I would love to see Furman ditch the woke university mission statement enacted by president Davis. Her woke mission statement is a disgrace. Please do everything possible to return to the original mission statement. Thx
Hi John. I'm also John, a Furman alum from 1989. Please help me understand the mission statement you're hoping Furman ditches. Here's what I've just copied from the Furman website:
Vision
Inspiring purposeful living and fostering thriving communities through learning, creativity, and innovation.
Mission
Furman University challenges and supports lifelong learners through rigorous inquiry, transformative experiences, and deep reflection to lead lives of meaning and consequence.
Values
In championing the liberal arts and sciences, Furman University cultivates a community of learners engaged in an effort to understand themselves, the world, and their place in it.
To support this quest for knowledge and meaning, we steadfastly protect freedom of inquiry and hold ourselves to high standards of excellence and integrity. We foster a passion for lifelong learning by nurturing the growth of each individual as a whole person: intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
As we draw lessons from thoughtful consideration of our university’s past, we advocate respect for all people and actively welcome perspectives from a wide variety of backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs.
We aspire to advance thriving communities that honor inquiry, promote diversity, strive for equity, appreciate beauty, and act as responsible stewards of our planet.
These aspirations inspire our vision and shape our mission, calling us to meet the challenges and responsibilities of a complex, diverse, and rapidly changing world with courage, moderation, justice, wisdom, and humility.
Which of these is a woke statement? Which one(s) a disgrace?
Hello John....Thanks for the inquiry about what exactly about Furman's revised mission statement I find objectionable.
Many of the words in the new mission statement have dual, if not multiple meanings. Their superficial meaning may be one or another commonly understood meaning, and in a mission statement, may seem benign or even aspirational. However, in the context of Furman University's mission statement, certain words have been chosen very purposefully and carefully because they have a secondary, very specific meaning in 21st century Marxist philosophy. Most people, perhaps including yourself, are unaware of the real meaning of these specific words in relation to Furman's mission statement and new proposed direction, yet a proper understanding of their true meaning is crucial to understanding what has happened to Furman.
To provide an example, I point to a single sentence that contains two of three essential concepts and tenants of 21st century cultural Marxism: diversity and equity (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). In a non-Marxist context, most people would applaud diverse ideas and opinions and backgrounds in a given institution. Likewise, most compassionate people might think that a certain amount of equity is favorable and fair. However, in Furman's mission statement they are designed to specifically promote neo Marxist principles. Hopefully you will begin to understand their true meanings, and begin to wonder exactly who crafted this statement and for what specifically.
Here's the problem.....
Equity infers equity of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Its very use in a mission statement infers a belief in a structural IN-equality based on purposeful institutional scheming and ossified policy that .gives some people an advantage over others that guarantees their success, while simultaneously guaranteeing another group's relative failure. It implicitly denies that hard work, merit, diligent study, scholastic achievement, skill, etc., are the principal components in a person's chances for advancement and success in life in a given nation, culture, corporation, etc..
It infers a system of baked in structuralized victimhood.
In modern cultural Marxist teaching, the unfair beneficiary is the white anglo saxon man ie., white privilege, and the unfair disadvantaged is any person of color, all women, all persons of non-traditional sexual orientation, etc..
Victimhood is a belief about oneself that is overwhelmingly disempowering. One soon aspires only to be the most complete and greatest victims among other of the class of victims. Such a victim can then become the beneficiary of the greatest sympathy, both political as well as institutional, and is in line to claim the greatest rewards for having been such victim, while at the same time aspiring to destroy the society that actually allows for and promotes individual exceptionalism. The worth of the individual is ceded to the so called 'greater good'.
In a generous democracy, this translates into free housing, free food, free health care, free education, free cash to mothers with children but no husband, free child care, etc., etc.. The victims who receive these benefits become entitled to having them because of their victimhood, all in the name of giving them equity of outcome approaching the success of those who worked hard, applied themselves, developed skill and character and responsibility, etc.. In their mind they didn't succeed because of an unfair system which was stacked against them, and those that did succeed did so not because of merit and individual exceptionalism. Ultimately this belief justifies violence against the perceived institutions and oppressors. In a word, it is evil. It is inherently divisive.
Now, for your own edification regarding this nuanced understanding of the Marxist meaning of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, I refer you to Dr. James Lindsay and his YouTube channel called New Discourses. In reference to this discussion he posted a three part series, three years ago, entitled The Marxist Roots of DEI. I highly recommend that you study this material so that you understand the present cultural divide in this country as well as the danger of this philosophy with regards to the future and direction of Furman.
Hi John. I appreciate your taking the time to reply.
