of an OT comment.Report
I won’t even need to see the suits to acknowledge that colleges have a hard time balancing the rights of the accused and the protection of their students because, well, even courts of law have a hard time doing the same.
Since sexual harassment/ assault typically happens in private with only the two parties involved, how could it be otherwise? This is why most sexual assaults go unreported in the first place.
It would seem odd, wouldn’t it, if an accusation was lodged and the administration crossed its arms and refused to do anything whatsoever, until a courtroom verdict was rendered.
That doesn’t happen anywhere. Not in private businesses or churches or institutions.
Imagine if the Catholic Church held to this standard!
I would strongly support a more robust set of safeguards for colleges to follow, but I don’t see any way that they aren’t going to be involved in policing the behavior of students on their campuses.Report
Sure. Any accusation of a violent felony is going to have repercussions. That’s just life, and there’s nothing to be done about that regardless of outcome. However a common feature of a lot of these lawsuits is the university never actually contacting the authorities. Or the authorities investigating and being unable to substantiate the occurrence of a crime. However an internal DEI (or civil rights, or whatever) apparatus at the university has nevertheless sanctioned and administrators have run shoddy, ideological investigations that sabotage any possible exoneration by the authorities.
Now, to your point, there will, and must always be a response to crime on campus. What there doesn’t need to be are DEI inspired bureaucrats and bureaucracies with fingers on scales.Report
So, lets agree that universities should contact authorities and run qualified, non-ideological investigations.
That seems reasonable.Report
I would cosign on that.Report
So your operating assumption is that formal DEI programs are a thumb on the scale to something you believe is harmful?
Fascinating.Report
What fascinates you exactly?Report
That you see them as “bad” – which I know is along held belief of yours; and that you thus conclude they are somehow a thumb on a scale. As opposed to a real chance for people to do and be better.Report
I don’t believe they’ve earned that authority and have strong doubts that they would know the first thing about how to actually teach someone to be better. Also these are civil servants we’re talking about here, not priests or pastors who at least aspire to that sort of role, whether they live up to it or not.Report
And once again you manage to insult me and my colleagues. Thanks.
The DEI practitioners I have worked with in the federal government and university spaces are – to a person – are both dedicated individuals seeking to leave the world a better place AND well trained by both life experience and formal academic degrees to do the work. The EEO lead for my cylinder of my agency is a black woman who is both a degreed lawyer and a degreed pastor. Strikes me she has a LOT to teach me as a priviledged white man about how to make the world better through how I do my work.
Is every one who does DEI work that dedicated or educated? Probably not. Just like there are degrees of competence in the legal profession, there are degrees of competence in DEI as well. But to blanket toss the entire enterprise on the basis of that variation in expertise – well we haven’t canned lawyers thusly . . .Report
See, this is the importance of POSIWID.
It doesn’t matter what the intentions are. It doesn’t matter if the people are dedicated. It doesn’t matter how much training they’ve had.
The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does.Report
POSIWID is used in engineering circles, but as a wry joke.
It is a joke because it is unfalsifiable.
Like, a warning light burns out and a system fails.
Well, the system was designed to fail since the system didn’t have a backup.
OK, the system is changed to install a backup.
But this time the operator doesn’t see it in time and the system fails.
Well, the system was designed to fail since there wasn’t a second operator to watch the first one.
OK so a second operator is installed.
Next time the operator sees the malfunction but takes the wrong course of action.
Well, the system was designed to fail because there wasn’t the proper training…
And so on and so on infinitely.
All systems are designed to have a failure mode. That’s literally how they are intended to function, that all parts of the system have finite capacity and ability and a failure point.Report
No, you’re misunderstanding.
It’s not “unfalsifiable”, it’s a systems thinking heuristic that takes as an axiom that “there is no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do.”
If you can get the machine to work with properly trained engineers, then the machine works.
If the machine never works and the engineers are never trained, it becomes fair to ask “wait, what’s the point?”
Because maybe the point is to waste money.Report
And if the machine works but the engineers are not trained, or vice versa then what?Report
In this instance, I’m going to need concrete examples of the machine working rather than a detailed explanation of what it says in the brochure.Report
In which case this doesn’t have any applicability to political systems like DEI since there isn’t any way to assign an outcome (“what it does”) to a system.
We can see that right here in this exchange, where no one can manage to tell us what outcome Chapel Hill’s DEI system is producing.Report
So there isn’t a way to measure whether DEI is even beneficial in the first place?Report
I haven’t seen much evidence of it being beneficial or harmful.
Have you?Report
Seems like a waste of money more than anything else. Corporate (butt)-covering.
