The Authoritarian Nature of DE&I Training

Stay in step…. Or else.

TO: The President, the College Board, the Faculty, the Staff, and the Constituents of Northern Virginia Community College

FROM: Dr. A Schuhart (DACCE), Professor of English, NVCC-Annandale

DATE: 04/19/2021

RE:  Letter of Dissent

After completing the required DEI training, it is clear to me that the claims of this training are a direct expression of Critical Race Theory (CRT). There is also absolutely no question that CRT is a scholarly claim, not an objective truth; therefore, it is a tentative, constructed truth about which individual Faculty may rightly and legally have professional disagreement, and whose construction and communication is governed by principles of academic discourse; and, that among these principles are:

  • the individual scholar’s right to determine the truth of any scholarly claim independently,
  • and, that truth is created through democratic consensus, and it cannot be imposed through process or force or law without invalidating the claim itself, nor can a scholar be required to enact such a truth against individual belief or conscience without infringing on that right of independent evaluation;
  • and, that the majority opinion cannot impose its view upon the minority using institutional process or force or law, and that the principle of Academic Freedom specifically and intentionally protects minority opinion in every scholarly claim;
  • and, that these rights are asserted not for the scholar alone, but also for the Citizens in our classes.

In this regard, SACSCOC makes clear that College Faculty have the special duty to caretake and defend these same principles in the interest of all students, and in the interest of the “integrity” of knowledge itself, and that this duty transcends the powers of any Institution to compel agreement with ideas or actions that erode or lessen independence of thought among the Faculty or create inequalities between them. Therefore, SACSCOC requires that the College ensure “adequate protections” to safeguard academic freedom.

I charge that NVCC has absolutely failed in this duty, and the NVCC leadership is directly responsible for this failure.

This DEI training required me to affirm “scholarly truths” that I do not hold and cannot be compelled to accept because they are not objective truths, but scholarly claims arising from my own professional discipline in which I am the expert. The training sought to change my basic belief in human nature by requiring me to affirm a view that I believe to be demonstrably false.

To move forward and complete the training, and thus retain employment, I was compelled to enact the claim of my own “oppressive” identity and position of “privilege” in American society, without the opportunity for dissent or disagreement which is my academic privilege and “freedom.” Further, the clear intention of the training is to require Faculty to enact these claims in professional practice, including pedagogy and curriculum, and instruct students in the same, and this the College does not have the right to impose on Faculty through such “training” mechanisms. It is not the business or right of the College to require me to alter my view of human nature as a requisite of employment or to require my instruction to transmit the view selected by the College as “correct.”

This is clear evidence that CRT (Critical Race Theory) is being imposed upon NOVA Faculty and Staff using fear of loss of employment rather than democratic persuasion, and I believe many Faculty and Staff who would otherwise choose not to undergo such trainings nor espouse an agreement with CRT, are being compelled against their professional judgement, individual will, or personal conscience to do so.

The DEI Officer of NOVA has stated publicly that “a coalition of the willing is not enough.” In these words, the College affirms that “unwilling” Faculty and Staff no longer have any choice but to accept truth as it is determined by the College, thereby creating a climate of division and distrust and inequality, and furthering Faculty belief that NOVA is still not a “Great College to Work.”

Next, I charge that NVCC has deliberately prevented the English Faculty from exercising their legal responsibility to caretake the integrity of English instruction at NOVA. All college Faculty have the absolute academic and contractual right to evaluate scholarly claims independent of the Institution’s position on any such claim; and the Faculty members, not the Administrators or Lawyers, are the experts in their disciplines and recognized by SACSCOC as such. Faculty also have the right and duty to debate scholarly claims among themselves without the interference or management of Administration when they influence curriculum and pedagogy, as these clearly do.