While you have equated the university's decision to champion diversity and equity with 21st century cultural Marixism, I remain unconvinced. The Furman of 2026 is not the Furman I attended from 1985-1989. It has co-educational housing; a higher percentage of minority faculty (there was one Black faculty member across all departments when I was a student); a female President; programs to recognize and encourage social cohesion for different social and cultural groups, including students of different races and ethnicities. women, and LGBTQ students; and various religious and spiritual traditions. To me, this is an overall positive.
In making these structural shifts, the university has not, in my opinion, adopted anything akin to cultural Marxism and is not endeavoring to do so in the future. In fact, the university is a champion of free-market capitalism both in academic and investment contexts. The university maintains majors in Business Administration, Accounting, Economics, Mathematics-Economics, Finance-Business, Finance-Economics. The university's endowment reflects diversification across broad categories that emphasize long-term, stable ROI over volatility.
Senior leadership is less dominated by white men than when I was a student but our kind are hardly bereft of a seat at the table. The senior administration consists of 6 women and 5 men (https://www.furman.edu/about/leadership/senior-administrators/) and while I cannot identify the racial or ethnic identities of those individuals by individuals' picture alone, white people do not seem to under-represented. The current Board of Trustees (https://www.furman.edu/about/leadership/trustees/) is comprised of 33 people, 19 of whom are men (58%). 5 are Black (15%). They represent diverse professional fields but the majority come either from business or legal professions and even those with professional expertise in medical/clinical or educational fields intersect with corporate institutions.
In terms of student life, fraternities and sororities are numerous and vibrant, with over 1/3 of students involved. The university website lists 236 recognized student organizations (https://furman.campuslabs.com/engage/organizations). Of those, 54 organizations are tagged when the "diversity and inclusion" filter is selected. These groups include the Pride (LGBTQ) Alliance as well as Baptist Collegiate Ministry (we called ourselves BSU back in my day). In fact they really are a diverse bunch, including trumpeters, computer coders, gamers, global health advocates, band members, athletes, various religious student groups, and sign language interpreters. That same site lists a chapter of College Democrats and Democratic Socialists. There is also an active group called the Furman Conservative Society. The "religious council" filter tags 18 organizations; 16 of them are Christian in identity.
In all three of these areas, I see no wave of anti-capitalist Marxists storming the university gates or worse that present-day Bolsheviks have already torn the institution asunder. I would be curious to know more about your impression that a toxically vibrant neo-Marxism pervades Furman in spite of the verifiable data points and examples I laid out above.
You offered a distinction between equity and equality, which puzzled me, not because I'm unfamiliar with the distinctions between the two but because your definition did not illuminate what I understand to be such distinctions. You posit that equity necessarily presumes structural IN-equality (your capitalization) consisting of purposeful institutional scheming. Such a description elides systematic and systemic inequity; the distinction between the two is a key to my understanding of the importance of championing equity in 2026 above equality alone. I wonder what your perspective about these distinctions might be.
Finally, I'll speak out of personal experience. I am a licensed Baptist minister and a professor (at Emory). I'm also a father and a gay man in a committed inter-racial relationship of 25 years with religious recognition and support for all those years and legal recognition as a civil marriage for four years. In 2022, my husband and I sought to refinance our home mortgage. We tried Bank of America where my husband had established an account 30 years earlier; our home appraised for approximately $735,000, a good deal below what we thought its market value should be. BofA offered a refinance package with an interest rate of 4.25% We then tried Wells Fargo where I had an account over 3 decades old. Our home appraised for just under $1.4 million and an interest rate of 3.5%. We jumped at the chance and have reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial awards as a result. We both had credit score above 830 (my husband's slightly higher than mine). My husband made approximately 2.3x my annual salary. In my opinion the most likely reason for the difference in these two personal finance scenarios is continuing systemic inequity grounded in an historical legacy of lending practices guided by overt racist calculations. An example, to my mind, of Ockham's razor. The dismantling of legally-sanctioned racist policy may have been achieved resulting in systematic equality but the systemic disparities that confer undue burdens on some people by virtue of their race persist. Such disparties are inequitable.
Enough of my personal, professional, and financial history. I'll close with this: I loved Furman and love it still. At the same time, an important part of the way I know and express love and commitment was stifled as a gay man who could not come out in 1980s Furman and prayed repeatedly at Baptist Student Union meetings for "healing" of such sinful feelings. You are entitled to any subjective attitude you possess-- positive, negative, ambivalent, or disinterested-- regarding my short autobiography here. You do you. I will, however, work to champion a Furman that takes institutional steps to recognize and support students whose stories and experiences have points of connection to my own-- that of me, my spouse, our adult children, and people like us as well as a diverse spectrum of people quite unlike us. I believe that such efforts are served by a university that affirms diversity, equity, and inclusion and seeks to create structures that reflect this as one means of encouraging systemic equity and not merely systematic equality.
