4月4日星期二，在麻省理工学院（MIT）校园就“学术界应该废除DEI项目”的主题进行了辩论。希瑟·麦克唐纳（Heather Mac Donald）和帕特·坎巴蒂（Pat Kambhampati）支持肯定的立场；帕梅拉·丹尼斯·朗（ Pamela Denise Long）和卡里斯·福斯特（Karith Foster），为反方代表。美国公民自由联盟ACLU前任主席纳丁·斯特罗森 (Nadine Strossen) 主持辩论。超过250人在现场观看了辩论，800观看了辩论的在线直播（辩论结束2小时，YouTube相关视频点击已经超过2200）。

辩论由亚当斯密协会的MIT分会和MIT言论自由联盟 (MIT Free Speech Alliance, MFSA) 共同主办，并由其他15个言论自由组织（在MFSA的辩论网页上列出）共同筹办。 在YouTube上进行了直播，视频见该链接。活动目的是向学生和MIT社区展示，DEI话题可以在大学校园内公开和公平地进行辩论——如何倾听以及如何交谈——通过倾听，双方都能受益。 辩论是根据牛津联盟的辩论规则进行的。承办方认为，这可能是美国校园内首次就校园DEI 问题进行辩论（请注意，著名的2022年牛津联盟辩论以詹姆斯·林赛为主角，主题不同：“众议院认为觉醒文化走得太远了。”）

MIT言论自由联盟和亚当·斯密协会并未对辩论有任何官方立场，但认为公开辩论DEI等话题至关重要，尤其是考虑到当下，该问题不仅在高等教育领域而且在国家政治领域日益突出。MIT言论自由联盟执行主管彼得·博尼利亚（Peter Bonilla）说：“我们对辩论的进行感到非常高兴。它表明即使是一个极具争议的话题，也可以以文明和理性的方式进行讨论，它表明MIT有能力举办这样的辩论，我们对此一直有信心。我们感谢出席的学生、教师、校友和行政人员。”

Nadine Strossen：仅通过参与这场辩论，我们所有参与者都同意，一个被视为统一的主要观点，并非就理所当然。 尽管我们可能不同意这项具体的辩论结果，但我们同意这些问题并非不可辩论。

Pat Kambhampati：不要被取消。 说出你的想法，亲切而礼貌地说出来，并听取其他人的意见。 正如乔丹·皮特森（Jordan Peterson）所说，您可能应该与您不同意的人互动。那样你可以学到更多，并可能变得更睿智，但不要取消别人。我拒绝被取消，这就是我来这里的原因之一。

Pat Kambhampati：文化马克思主义认为，我们都被当成群体，一群人反对另一群，受害者和压迫者。但这不是大多数社会的运作方式。这肯定也不是波士顿剑桥和2020的运作方式。所以我认为结果平等的想法非常非常危险。多样性也是危险的，因为我们为什么要在结果上有多样性？我们本都不一样。NBA有多样性吗？我们在NFL中有多样性吗？ 我们在粒子物理学方面有多样性吗？ 答案是否定的。

Heather Mac Donald：原因是学术技能方面的种族差异很大。 这是一个令人不舒服的话题，也是大学校园里的禁忌话题……

Heather Mac Donald：多样性只是偏好的代名词。 但这些偏好对他们所谓的受益人没有好处。如果MIT出于性别多样性的考虑录取了我，并且我的数学SAT成绩为600，而我几乎所有同龄人的成绩都接近800，如果我的微积分课不及格，我会很挣扎，因为会影响到班级的平均教学水平。 然而，如果在一个我的同龄人的学业水平与我相匹配的环境，我可能会做得很好。……种族偏好也是如此。他们的受益者在与同龄人资格相匹配的大学中，将在学术上具有竞争力，但是当被拔高到他们没有准备好的学校时，他们会挣扎，正如许多研究所证明的那样。