NOVA Faculty have yet to have even one open, unmanaged discussion of CRT and DEI as it affects our professional responsibilities and courses; English Faculty have not agreed as a body to enact DEI in our classes as is our right and duty to do, nor have the required Curriculum Procedures been followed. Any academic consensus created by Institutional management instead of democratic discourse lacks integrity, and it is intellectually dishonest and inherently unpersuasive and hence illegitimate. The College cannot prevent me, nor any other English Faculty, from seeking to influence our professional body of that which my professional expertise, experience, and academic standing has caused me to conclude.

In my professional capacity as an English Faculty and a Doctor of Education, I have concluded that CRT overturns the principle of Equality in the English classroom, as it has already done among the NVCC Leadership. In my professional view, this outcome transforms the classroom into a forum of political and ideological change rather than academic and professional preparation based in individual merit. Thus, I believe this outcome infringes on the Constitutional rights of the Citizens in our classes, and it violates the Civil Rights Act, and it breaches the individual student contract with the College, and it compels Faculty to betray student trust and act contrary to Best Practice.

Using the classroom in the way the DEI Officer demands we do is, according to the democratic learning-centered pedagogy, an unethical act because it suppresses student speech and constrains their natural growth; it empowers one group by subduing another, rather than empowering all equally. Given these professional conclusions, I have the absolute legal duty and professional responsibility to speak this belief to my fellow Faculty, to seek to persuade them of my professional view. Such professional speech cannot be suppressed or managed by Administration without violating academic freedom and Faculty contracts; I believe the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed it. Yet NVCC has clearly denied me, and all Faculty, this professional obligation to “caretake the integrity” of academic instruction at NOVA by preventing the exercise of our official duties.

I further charge that the College has illegitimately altered its learning-centered Mission outside of the process required by SACSCOC, and that the actions being taken by the College constitute a substantive change to that Mission. According to SACSCOC, one substantive change is “Substantially changing the established mission or objectives of an institution or its programs.” NOVA’s approved Mission is “to deliver world-class, in-person and online postsecondary teaching, learning, and workforce development to ensure our region and the Commonwealth of Virginia have an educated population and a globally competitive workforce.”

But the College Board has publicly announced that NOVA will now work “to dismantle structural racism and to transform lives and communities,” and the President has directed NOVA Faculty and Staff to support this work with the development of curricula and pedagogy uniformly drawn from CRT. This statement redirects us from individual merit-based learning to direct social change and, in expressing only one uniform ideology, converts NOVA to an instrument of state propaganda: this is clearly a substantive change to the “objectives of the institution.”

When did NOVA go through the official process to alter its Mission is such a profound way? We never did. According to the Principles of Accreditation, the President cannot change the Mission, nor can the College Board. These entities have no legal authority to direct changes to curriculum, pedagogy, or Mission, using public political statements, and neither does the Governor, or the DEI Officer. In fact, the principles I claim have been broken are exactly the ones set in place to prevent exactly what is going on now not only at NOVA, but across the VCCS, and the nation.

The democratic principle of institutional independence from political influence, now betrayed by our leadership, was an important protection on the integrity of the College itself. For, if Faculty agreement can be compelled in support of CRT/DEI by political or legislative process now, by institutional bullying now, what other “scholarly truth” will Faculty next be forced to enact? In this regard, all Faculty must agree (and Citizens of Virginia will agree when they learn) that such scholarly coercion will be an infamous precedent in the life of the College and the VCCS with implications far beyond the current moment, and for Faculty and Students yet to come.

My fellow progressive colleagues must wonder what will happen if Virginia shifts back to Republican control. What if a Republican governor and the state legislature and the college board require Faculty to teach Creationism, or some other unacceptable idea; how will Faculty respond then? Without Faculty independence from political influence now, how will Faculty assert such in the future? And how does this not ultimately convert our democratic institution into a political asset, to be fought over in future decades to the detriment of every student of every color, culture, and world view?