I would love to see Furman ditch the woke university mission statement enacted by president Davis. Her woke mission statement is a disgrace. Please do everything possible to return to the original mission statement. Thx
I very much like the Princeton Statement of Principles https://jmp.princeton.edu/princeton-principles-campus-culture-free-inquiry
Do you think something like this could be used? Thanks,
Hi John. I'm also John, a Furman alum from 1989. Please help me understand the mission statement you're hoping Furman ditches. Here's what I've just copied from the Furman website:
Vision
Inspiring purposeful living and fostering thriving communities through learning, creativity, and innovation.
Mission
Furman University challenges and supports lifelong learners through rigorous inquiry, transformative experiences, and deep reflection to lead lives of meaning and consequence.
Values
In championing the liberal arts and sciences, Furman University cultivates a community of learners engaged in an effort to understand themselves, the world, and their place in it.
To support this quest for knowledge and meaning, we steadfastly protect freedom of inquiry and hold ourselves to high standards of excellence and integrity. We foster a passion for lifelong learning by nurturing the growth of each individual as a whole person: intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
As we draw lessons from thoughtful consideration of our university’s past, we advocate respect for all people and actively welcome perspectives from a wide variety of backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs.
We aspire to advance thriving communities that honor inquiry, promote diversity, strive for equity, appreciate beauty, and act as responsible stewards of our planet.
These aspirations inspire our vision and shape our mission, calling us to meet the challenges and responsibilities of a complex, diverse, and rapidly changing world with courage, moderation, justice, wisdom, and humility.
Which of these is a woke statement? Which one(s) a disgrace?
Hello John....Thanks for the inquiry about what exactly about Furman's revised mission statement I find objectionable.
Many of the words in the new mission statement have dual, if not multiple meanings. Their superficial meaning may be one or another commonly understood meaning, and in a mission statement, may seem benign or even aspirational. However, in the context of Furman University's mission statement, certain words have been chosen very purposefully and carefully because they have a secondary, very specific meaning in 21st century Marxist philosophy. Most people, perhaps including yourself, are unaware of the real meaning of these specific words in relation to Furman's mission statement and new proposed direction, yet a proper understanding of their true meaning is crucial to understanding what has happened to Furman.
To provide an example, I point to a single sentence that contains two of three essential concepts and tenants of 21st century cultural Marxism: diversity and equity (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). In a non-Marxist context, most people would applaud diverse ideas and opinions and backgrounds in a given institution. Likewise, most compassionate people might think that a certain amount of equity is favorable and fair. However, in Furman's mission statement they are designed to specifically promote neo Marxist principles. Hopefully you will begin to understand their true meanings, and begin to wonder exactly who crafted this statement and for what specifically.
Here's the problem.....
Equity infers equity of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Its very use in a mission statement infers a belief in a structural IN-equality based on purposeful institutional scheming and ossified policy that .gives some people an advantage over others that guarantees their success, while simultaneously guaranteeing another group's relative failure. It implicitly denies that hard work, merit, diligent study, scholastic achievement, skill, etc., are the principal components in a person's chances for advancement and success in life in a given nation, culture, corporation, etc..
It infers a system of baked in structuralized victimhood.
In modern cultural Marxist teaching, the unfair beneficiary is the white anglo saxon man ie., white privilege, and the unfair disadvantaged is any person of color, all women, all persons of non-traditional sexual orientation, etc..
Victimhood is a belief about oneself that is overwhelmingly disempowering. One soon aspires only to be the most complete and greatest victims among other of the class of victims. Such a victim can then become the beneficiary of the greatest sympathy, both political as well as institutional, and is in line to claim the greatest rewards for having been such victim, while at the same time aspiring to destroy the society that actually allows for and promotes individual exceptionalism. The worth of the individual is ceded to the so called 'greater good'.
In a generous democracy, this translates into free housing, free food, free health care, free education, free cash to mothers with children but no husband, free child care, etc., etc.. The victims who receive these benefits become entitled to having them because of their victimhood, all in the name of giving them equity of outcome approaching the success of those who worked hard, applied themselves, developed skill and character and responsibility, etc.. In their mind they didn't succeed because of an unfair system which was stacked against them, and those that did succeed did so not because of merit and individual exceptionalism. Ultimately this belief justifies violence against the perceived institutions and oppressors. In a word, it is evil. It is inherently divisive.
Now, for your own edification regarding this nuanced understanding of the Marxist meaning of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, I refer you to Dr. James Lindsay and his YouTube channel called New Discourses. In reference to this discussion he posted a three part series, three years ago, entitled The Marxist Roots of DEI. I highly recommend that you study this material so that you understand the present cultural divide in this country as well as the danger of this philosophy with regards to the future and direction of Furman.
Hi John. I appreciate your taking the time to reply.