To the extent that it wastes money that could be better spent on caffeine for the breakroom, I’d say that it qualifies as “mildly harmful”.Report
Corporate butt-covering is an accepted, or at least tolerated, and often highly-paid, function across a wide variety of areas. Maybe all or most of it should be gotten rid of. But for some reason DEI is in the cross-hairs by itself.Report
For something that is only “”mildly harmful” it sure generates a lot of hysterical fireworks and gets a lot of people elected.
Makes one wonder what the purpose of this system really is.Report
Well, I think that that’s because, in this case, the DEI agents at the school are not helping the school cover their butts but helping the students best phrase “I’m being oppressed!” when they are asked to stop camping in the quad.Report
Did we read the same story? If so, I missed that.Report
It was in this part:
If you want to argue that the DEI department has nothing to do with supporting the protests, I suppose I’d agree… but the people voting to Defund seem to think that there is overlap and until I hear from someone who knows better than the people there on the ground, I’ll be willing to take their word for it.
Do you have any additional information?Report
No, it wasn’t “in this part.” I don’t plan on looking for “additional information” until someone provides “information” in the first instance.Report
The guys explaining why they voted to Defund specifically named the Palestinian protests.Report
So?Report
If you want to argue that the DEI department has nothing to do with supporting the protests, I suppose I’d agree… but the people voting to Defund seem to think that there is overlap and until I hear from someone who knows better than the people there on the ground, I’ll be willing to take their word for it.
Do you have any additional information?Report
If the people who voted to defund made that connection nothing in the article doesn’t say so.
Do you have any information?Report
Just what it says in the article. Here, I’ll copy and paste it again and add emphasis this time.
Report
Typography doesn’t change what the article says, or add what it doesn’t say.Report
So you feel that the journalists just threw that in there without any intention of it reflecting what the people who voted to Defund had as their motivation? Something about as relevant as the dinner order of the guys on the board the night they held the vote? Their preferred vacation spots for the summer after they held the vote?
It’s an article about the UNC Board of Trustees holding a vote on defunding DEI and giving the funds to the campus cops instead.
I think that a paragraph discussing the stuff that they came out and said is relevant to the vote.
If it is not, this is a case of journalistic malpractice.
I’m not opposed to saying that NPR is engaging in journalistic malpractice, mind…
But I’m going to need you to make that argument.
As it stands, I’m pleased to take their statements as relevant to their motivations.
Until I hear from someone who knows better than the people there on the ground, I’ll be willing to take NPR’s word for it.
Do you have any additional information that is better or more relevant than that provided by NPR?Report
We don’t have “NPR’s word for it.” What we have is you saying: “in this case, the DEI agents at the school are not helping the school cover their butts but helping the students best phrase “I’m being oppressed!” when they are asked to stop camping in the quad.” The article doesn’t support either that that happened, which you seem to agree with, or that the defunders thought that happened, let alone that it motivated their vote. People say random s**t when discussing serious business all the time, whether relevant to the matter at hand or not. Reporting random s**t said at public meetings is not journalistic malpractice. After all, reporters quote Trump. And this isn’t entirely random s**t. They did reallocate the funds to campus security, so discussion of campus disruption is certainly relevant to that. You are the one who made up a connection between an apparently non-existent event and the board’s action, not NPR.Report
Universities have been pressured to clean up antisemitism by various political masters.
They have a department which is (according to wiki) devoted to creating antisemitism.
The first fact doesn’t have to be related to the second, but they probably are.Report
Chip: I haven’t seen much evidence of it being beneficial or harmful.
Bouncing resumes because of their lack of devotion to a religion is a problem.
Hiring/firing based on skin color is a problem.
Telling minorities they can’t succeed because their own efforts don’t matter is a problem.
Wasted resources is a problem and means hiring expenses, tuition, or other costs. My company is going to pass our DEI costs down to our customers, you won’t recognize them.Report
This is where this starts to sound like a moral panic instead of a sober assessment.
Oh, we got trouble;
Right here at Universi-tee;
With a capital D
followed by E
Ending with I!
Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble….
Like, some documentation of these charges would be nice.Report
Chip: Like, some documentation of these charges would be nice
That wasted resources result in higher costs being passed down to consumers is a math thing.
The rest of it is basically from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion#Criticism_and_controversy
We could add, DEI consistently sees Jews as “oppressors” so it’s going to contribute to antisemitism.
It’s super focus on equality of outcomes opposes the concept of equality under the law.
Claiming that it’s worthless and has no effect isn’t a great reason to then claim it should have a share of educational and fiscal resources.
What are the good things that it does to justify it’s share of public dollars?Report
“That wasted resources result in higher costs being passed down to consumers is a math thing.”