And, let it be known by all, that I share the same goals that proponents of DEI claim for themselves. But I base my professional actions on the fundamental human truth of Equality, not the menial measurement of Equity. CRT is not persuasive to me, and I believe that the claims of DEI, while sounding good, do more harm than good when viewed from a natural democratic perspective. Still, I believe the majority of Faculty who currently support CRT and DEI do so because they believe it to be a Good, and I respect their belief. But, as it is the right of some Faculty to agree with CRT and DEI, it is also the right of others to not agree. But, when has it ever been the right of Faculty or Administration to demand and coerce unanimity of belief about any scholarly claim in an American Academic institution?

Therefore, I formally dissent from this training and all of it claims, and I will not cooperate with the implementation of DEI in any of my classes. I reject the Marxist foundation of Critical Race Theory as an unpersuasive rendition of Nature, just as I would reject any other exploded claim of truth. I reject the claims of privilege and racism that proponents use to shield their inconsistent and irrational argument from public falsification in open debate. In fact, I am certain they fear to face open and fair debate. If not, why have they not done so here? Why should I, or any Faculty of any American college, accept any claim to be true when its proponents have not the fortitude or capacity to defend it in open debate? Any rational claim that refuses to undergo falsification is by definition unpersuasive; it’s not a valid theory until it does.

In all these things, I believe that NVCC and VCCS leaders have failed to fulfill their legal and ethical duty to the Citizens of Virginia to protect the freedom of thought and political liberty of the students of our college. They fail to protect the Constitutional Rights of Citizens, and treat all NOVA students as children, condescendingly usurping their political rights in doing so. These Leaders have committed the worst of acts in Education by subjugating their fellow Citizens to inequality of process and ideological hegemony, robbing Faculty and Students of their inherent right to seek truth for themselves, and to advance on their individual abilities and merits, and thereby lessening NOVA as a learning institution.

Truth can never be advanced through force; unfortunately, the leadership and many Faculty of this College have forgotten this truth of human nature, and they now smugly repeat the very same evils of history themselves. Others have clearly never learned it.

Dr. A Schuhart is a professor of English, Doctor of Arts, Community College Education with the Northern Virginia Community College.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

43 responses to “The Authoritarian Nature of DE&I Training”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Who said free speech is not allowed!

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Go back to sleep.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Make up your mind! Was he asleep or woke?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          don’t confuse him…
          😉

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Let me comment on your gobbledygook you are now posting, please! Grand Maul Boogeyman stuff!

    2. only if he keeps his job….but i’ll be citing this in the fall during my required ‘re-education’ seminars.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        he’ll keep his job and the process of people commenting and participating is ongoing.

  2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Well and truly said.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It seems to me that Larry is right. Dr. Schuhart has voiced his dissent publicly and strongly. Unless he loses his job over this, at which I would be surprised and dismayed if it did happen, then he has exercised his rights and been allowed to do so.

    By the way, there seems to be a logical contradiction in his “principles”. The second principle posits that “truth is created through democratic consensus.”

    But the third principle contends “the majority opinion cannot impose its view upon the minority.” You can’t have it both ways, unless the minority wishes to persist on “untruth”.

    1. The distinction that you don’t see is the same that the majority of people also don’t see about scientific reasoning (through no personal fault). However it is this: is consensus constructed through the process of individual human minds investigating a claim independently first, and evaluating and determining truth individually, first. Does the consensus form as individual minds arrive at the same conclusion independently? This is the process of knowledge construction in science, and why science utterly relies on Equality between human minds, and why Equity disrupts that equation. If independent minds arrive at the same truth, then that verifies that truth. If independent minds come to different conclusions than that falsifies truth.

      Now, this is very different from forming consensus by using institutional force, process, or social pressure to impose agreement with a truth upon an unwilling human minds. This is the Marxist equation, and it relies on fear. In scientific reasoning, employing such methods to “persuade” immediately explodes and invalidates a scientific claim. And in the history of scientific ideas, we see such impositions as indicators of the imminent explosion of a theoretical construct. DEI persuades through conquest of space, rather than persuasion of minds.

      Democratic Consensus forms as free and independent minds agree upon the same truth, and this is the only valid truth in human reasoning because it reflects Nature itself.