While you have equated the university's decision to champion diversity and equity with 21st century cultural Marixism, I remain unconvinced. The Furman of 2026 is not the Furman I attended from 1985-1989. It has co-educational housing; a higher percentage of minority faculty (there was one Black faculty member across all departments when I was a student); a female President; programs to recognize and encourage social cohesion for different social and cultural groups, including students of different races and ethnicities. women, and LGBTQ students; and various religious and spiritual traditions. To me, this is an overall positive.
In making these structural shifts, the university has not, in my opinion, adopted anything akin to cultural Marxism and is not endeavoring to do so in the future. In fact, the university is a champion of free-market capitalism both in academic and investment contexts. The university maintains majors in Business Administration, Accounting, Economics, Mathematics-Economics, Finance-Business, Finance-Economics. The university's endowment reflects diversification across broad categories that emphasize long-term, stable ROI over volatility.
Senior leadership is less dominated by white men than when I was a student but our kind are hardly bereft of a seat at the table. The senior administration consists of 6 women and 5 men (https://www.furman.edu/about/leadership/senior-administrators/) and while I cannot identify the racial or ethnic identities of those individuals by individuals' picture alone, white people do not seem to under-represented. The current Board of Trustees (https://www.furman.edu/about/leadership/trustees/) is comprised of 33 people, 19 of whom are men (58%). 5 are Black (15%). They represent diverse professional fields but the majority come either from business or legal professions and even those with professional expertise in medical/clinical or educational fields intersect with corporate institutions.
In terms of student life, fraternities and sororities are numerous and vibrant, with over 1/3 of students involved. The university website lists 236 recognized student organizations (https://furman.campuslabs.com/engage/organizations). Of those, 54 organizations are tagged when the "diversity and inclusion" filter is selected. These groups include the Pride (LGBTQ) Alliance as well as Baptist Collegiate Ministry (we called ourselves BSU back in my day). In fact they really are a diverse bunch, including trumpeters, computer coders, gamers, global health advocates, band members, athletes, various religious student groups, and sign language interpreters. That same site lists a chapter of College Democrats and Democratic Socialists. There is also an active group called the Furman Conservative Society. The "religious council" filter tags 18 organizations; 16 of them are Christian in identity.
In all three of these areas, I see no wave of anti-capitalist Marxists storming the university gates or worse that present-day Bolsheviks have already torn the institution asunder. I would be curious to know more about your impression that a toxically vibrant neo-Marxism pervades Furman in spite of the verifiable data points and examples I laid out above.
You offered a distinction between equity and equality, which puzzled me, not because I'm unfamiliar with the distinctions between the two but because your definition did not illuminate what I understand to be such distinctions. You posit that equity necessarily presumes structural IN-equality (your capitalization) consisting of purposeful institutional scheming. Such a description elides systematic and systemic inequity; the distinction between the two is a key to my understanding of the importance of championing equity in 2026 above equality alone. I wonder what your perspective about these distinctions might be.
Finally, I'll speak out of personal experience. I am a licensed Baptist minister and a professor (at Emory). I'm also a father and a gay man in a committed inter-racial relationship of 25 years with religious recognition and support for all those years and legal recognition as a civil marriage for four years. In 2022, my husband and I sought to refinance our home mortgage. We tried Bank of America where my husband had established an account 30 years earlier; our home appraised for approximately $735,000, a good deal below what we thought its market value should be. BofA offered a refinance package with an interest rate of 4.25% We then tried Wells Fargo where I had an account over 3 decades old. Our home appraised for just under $1.4 million and an interest rate of 3.5%. We jumped at the chance and have reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial awards as a result. We both had credit score above 830 (my husband's slightly higher than mine). My husband made approximately 2.3x my annual salary. In my opinion the most likely reason for the difference in these two personal finance scenarios is continuing systemic inequity grounded in an historical legacy of lending practices guided by overt racist calculations. An example, to my mind, of Ockham's razor. The dismantling of legally-sanctioned racist policy may have been achieved resulting in systematic equality but the systemic disparities that confer undue burdens on some people by virtue of their race persist. Such disparties are inequitable.
Enough of my personal, professional, and financial history. I'll close with this: I loved Furman and love it still. At the same time, an important part of the way I know and express love and commitment was stifled as a gay man who could not come out in 1980s Furman and prayed repeatedly at Baptist Student Union meetings for "healing" of such sinful feelings. You are entitled to any subjective attitude you possess-- positive, negative, ambivalent, or disinterested-- regarding my short autobiography here. You do you. I will, however, work to champion a Furman that takes institutional steps to recognize and support students whose stories and experiences have points of connection to my own-- that of me, my spouse, our adult children, and people like us as well as a diverse spectrum of people quite unlike us. I believe that such efforts are served by a university that affirms diversity, equity, and inclusion and seeks to create structures that reflect this as one means of encouraging systemic equity and not merely systematic equality.