You’re not wrong BUT we’re talking about about $2M in a school with a budget of $4.2B and enrollment pushing 30K. It’s about $70/student per year. That isn’t zero but it seems like this is much less about saving money and much more about optics.
These figures could be different if that is the mere baseline budget for the office and they have the ability to spend additional funds. I couldn’t find that info.Report
Kazzy: we’re talking about about $2M in a school with a budget of $4.2B
That’s just the start. They’re going to be imposing costs that the rest of the system will pay.
They’re going to need IT support, office space (facilities, maintenance, maybe even a building), parking, and so on.
They’re also going to be insisting on giving training to everyone and focusing the rest of the administration on DEI. That’s their actual job.
At my company we had an entire off-site day for my entire unit devoted to this stuff. That’s a 0.4% loss to every member of my organization plus whatever the non-trivial off site charges were, and we were just doing the minimum.
This is going to range between a percent or two for a low end group to double that.
That’s just overhead. If they have star chamber legal inquisitions then the U’s legal fees wills be a thing because “legal” will get involved. If they’re allowed to get involved in employment then that will be sub-optimal.Report
It’s pure cost with little upside in the private sector. This is why on the general thread I said it’s better to just do the simple module reminding everyone who hasn’t gotten the memo not to sing rap songs with the N bomb in the break room or do your best Joe Biden impression with the admin assistant. You then terminate people who for whatever reason still can’t figure it out. There’s no reason to build this whole ecosystem.Report
I gotta think the stuff you mentioned in the second paragraph is included in their budget.Report
The office exists already.Report
Jews fall into an interesting place in the DEI-Intersectional community. During the past several months, several people within the community fundamentally don’t get Jewish identity or even see Jews as basically white people cosplaying as a minority.
My guess is that this is because Jews are associated with being rich or at least affluent, so Jewish individuals, families, organizations trying to preserve and pass down Jewish traditions seems more like a country club than an activist activity. Asian-Americans can get this to but obviously don’t code as white that much.
Another factor is the sort of traditions that Jews are trying to preserve and pass down really don’t fall in the fabric, festival, and food framework. There aren’t colorful Jewish folk costumes, dances, and rituals that provide for shareable moments. A lot of it is much more bookish and intense. Contrast this with Islam, which codes as non-white and as modesty clothing that seems more exotic than the type of modesty clothing worn by Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews, which is either conservative Western clothing or something from late 18th century Eastern Europe. Definitely less cool.Report
Philip: Strikes me she has a LOT to teach me as a privileged white man about how to make the world better through how I do my work.
What do you do?
And what did you change because of her?
My company had all engineers go through training on the importance of not using lead.
Lots of efforts, training, documentation of training, and so on. However for all that, the amount of lead in my software was zero even before the training.
It’s not that I don’t think removing lead is important, that’s not the problem.Report
I “do” underwater autonomous vehicles. I also “do” program management. And Oceanography. All of which require me to interact with other humans, often in the close confines of a ship. She – and the contractors and staff she hires to present said DEI training – are very good at helping me (and anyone else who cares) to see how our interactions impact others and exclude or reinforce exclusion of groups that have historically not been allowed to be scientists in the first place. Makes me a better human.Report
Now it is my turn to say I find it fascinating that you would find what I said insulting when it wasn’t at all meant to be (and I sincerely mean that, no sarcasm). I don’t see anything wrong with being a civil servant. Back before law school I had a federal gig so technically was one myself.
My point was that civil servants have a specifically mandated job to do in service to the public. What is critical though is that their role is to serve within the scope of their mandate, preferably with great humility. Not to try to use state power to turn people into whatever their definition of a better person is. It’s crazy to me to think that such a thing is within the providence of the state to begin with.Report
We civil servants aspire to public service. In my case a as fed I also aspire to protect the constitution. given that service is our goal, suggesting that we aren’t incentivized the same way as pastors or priests (who let’s face it are increasingly being shown to be just as “fallen” as their flocks) is to suggest we are not driven by any such pure principal.Report
I am really confused. I would think it was quite clear that people employed by the secular state are not to approach their roles the way a pastor or priest would. I don’t see how the constitution could be interpreted in any other way.Report
I have pastors in my immediate family. They are all called to their profession.
Ditto most civil servants. They truly see themselves making the world a better place through their actions of service within the government construct. Sure some of them are just there for the paycheck. But frankly some pastors are just there for the paycheck too.