Pamela Denise Long：我想留给你的是这个想法：我们不需要废除DEI计划或反种族主义项目。我们真正应该做的是紧急调整这些计划的运作方式，以便我们最终实现我们国家追求平等目标的变革。如果我们做对了，如果我们现在做对了，如果我们致力于实现结果平等的目标，不仅仅是说我们处于平等的竞争环境中，而且要认识到我们不平等的各种原因，如果我们专注于目标，我们可以在这一代实现平等。

Pamela Denise Long：DEI应该做的是让教育工作者做好准备，帮助从学前班到大学的所有学生发展必要的知识，避免成为种族主义者，并培养他们的能力，以在他们关注和影响的圈子中打破种族主义。

Karith Foster：“让我们拥有勇敢的空间”，而不是安全的空间。

Karith Foster：如果做得好，生活可以被改变和提升到一个无限美好的地方，一个充满知识和同理心的地方，不仅对人类而且对我们自己产生更深刻的理解。上大学不就是为了开阔眼界，接受教育，了解他人，更重要的是了解自己吗？当 DEI 做得不好时——老实说，它已经左转了——它会造成无法逾越的恐惧、不信任、报复和冷漠的障碍。

周二的辩论是在MIT越来越关注言论自由注意到和自由讨论一些话题的困难之际举行的。在新校长Sally Kornbluth 的领导下（她于2023 年1月上任），MIT开始了一个名为“跨越差异的对话”的系列讲座。 非刻板学院院长约翰·托马西 (John Tomasi) 于3月24日在该系列的首届活动上发表了讲话。

有关演讲者和辩论的照片和简历等更多详细信息，请访问https://www.mitfreespeech.org/2023-debate

辩论本身的图片可在https://rasmusen.org/special/mfsa/2023.04.04_Pictures.docx获取。 也可以从视频中屏幕截图，现在可以在https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elG_zyZya5g上观看。 有关辩论的会前新闻文章，请参阅 https://www.mitfreespeech.org/media-mention-page上的列表。

MIT言论自由联盟是一个有1000多位成员的非盈利组织，在著名的卡尔森讲座取消后，由MIT校友于2021年10月成立。MFSA也是校友言论自由联盟的成员，还有康奈尔大学、哈佛大学、普林斯顿大学、耶鲁大学和弗吉尼亚大学等机构的姐妹组织。 MFSA 是一个非营利性 501(c)(3) 组织，独立于MIT。

联系人：Peter Bonilla，执行董事，[email protected]，215-531-2171

First of-Its-Kind Debate on a U.S. Campus of Diversity-Equity-Inclusion Occurs Peacefully at MIT

On Tuesday, April 4, the resolution “Academic DEI programs should be abolished” was debated on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Heather Mac Donald and Pat Kambhampati argued the affirmative position; Pamela Denise Long and Karith Foster, the negative. Nadine Strossen, past president of the American Civil Liberties Union, moderated. More than 250 people attended the debate live at MIT, with an additional 800+ watching the livestream (by 2 hours after the debate ended, You-Tube views had hit 2,200).

The debate was hosted by the MIT Chapter of the Adam Smith Society, cohosted by the MIT Free Speech Alliance (MFSA), and cosponsored by fifteen other organizations (listed on MFSA's debate webpage). It was livestreamed on You-Tube, where the recording will continue to be available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elG_zyZya5g. The objective was to show students and the MIT community that Diversity-Equity-Inclusion issues could be debated openly and fairly on a college campus-- how to listen as well as how to talk--- and that by listening, both sides can benefit. The debate proceeded under debating rules similar to the style of the Oxford Union. The sponsors believe it is the first debate on DEI issues to be held on at an American campus. (Note that the celebrated 2022 Oxford Union debate featuring James Lindsay was on a different topic: "This House believes woke culture has gone too far.”)

The MIT Free Speech Alliance and Adam Smith Society do not take official position for or against the debate proposition but consider it essential that topics such as DEI be openly debated, especially considering the issue’s increasing prominence not just in higher education, but on the national political stage. Peter Bonilla, Executive Director of the MIT Free Speech Alliance, said, “We were very happy with how the debate went. It showed how even a highly contentious topic can be discussed in a civil and rational manner, and it showed that MIT is well equipped to host just such a debate, as we’ve always believed. We thank the students, faculty, alumni, and members of the administration who attended.

