Does anyone else in this group see the incompatibility with this sentence in quality #3?: "[A]ny candidate with a record of ideological orthodoxy or supporting DEI should be eliminated from consideration immediately." You're calling for open inquiry and then calling for the immediate rejection of anyone with two items in their professional background, one of which is not even defined. It seems to me that the inherent ethos of this group represents a certain strand of "ideological orthodoxy" that you're not trying to eliminate but actually champion. As a Furman alumnus who is a professor at a major research university (associate professor at Emory with faculty appointments in three schools of the university) and who has worked on DEI initiatives, I personally have no direct experiences in such work that actually reflect the descriptions often put forth on many of the published posts and comments on this platform. Now you're telling me that someone with a track record of service in higher education with a background such as mine should be immeidately eliminated from consideration in Furman's presidential search. I am suspicious whether this group actually champions free speech and open inquiry but instead actually seeks to structurally limit it by censoring left-leaning perspectives. I joined this group not to participate in an echo chamber with others who share my views, experiences, and perspectives but to grapple with people whose own perspectives differ from mine even as they also love Furman and the way it shaped them. Given that hope, I have become increasingly skeptical that this platform might acutally offer that, especially when I read statements such as the one I quoted above.
Does anyone else in this group see the incompatibility with this sentence in quality #3?: "[A]ny candidate with a record of ideological orthodoxy or supporting DEI should be eliminated from consideration immediately." You're calling for open inquiry and then calling for the immediate rejection of anyone with two items in their professional background, one of which is not even defined. It seems to me that the inherent ethos of this group represents a certain strand of "ideological orthodoxy" that you're not trying to eliminate but actually champion. As a Furman alumnus who is a professor at a major research university (associate professor at Emory with faculty appointments in three schools of the university) and who has worked on DEI initiatives, I personally have no direct experiences in such work that actually reflect the descriptions often put forth on many of the published posts and comments on this platform. Now you're telling me that someone with a track record of service in higher education with a background such as mine should be immeidately eliminated from consideration in Furman's presidential search. I am suspicious whether this group actually champions free speech and open inquiry but instead actually seeks to structurally limit it by censoring left-leaning perspectives. I joined this group not to participate in an echo chamber with others who share my views, experiences, and perspectives but to grapple with people whose own perspectives differ from mine even as they also love Furman and the way it shaped them. Given that hope, I have become increasingly skeptical that this platform might acutally offer that, especially when I read statements such as the one I quoted above.