My desire to understand the oceans, and thus my choice of the work I do within the state is rooted in unlocking mysteries for my fellow citizens (mysteries with all sorts of benefits) AND my read of the Christian Scripture I was raised with. Just as my political activism here and elsewhere is rooted in my faith. That you would encounter such – probably daily – and dismiss it as somehow less then or not as worthy as is where the insult lies.Report
None of this is intended as a challenge to your personal faith or suggest it prohibits you from doing your job. Just an observation about the limits of what a civil servant can do when interacting with the public or using state authority.Report
Yes – and the worst example I can think of was a certain town clerk denying lawful marriage certificates to gay people due to her religion. DEI isn’t that however.Report
If you don’t mind me butting in, InMD and Philip H, you’re talking about different things. I’m not positive what, for either of you, but it couldn’t hurt to figure out what the other one is talking about.Report
I guess it got convoluted. But I really only have two points.
Point 1, is that DEI is not something that can ever make someone ‘be better.’ The best case of it is an anodyne and kind of silly, rote exercise on what the law is, that for better or worse is a required part of mitigating legal liability for an organization. The worst case of it is a pseudo religion run by grifters and fanatics operating under theories so reductive they may well be more racist than the problems they are nominally intended to address. Either way and across the spectrum, this is not the stuff self improvement is made of.
Point 2. I do not think it is the job of civil servants to make people ‘be better’. It’s just to do the job set out for them. Maybe there is some room for some nuance on this in the sense that learning to read or add is self betterment, and it’s fine that the public sector does that, but that’s not what DEI is nor is it what the dean of whatever is in fact doing in a university.
That’s it as plainly as I can put it.Report
I think government service can be a calling. But there are very few professions I wouldn’t think that of. And I wouldn’t assume that someone in any profession treats it like a calling, or is necessarily called to it.Report
Yes, you’re confused. Pastors and priests can perform government functions or serve as consultants. (At least as long as their own religion’s House Rules don’t say otherwise.) They can’t proselytize, or preach, but as long as they stick to their secular knitting on the job, the mere fact of their being pastors or priests, or being driven by their religion’s teachings to perform the kind of secular government work they are called upon to perform, there is no constitutional problem. If they think that what they are doing is for the greater glory of Zeus, that is their private business as long as they follow the secular rule book when doing their jobs. Kim Davis was confused too.Report
I’m just going to quote you and say I am in complete agreement with the below. I am also going to say I have no idea how it applies to what I said, which was that people employed by the secular state should not approach that job like a priest or pastor. Which involves stuff like proselytizing. And preaching. And the inherent conflict such an approach would have to the, as you put it, secular knitting. The word approach is critical here.
They can’t proselytize, or preach, but as long as they stick to their secular knitting on the job, the mere fact of their being pastors or priests, or being driven by their religion’s teachings to perform the kind of secular government work they are called upon to perform, there is no constitutional problem. Report
If you say you don’t know how it applies, I suppose I have to believe you.Report
So let me get this straight then. You…. do think that proselytizing personal beliefs and preaching is something civil servants should do as part of their work? But they should also not do what Kim Davis did? Because speaking of knitting, that’s one hell of a needle to thread.Report
No. But if you know any serious clerics, you’d know that proselytizing and preaching are only a small part of their religious mission. They can do secular work because they believe, for example, that Zeus wants them to serve their fellow men and women in that way, or because doing this kind of service reflects greater glory on Zeus. Zeus may know their hearts; we don’t have to. They can have the most fervent, religious motives for the secular work they do. The DMV clerk who efficiently and politely serves DMV customers may, in his mind and heart, be doing Zeus’s work, and we profit from his devotion. As long as he keeps it between him and Zeus.Report
is to suggest we are not driven by any such pure principal.
Maybe you’re merely somewhere in the ballpark of being as pure as pastors and priests.Report
I think the whole idea of an Enlightenment representative government presupposes that each actor is supposed to be acting for the common good but no actor is to be assumed to be acting for the common good. It’s good that government workers aspire to goodness, but they can’t be trusted any more than any other party.Report
That’s a very interesting hypothetical.
It seems like one that would benefit from a somewhat well-funded Campus Public Safety department.Report
“All it does is waste money! What’s your problem with it? Also, we should pay off student debt.”Report
I think the bigger takeaway is that the redirected funds will be going to more policing. Not exactly the mission of a university.Report
In a state where the leading GOP candidate for governor is an openly racist black man I guess anything goes . . . .Report
Interesting to me at least: None of the board members have any background in education (at least not that I can tell based on the bios on the school website).Report
Also interesting to me: The school has a budget pushing $4.2B. If my math is right, this is .05% of the budget.Report
Unity and togetherness are hard to achieve with diversity of thought. Safety is not increased by removing tough concepts or unpopular ideas from the venue. Strength will not be measured by the number of gun toting people an organization employs.
This is theatre – its designed to make the University look like it’s doing SOMETHING. But it will do nothing to make UNC “safer.”Report