Letter to President Davis from a Concerned Alumnus
Jeff Salmon 72' explains his concerns about threats to free expression at Furman
Sent October 7 2022
Dear Elizabeth:
Thank you for the invitation to join a group of alumni for a discussion on the current and future direction of the university we value greatly. A few brief thoughts on the session:
Alex Taylor said we were all free to have our own set of opinions, but not our own set of facts. That was a novel way to begin a conversation that could be assumed to involve both different opinions and at least some different interpretation of facts.
I found your summation of the current demographic challenges facing Furman, the uphill battle for brand awareness, the impact of the COVID wallop on the university’s finances and associated decisions on men’s sports, and the problem of retention of Blacks and gays, immensely informative and consistent with what I’ve learned from reading about other colleges and universities. Additionally, I learned a great deal from comments from everyone around the table and was able to explore some of the issues in greater depth at lunch with Jeremy Cass.
Here I summarize my interventions.
Furman is a school I love, it shaped me in ways I can’t measure and my son’s recent experience with Furman was very positive – academically, socially, and in terms of career focus and advancement. The Furman Advantage is an excellent initiative. My comments below should be read in that spirit.
I find the growing focus on DEI to be troubling and likely to cause the university future difficulties. While the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion should not be controversial, as you are aware, how those terms are defined by DEI professionals and advocates as well as the roles, objectives, values, and mission of DEI professionals are often fraught and open to debate. Just a quick review of the website for the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (https://www.nadohe.org/about) suggests a difficulty. You’ll see very little, if any, serious reflection on the importance of diversity of political opinion, or on the importance of free speech, open inquiry, and political debate encompassing diverse points of view.
While Furman stresses academic excellence and proclaims on its website that it “steadfastly protect[s] freedom of inquiry…”, such statements on behalf of free speech are few and far between in comparison to statements supporting DEI on campus and the accompanying detail on the growing administrative structure created to shape DEI behavior at Furman. Add to this the Bias Report Incidence system, which may itself stifle free speech through fear and self-censorship, and you get the impression of a university maybe trying too hard to look progressive.
Greater concern surrounds job announcements including the statement that Furman strives to “create an anti-racist community.” As with DEI, the definition of anti-racism held by its originators is not something that I think many of your alumni can support. Here’s Ibram X. Kendi’s oft-quoted definition, “[t]he only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Who believes this, in other words who believes discrimination in hiring, promotion, admission etc. is an admirable goal, or even legal?
I believe I know what you mean when you use the term anti-racist, but as with DEI, definitional clarity would be beneficial.
To be clear, I recognize the need to attract quality students of all backgrounds and the demographic challenges facing Furman. There is no reason DEI, or certainly being against racism, should conflict with what you’ve articulated as Furman’s fundamental commitment to free inquiry and diversity of political thought.
To clarify any confusion on these issues, which I believe must arise because of the expansion of DEI administrators, I suggested at the end of the meeting that strong statements by you and others at Furman on the critical importance of academic freedom, political diversity and open inquiry would be very helpful.
There are other actions that can be taken to emphasize and operationalize this commitment, which I would be glad to share. For example, why not put adoption of the Chicago Principles up to a faculty vote?
In the end, however, as valuable as steps like these can be, it is the actions of the administration, faculty and students defending free speech when it is challenged that will make the difference.
Thank you again for bringing us together. Free speech and all that goes with it doesn’t take care of itself. It needs strong defenders in the university.
Sincerely,
Jeff Salmon ‘72
Visit us at Furman Free Speech Alliance and see how you can help.
The Furman Free Speech Alliance is not associated with Furman University. We are friends of Furman dedicated to promoting free expression, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity at Furman University.