Letter to the editor

Editor:

On November 14 El Defensor Chieftain published a letter from Dr. Paul Fuierer headlined “DEI: Destroying educational institutions”. In it he advanced the argument that promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) was against the financial interests of New Mexico Tech because students shunned the school as a result.

I am somewhat puzzled how DEI has such a large effect on students. It is basically just an effort to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion as worthwhile social goals. Students are not dragged out of their beds at 5 AM to listen to DEI harangues in shrill German. They are not forced to take DEI classes. They are not tested on DEI. They do have to agree that diversity, equity, and inclusion are worthwhile. Why, then, does the fact that NMT promotes these qualities affect their decisions so much?

What does ‘DEI’ constitute? Why is it so objectionable?

The idea of DEI is to advance certain social values, and, by contrast, discourage their opposites. What. are these values? I think that we all know what ‘working toward diversity’ means. What is its opposite? ‘Discrimination’. Why is discrimination to be preferred to diversity? Equity means simply ‘fairness’. Its opposite is ‘unfairness’. The anthesis of ‘inclusion’ is obvious: ‘exclusion’. Are we really better off getting rid of diversity, fairness, and inclusion and going back to discrimination, unfairness, and exclusion?

What is Dr. Fuierer’s argument against DEI? I quote: “the acronym has come to symbolize “Wokeism””. What does ‘Wokeism’ actually mean? It means ‘anything or anyone that those on the political right don’t like’ and it means nothing more than that.

Let’s play out the scenario. I say ‘I think that diversity, equity, and inclusion are worthwhile values’. He snarls ‘Take this, Phillips!’ and pulls the trigger. I am hit full in the chest with a 10-gauge charge of ‘wokeism’. I shrug. I smirk. I walk on. Meaningless political labels do not constitute a moral argument.

He ends with a very nice little joke. He writes: “it would be wise to de-emphasize Woke, disengage from culture war, [and] be apolitical…”. I am quite certain that Dr. Fuierer knows as well as the rest of us that ridding the land of diversity, equity, and inclusion is one of Donald Trump’s main goals. “…be apolitical…” Fuierer says. Truly, this young man is a fountain of comedic talent!

But let’s suppose Dr. Fuierer’s crusade to rid us of diversity, equity, and inclusion is successful, and as a result New Mexico Tech is financially prosperous. And let us suppose that he is so successful that he also manages to root out kindness and compassion along with them (these are, after all, also ‘woke’ virtues, and are at the root of why we value diversity, fairness, and inclusion). Will we be better people when he has prevailed over the rest of us?

Fred Phillips

Socorro