Inclusion Means Excluding White Males|
August 22, 2013
Dear Chancellor Miller:
On May 9, you announced that you were initiating a process to "rethink" our
university's approach to diversity and inclusion. Then, on August 16, you
announced that eleven individuals agreed to serve on your Chancellor’s Committee
on Diversity and Inclusion. For the following reasons, I find the composition of
the committee to be deeply problematic.
1. Your inclusion committee is 0% white male. I have written three books
dealing with campus diversity issues. I have been invited to speak on issues of
diversity (largely ideological) at 78 college campuses. Over the last ten years,
I have written nearly 900 columns, the majority of which have dealt with
diversity issues. I am certainly among the most qualified people you could have
invited to serve on your diversity committee. But you did not reach out to me.
There is but one explanation for this. You have deliberately excluded white
males from your discussions of inclusion. If there is a non-racist or non-sexist
explanation for the fact that your committee is 0% white male, I'd like to hear
2. Your inclusion committee is 82% female. Over a decade ago, our school
launched, at taxpayer expense, a new Women's Resource Center. It was strange,
given that the student body was then 68% female. Put simply, we need to stop
pretending that women are a minority here at UNC-Wilmington. If you want to be
inclusive then you should include more men on your inclusion committee. Men are
the real minority here at UNC-Women Everywhere.
3. You need to be sensitive to religious diversity. If you do a little
quick research on RateMyProfessors.com you will find something interesting.
There is one professor you placed on the committee who teaches in the area of
religion. A student recently accused him of grading students down for "answering
too religiously." The anonymous accusation doesn't amount to guilt. But ask
yourself whether Professor Burgh would be on the committee if he were even once
accused of race or gender insensitivity, instead of religious viewpoint
discrimination. Then think about why this country was established. It wasn't
founded on principles of racial or gender identity politics. It was founded on
principles of religious freedom.
4. One cannot support both inclusion and domestic terrorism. Bill Ayers
was an education professor who used to make pipe bombs for the purpose of
blowing up his political enemies. He stopped doing that when some of his fellow
domestic terrorists blew themselves up in the process of making one of the pipe
bombs. Just a few years ago, one of our education professors signed a petition
in support of Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist. You have now placed
that professor on the inclusion committee. Of course, we should all agree that
blowing up one's political enemies tends to run contrary to the spirit of
tolerance and inclusion that you wish to promote. So I would respectfully
suggest that you should have appointed a professor who opposes domestic
terrorists, rather than one who publicly supports them.
5. There are no white students on your committee. There are two Hispanics
and one black student on your committee. One works with El Centro Hispano. One
works with the Black Student Union. Oddly, however, you don't have any white
students on the committee who also work with the White Student Union, which, of
course, does not exist. That's probably why you excluded white students from
your efforts to be inclusive. You didn't want any white students asking tough
questions like "hey, where's the white student union?" Or "where is El Centro
Your announcement letter continues, saying "We must not waiver in our commitment
to create a diverse and inclusive campus environment. I believe most of us agree
there is much more to be achieved in these areas." This is just nonsense, Gary.
What you are saying here is that you think most people agree with you that there
should be more spending in the area of "diversity and inclusion." But you only
arrive at such conclusions because people who diverge from your opinion are
excluded from your committees, and your circle of influence. That is how bad
decisions are made. You should ask students if they are willing to suffer
through more tuition increases to fund further expansion of diversity
initiatives and see what they say. But make sure you don't exclude all white
students from the survey like you excluded them from the committee.
Your letter concludes with your assertion that "It is extremely important that
this be a fully transparent and inclusive process." Does this mean you will let
me attend the first meeting of your new Chancellor's Committee on Diversity and
Inclusion? Additionally, will you let me ask tough questions and publish the
committee's answers in my weekly column?
If you won't answer my last two questions in the affirmative, then I ask that
you at least be honest about what you're really up to, here. In that case, you
could just hang a sign outside your meetings saying "Inclusion in Progress: No
White Males Allowed."
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina
Wilmington and author of
Letters to a Young Progressive: How To Avoid Wasting
Your Life Protesting Things You Don't Understand.