      So there you go. I hope that helps.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        “objective truth” , same as “truth” ?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          If it meets his objective it is.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          If it meets his objective it is.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “If independent minds come to different conclusions than that falsifies truth.”

        Like Fauci and, oh say, Carlson?

        Most Americans believe in God and angels, does that make them exist? Many have told me that someday I’ll find God. I seriouly doubt it. I cannot find my car keys and the 3000 lbs lump of metal in my garage is empirical evidence the keys exist.

      3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        No. It does not help at all. First of all, CRT has nothing to do with “scientific” reasoning. Science is a process of forming a hypothesis, looking for proof to prove or disprove that hypothesis (through observation or experiments), and, then, forming a theory to explain an observation based on the evidence found. A true scientific theory can be tested, either by replicating the original experiments or conducting different experiments and developing new observations.

        And scientific theories are often disproved and new theories substituted to explain the phenomenon in question.

        CRT is a legal framework used to understand or explain how racial biases in the past influence current conditions and have become embedded in current culture and institutions.

        And how does science rely on “equality between human minds’? If that were true, my opinion would have as much weight as that of Einstein or Richard Feynman.

        It sounds as if you believe in “relative” truth, rather than absolute truth. In other words, if there is a “democratic consensus” (whatever that is), something is true. Human reasoning reflects Nature itself, you say. There are countless examples of instances of when human reasoning came to a consensus, only to be proven that it did not reflect Nature itself. For example, at one time, it was the general consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. Did that make it true?

        But I digress. That is real science and CRT is not actual science. Again, it is a legal framework.

        1. Well, 1) it is called “Critical Race Theory”, not “Critical Race Legal Structure”; 2) ALL academic arguments in all disciplines employ the principles of scientific knowledge construction in the creation of “truths” within their disciplines. CRT claims to be an academic argument; but it fails the test of scientific reasoning.

        2. Well, 1) it is called “Critical Race Theory”, not “Critical Race Legal Structure”; 2) ALL academic arguments in all disciplines employ the principles of scientific knowledge construction in the creation of “truths” within their disciplines. CRT claims to be an academic argument; but it fails the test of scientific reasoning.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      No one ever claimed that tenured professors never had opinions – and in my mind that’s not only a good thing but a very good thing.

      I don’t know about others here but I do remember the “mandatory” sexual harassment training where there was no vote on what “objective truth” was.

      The “objective truth” was that sexual harassment was defined as was the sanctions and penalties for engaging it in.

      You could disagree, and some did, but at the end of the day, management was making a policy statement and instituting a policy and you could think what you wanted but if your behavior was noted as a complaint, you were going to hear about it.

      Was that bad?

      1. In the VCCS, Faculty do not have tenure. I am in the fifth year of a five year contract. I fully expect my contract to not be renewed, and I have accepted that probability. It is by this means that the once independent Faculty of the VCCS have been subjugated and no longer control standards, curriculum, or pedagogy in our system today.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Well, generally speaking, management is in the minority… although, I have worked where I was the worker and the other four were my managers… it sucked. Objective truth in that case depended on which manager to whom I was speaking.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          well, yes, everytime I hear that term , my antenna go up…

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “When the legend becomes the fact, you print the legend.”

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        From one of my favorite movies.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          That movie is beyond great. Had it been performed 3000 years ago in Athens, it would be required reading today.

    4. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      https://richmond.com/ap/international/authoritarianism-advances-as-world-battles-the-pandemic/article_d56d759c-19e9-5236-9b70-9ea07fed2707.html

      “Authoritarianism advances as the world battles pandemic.”

      I almost spit out my coffee over that headline in this mornings Richmond paper, although in this case COVID has been the excuse for the growing tyranny, not racism. It’s all about power. Stunned that the woke RTD didn’t realize the irony….but the Left never sees the sins within themselves.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Cause and effect? Or, just a golden opportunity?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        There is no tyranny over Covid no more or less than it is over Polio or other communicable disease and the implications on society AND the reason WHY we currently try to vaccinate as many kids as we can despite those who oppose it out of ignorance and “religion”.

