Bryan Caplan, Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a Cato Institute Adjunct Scholar, recently addressed GMU’s Board of Visitors. Prof. Caplan argued that the DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) program at the school is like a “McCarthyite witch hunt,” and its office should close. If the DEI program stays, it will transform “GMU from a university where people can freely discuss the most controversial issues into a seminary where people are taught one controversial philosophy as established fact—and dissenters are intimidated into silence,” he said. A video and transcript of Prof. Caplan’s remarks are published below.
It’s been a long time since I’ve received so much as an email from GMU’s DEI office. In fact, the last email I received about GMU DEI was a message from President Gregory Washington announcing that, “Our DEI office is now the Office of Access, Compliance, and Community.” Given the current political climate, why would any reasonable person consider the full abolition of this renamed DEI office, including the firing of all DEI staff, to be an important and valuable goal?
My answer: The current political climate will not last. Political climates never do. And once the political climate for DEI is once again favorable, the office will resume its ultimate mission: transforming GMU from a university where people can freely discuss the most controversial issues into a seminary where people are taught one controversial philosophy as established fact—and dissenters are intimidated into silence. You can call this philosophy “social justice” or “wokeness” as you prefer. Even if you think it is true, it should not be Officially True.
Why do I believe DEI is so dangerous in the long run for freedom of thought? Because, back in 2020, they felt secure enough to explicitly state their plans. Late that year, as you may recall, George Mason emailed us a statement on behalf of the Presidential Task Force on Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence. It’s actually still on the GMU website, but in case they scrub it, I have it archived. I encourage everyone here to read the statement of the Task Force in its entirety, but key passages include:
Vision: George Mason University will become a national exemplar of anti-racism and inclusive excellence.
What if someone at GMU denies that racism is still a notable problem in modern America? What if they maintain that group disparities are caused by differences in ability or preferences? Can there be a place for such dissent in a “national exemplar of anti-racism”?
Mission: Develop and implement effective systems, practices and traditions that eradicate racism and bigotry at Mason.
If someone denies that racism and bigotry is a serious problem at GMU, doesn’t that get in the way of their “eradication”? Indeed, what if someone argues that DEI is the epicenter of on-campus racism and bigotry? And to make a statistical point, the only practical way to “eradicate” anything is to tolerate lots of false positives. To eradicate cancer, you have to cut out a lot of healthy tissue, because seemingly healthy tissue may still be cancerous. Similarly, to eradicate racism and bigotry, you have to get rid of anyone who conceivably, possibly, might be even slightly tainted by racism and bigotry.
The most ominous passage to my mind:
Anti-racism and inclusive excellence will be foundational in every program, process, policy, and procedure at Mason.
I teach labor economics. One of the topics we cover is discrimination. If “anti-racism and inclusive excellence” are really “foundational” in this way, how can I be allowed to favorably present the evidence that discrimination is not an important cause of labor market disparities?
To be fair, the document contains some apparent caveats, like:
Mason will be deliberate in establishing an inclusive environment in which all members of the campus community are welcomed and supported; experience a sense of belonging; and differing perspectives are valued and encouraged.
But there’s no sign that this includes my “differing perspective” that this whole project is a McCarthyite witch hunt.
Is it really such a big deal that some departments started requiring “diversity statements”? To get some perspective on this question, I looked at McCarthy-era Loyalty Oaths. To remain a professor at UC Berkeley in 1950, for example, you had to swear the following:
I am not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, and I have no commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment and a consideration of payment of my salary.
Notice: A devout Leninist revolutionary could honestly swear this oath as long as he doesn’t belong to an organization that advocates the government’s violent overthrow. Furthermore, he could belong to an alternative Communist Party dedicated to establishing Communism by democratic means. In sharp contrast, diversity statements really do demand your outright, wholehearted agreement with DEI.
The original McCarthyism faded away long ago. But consider: What would have happened if McCarthyites had managed to build Offices of Patriotism, Prosperity, and the People throughout higher ed, staffed by scores or even hundreds of Patriotism Officers?
I submit that we would probably still have McCarthyism today! Enthusiastic activists can unleash a temporary witch hunt. But to make a witch hunt permanent, you need an army of full-time paid employees.
And that’s why GMU should decisively end DEI by getting rid of all of its DEI employees. Renaming McCarthyism would not have removed the threat it posed to freedom of thought on campus, and renaming DEI does not remove the threat it poses to freedom of thought on campus.
GMU’s DEI has never done anything to me personally. I’m not angry at anyone. But this has to be done to protect GMU from all the witch hunts we’re going to see in the future if we don’t do the right thing right now. Thank you.