# data[].attributes.body
This release emphasized the "words mean whatever we want" and "false common ground" rhetoric strategies the most, with a sprinkle of the "cherry picking" strategy - the latter was, however, primarily used to take digs at President Biden and throw around fear tactics. If someone said these things to me, I would remind them as indelicately as possible of the history of higher education - I would ask them how they might interact with these things as they would actively impact their lives, if they feel that this decision would truly give them any additional power or influence. I would also remind people that many parts of DEI funding goes to serving first-generation and "underprivileged" students, who would, by it's typical definition, being chasing the American dream - and isn't that the very thing Cloud is arguing DEI gets in the way of? If you allow him to remove this support, how do you plan to maintain his commitment to ensuring taxpayer dollars help all American's, if you are removing funding from American's seeking to better themselevs and their family's opportunities?

# data[].attributes.body
I see most of the arguments being made in this article against DEI as falling in the category of "Don't trust the professionals, DEI has no value" and also "words mean whatever we want". Specifically the idea of pro-DEI ideas stemming from exclusion and also that DEI values don't really benefit anyone. This article suggests that DEI initiatives don't actually do anything to create diversity and refer to DEI as ideological conformity. In my opinion, being clear about definitions and also focusing on target audience would be most helpful in this situation. This article reads to me as someone who fundamentally misunderstands DEI and its goal so providing clarify on that at an institution level would be helpful. Additionally, this author has major issues with DEI that seem all over the place and so focusing time on those who do care and will support initiatives is a better use of time.

# data[].attributes.body
This overview of the roundtable "exposing" DEI in higher education feels utilizes strategies such as manipulating definitions, claiming that DEI is doing more harm than good by singling out minoritized populations, and equating DEI initiatives (and therefore Democrats) to the "evils" and un-American practices of socialism.

Some ways to combat this might be to ask why the participants believe socialism, practiced by our government through programs like Social Security and government subsidies for industries, are evil and anti-American; ask the participants' resources backing their claims; and asking about their understanding of how funding for these programs is currently allocated and will be reallocated in the future according to their "efforts".

# data[].attributes.body
If you chose to read / listen to something else, please include the title and link to it as well as the rest of the prompts!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The University of Michigan, one of the most prestigious public universities in the country, is suffering a crisis of governance. In the latest chapter of the unfolding saga, which, like that of many peer schools, involves heated demonstrations, uneven enforcement of campus rules, and accusations of bigotry and unfairness flying every direction, the school's Faculty Senate censured its regents for shutting down anti-Israel encampments and establishing an institutional-neutrality policy. Shortly after, the student government voted to impeach its avidly anti-Israel leadership for inciting violence against "Zionist members" of the student government.

It is hardly a new story. In fact, just a few weeks before the censure motion, The New York Times published a long article by Nicholas Confessore on the crisis created (or exacerbated) by diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at Michigan. If administrators and advocates across the country are willing to take seriously Confessore's article and the broader problems DEI ideology, echoed in the censure motion, creates in the academy and beyond, they will have to admit that by any metric, something has gone terribly wrong.

Ultimately, the problems highlighted in the article reflect a deeper truth: DEI is not "absolutely well intentioned, extremely thoughtful in its conception and design" yet "so virtuous that it's escaped accountability," as one Michigan Regent put it. Its entire premise is based on an unstable foundation. A system that prioritizes subjective experience above all else, while intentionally courting diverse members and insisting that each one cannot truly understand the other cannot create a cohesive, harmonious community. It creates discord and dysfunction.

DEI's inadequacy does not make diversity, with the friction it inevitably generates, a challenge too great to bear or impossible to address. It simply means that universities will have to approach the challenge of diversity from a perspective - that is, the university's own view of what its students are there - rather than from a posture of deference to any and all groups' stated perspectives.

Tal Fortgang is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

The University of Michigan, one of the most prestigious public universities in the country, is suffering a crisis of governance. In the latest chapter of the unfolding saga, which, like that of many peer schools, involves heated demonstrations, uneven enforcement of campus rules, and accusations of bigotry and unfairness flying every direction, the school's Faculty Senate censured its regents for shutting down anti-Israel encampments and establishing an institutional-neutrality policy. Shortly after, the student government voted to impeach its avidly anti-Israel leadership for inciting violence against "Zionist members" of the student government.

It is hardly a new story. In fact, just a few weeks before the censure motion, The New York Times published a long article by Nicholas Confessore on the crisis created (or exacerbated) by diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at Michigan. If administrators and advocates across the country are willing to take seriously Confessore's article and the broader problems DEI ideology, echoed in the censure motion, creates in the academy and beyond, they will have to admit that by any metric, something has gone terribly wrong.

Ultimately, the problems highlighted in the article reflect a deeper truth: DEI is not "absolutely well intentioned, extremely thoughtful in its conception and design" yet "so virtuous that it's escaped accountability," as one Michigan Regent put it. Its entire premise is based on an unstable foundation. A system that prioritizes subjective experience above all else, while intentionally courting diverse members and insisting that each one cannot truly understand the other cannot create a cohesive, harmonious community. It creates discord and dysfunction.

DEI's inadequacy does not make diversity, with the friction it inevitably generates, a challenge too great to bear or impossible to address. It simply means that universities will have to approach the challenge of diversity from a perspective - that is, the university's own view of what its students are there - rather than from a posture of deference to any and all groups' stated perspectives.

Tal Fortgang is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DEI can't be reformed. Universities should end it and return to their educational mission.

# data[].attributes.body
Link is through Archive.Today to avoid paywall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Governor Ron DeSantis Hosts Roundtable Exposing the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Scam in Higher Education | Executive Office of the Governor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To watch the roundtable discussion, click here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RELEASE: Rep. Cloud’s Dismantle DEI Act Passes Out of House Oversight Committee - Cloud

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congressman Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) bill, the Dismantle DEI Act, passed out of the House Oversight Committee on a party-line vote, 23-17. This legislation would eliminate divisive so-called “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) practices within the federal government and return to a colorblind, merit-based system in our taxpayer-funded institutions.