        In order for your “power” theory to hold, you’d have to implicate virtually every government on the face of the earth when it comes to public health – most all are doing about the same.

        So this is a worldwide “tyranny”, no?

        You guys are just nuts over this. You can’t seem to deal with realities and the consequences of ignoring contagious diseases.

        This has happened before and will happen again and what will you do next time, the same?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          “….but the Left never sees the sins within themselves.”

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            There is only one sin, intentionally inflicting pain on another. All the others are just made up.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            ” The world is round and rotates”.

            “It don’t matter cuz I don’t like the way you said it”.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the “sin” is what you’ve conjured up in your own mind. There are others with the same disease but again – you’re dealing with an entire world on this and you always seem to want to focus it on the “left”, not most every country on the planet.

            Does that mean the world is “ruled” by the “left” or that you believe so? Not a trick question.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, except for the right wing dictators, it is.

  4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    I think Professor Shuhart needs to be ready to take the letter of dissent to the next level, non-cooperation.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      And then termination. The penalty and the reward of disobedience are not mutually exclusive.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      And what does non-cooperation mean? Basically, ignoring the training and going back to teaching as he always has. And how many of us have done that with regard to training we were required to attend? Probably most of us.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I think NVCC is telling it’s employees it’s policies with respect to DE&I. You don’t have to agree. You can strenuously disagree, but that’s their policies and saying they are rooted in CRT – won’t change much. A very large number of institutions, public and private, educational, corporate and NGOs are now doing DE&I policies.

        It does remind me of what was done with respect to sexual harassment back in the day.

        At the end of the day, he is an employee and subject to the policies of his employer. He certainly has the right to speak out but like sexual harassment, his opinion is different and separate from what is required by policy.

        At this point, I’m not sure I know precisely what behaviors would be subject to possible sanctions or how they would be handled , etc.

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Dick, Art has told you that he knows he is forfeiting his contract renewal for stating his position. He deserves respect.

    3. Way ahead of you … I teach Emerson and Thoreau.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Add a little Hawthorne and Whitman and I will sign up for the next course. Good luck Mr. Art some of us will be cheering for you.

  5. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    Truth is outside of us; it is objective. Our minds might discover it, but our minds do not create it. Using the word “truth” in any other sense causes much confusion in discourse. Asserting that truth originates in the mind leads to “his truth” and “her truth” and 9 billion “truths”. Using the word “ideas” instead would be closer to the truth.

  6. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    Dr. Schuhart is claiming, in effect, that NVCC is becoming an indoctrination center, supported by taxpayers and students. Such a shift is the result of our now monolithic, one-party government.

  7. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Dr. Schwartz, I don’t know if you read this blog regularly. Let me advise you. When the citizens that affectionally call themselves Larry the G and Nancy Naive stir themselves to long trains of mutually admiring negative responses, you can wear it as a badge of honor. You have exposed truth to the unwilling like a bright light on cockroaches. They flee from it and seek comfort in dark corners.

  8. WayneS Avatar

    Here is one of my favorite quotes regarding the function of colleges and universities:

    “The real University, he said, has no specific location. It owns no property, pays no salaries and receives no material dues. The real University is a state of mind. It is that great heritage of rational thought that has been brought down to us through the centuries and which does not exist at any specific location. It’s a state of mind which is regenerated throughout the centuries by a body of people who traditionally carry the title of professor, but even that title is not part of the real University. The real University is nothing less than the continuing body of reason itself.

    In addition to this state of mind, ‘reason,’ there’s a legal entity which is unfortunately called by the same name but which is quite another thing. This is a nonprofit corporation, a branch of the state with a specific address. It owns property, is capable of paying salaries, of receiving money and of responding to legislative pressures in the process.

    But this second university, the legal corporation, cannot teach, does not generate new knowledge or evaluate ideas. It is not the real University at all. It is just a church building, the setting, the location at which conditions have been made favorable for the real church to exist.”

    Robert Pirsig
    Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Leave a Reply