Nadine Strossen: Solely by participating in this debate, we participants all agree on one major overarching point which cannot be taken for granted. Much as we might disagree about this specific debate resolution, we agree that these issues are not beyond debate.

Pat Kambhampati: Don't be canceled. Say what you think, say it kindly and politely and listen to other people. And as Jordan Peterson says you should probably interact with people with whom you disagree. So you can learn more and hopefully become smarter, but don't cancel others and I refuse to be canceled. That's one of the reasons why I'm here.

Pat Kambhampati: Cultural Marxism suggests that we are all collectives of one group against another victims and oppressors. This is not how most of society works. And that's certainly not how Cambridge and 2020 works. So I think the idea of equity is very, very dangerous. Diversity is also dangerous, because why should we have diversity in outcomes? We're all different. Do we have diversity in the NBA? Do we have diversity in the NFL? Do we have diversity in particle physics? And the answer is no.

Heather Mac Donald: The reason is large racial differences in academic skills. This is an uncomfortable subject and one that is taboo on a college campus….

Heather Mac Donald: Diversity is simply a codeword for preferences. But those preferences do no good to their alleged beneficiaries. If MIT admitted me, for the sake of gender diversity, and I had a 600 on my math SAT, whereas almost all of my peers had close to 800, I would struggle in if not fail my calculus class, because the teaching would be pitched to the class average. I would likely have done perfectly well, however, at a school where my peers matched my own level of academic preparation. ,… So too for race preferences. The beneficiary of them would be academically competitive in colleges where their qualifications matched those of their peers, but when they are catapulted into schools for which they are not prepared, they struggle, as numerous studies have demonstrated.

Pamela Denise Long: What I want to leave you with is this thought: we do not need to abolish DEI programs or anti-racism. What we really ought to do is to urgently nuance how those programs function so that we ultimately achieve the change that is the aim of equality in our nation. And if we do that right, and if we do that now, if we commit to honoring the goal of equality, not just saying we're at an equal playing field but recognizing the various reasons we are not and how could we be if we focus on the goal, we can accomplish equality this generation.

Pamela Denise Long : What DEI ought to do is prepare educators to help all students from Pre-K through college develop the necessary knowledge to not be racist and develop their competencies to disrupt racism in their circles of concern and influence.

Karith Foster: “Let’s have bravespaces,” instead of safe spaces.

Karith Foster: When done well, lives can be transformed and transported, to an infinitely better place, one infused with knowledge and empathy, generating a deeper understanding not just of humankind but of ourselves. And isn’t that why one goes to university, to broaden their horizons, to get an education, to learn about others, but more importantly, to know thyself? When DEI is done poorly—and let us be absolutely honest, it has taken a left turn--- it creates insurmountable barriers of fear, mistrust, vengeance, and indifference.

Tuesday’s debate came as MIT has shown increased attention to free expression and the discussion of difficult issues. Under President Sally Kornbluth’s new leadership (she arrived in January 2023), MIT started a lecture series called “Dialogues Across Differences.” John Tomasi, President of Heterodox Academy, spoke at the series’ inaugural event on March 24.

Further details such as photos and bios of the speakers are available at https://www.mitfreespeech.org/2023-debate. Pictures from the debate itself are available at https://rasmusen.org/special/mfsa/2023.04.04_Pictures.docx . Screenshots can also be taken from the video, which is now viewable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elG_zyZya5g. For pre-event news articles on the debate, see the list at https://www.mitfreespeech.org/media-mention-page.

The MIT Free Speech Alliance is a nonpartisan organization with over 1,000 members founded by MIT alumni in October 2021 following the cancellation of the prestigious Carlson Lecture. MFSA is a member of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, together with sister organizations at Cornell, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and the University of Virginia, among other institutions. MFSA is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization and is independent of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.