Good Governance or Good Press:
Your priorities determine your outcomes. | By Neil Gonsalves
Written by Neil Gonsalves for Seeking Veritas on Substack
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.”
- Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
In 2020, the murder of George Floyd sparked a social movement that accelerated and went viral as quickly as a global pandemic. Boston University, faced with demands from black students and activists to address racial problems on campus, responded by betting that good press was better than good governance.
Intractable racial problems
They unveiled the Center for Antiracist Research, which would be headed by a celebrity with no management experience: Ibram X Kendi. While his scholarship is routinely criticized and challenged within academia for its lack of academic rigour, he was highly efficient at raising funds, and attracting corporate sponsors - most of whom were highly invested in improving their own diversity credit score. The money poured in, and the Centre received approximately $43-$55 million dollars; the majority of which came in year one - arguably enough to make a significant difference to what Kendi described as “intractable racial problems of our time.”
In such tumultuous times, simple messaging travels more efficiently through the frustrated masses, and Kendi offered the right mix of simplicity and pseudo-profundity. He argued that there’s no such thing as racial neutrality, and there is no middle ground on race — everyone is either racist or actively antiracist. He believes all disparities in outcomes and achievements of racialized people are a result of racism and discrimination. His anti-racist philosophy was adopted by corporations, educational institutions and legislators at a dizzying pace.
The changing social tides
The problem with fads and trends that have meteoric growth, however, is that they fall out of favour almost as quickly -and usually leave a swath of well-meaning early adopters in their destructive wake. The first couple of years went really well for the antiracist advocates: DEI departments grew, budgets expanded, new policies were written and adopted with little consultation and almost no room for dissent. Those years emboldened practitioners and made consultants king - but below the surface, significant problems were becoming apparent. Intellectuals from within racialized groups, including many prominent black scholars, criticized the divisiveness and regressive approach that had become the flavour de jour. The public was quickly tiring of all the blaming and shaming, political tides began shifting and the lawsuits began emerging.
By 2023, three years after its launch, the lack of management experience caught up with Kendi and the Centre for Antiracist Research. Most of their projects were cancelled, little or no research was produced, and most of the staff at the Centre were laid off. Complaints about unethical management of donations were raised, and reports indicated a toxic work environment with high turnover. The Center even tried to manage the demands by hiring an executive director to deal with the day to day operations; but the person left the role within less than a year and a half. The situation became so bad that Boston University launched an inquiry into the running of the Centre and the allegations of mismanagement and toxicity.
The commercialization of DEI
As a result, staff lost their jobs, millions of dollars collected were never properly utilized, and new academic degrees that were proposed never came to fruition. But not all was lost. Kendi’s book, “How to become an Antiracist” became a best seller. It allowed for successful spinoffs such as “Antiracist Baby”, geared for young children, and “How to Be a Young Antiracist,” targeting tweens and teenagers. Not to miss any opportunity, he also created a guide for parents, aptly named “How to Raise an Antiracist.” - Collaborations with various companies have further yielded “anti-racist” merchandise and apparel.
His fame has allowed him to diversify his portfolio. He now broadcasts his own “Be Antiracist” podcast, appears on television as an expert talking head, has his own production company named “Maroon Visions” and also is the star of a new exclusive show on ESPN+ called “Skin in the Game with Dr. Ibram X. Kendi”- purportedly taking on racism in the sports world.
All of this over and above the undergraduate course he teaches at Boston University on antiracism and the $20,000 per hour speaking fees for virtual presentations.
I suppose a diversified portfolio is really important for a social justice advocate who owns multiple properties in Boston and a vacation residence in Martha’s Vineyard.
Doubling Down
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Rev. Martin Luther King Jr
None of this should come as a surprise:a multimillion dollar Centre left in the hands of a person with no management experience, new-found celebrity status, unrealistic expectations infused with millions of dollars, and public adoration. What could go wrong?
While Boston University conducts its inquiry on the management of the Centre, they have continued to express support for Kendi, who remains Director. He even has a plan that should make up for all the other failed projects. With the clarity of knowing all his critics are merely trying to “settle old scores” as he explained in an interview, he is going to forge ahead by creating a first of its kind fellowship program for antiracist intellectuals, a nine-month residency program which will include participation in public events while conducting their own research.
At this point, it is hard to tell if that’s good governance or good press, but the organizational priorities will surely impact its outcome.
Bio: Neil Gonsalves is an Indian-born Canadian immigrant who grew up in Dubai, U.A.E. and moved to Canada in 1995. He is an Ontario college educator, a TEDx speaker, an author and columnist, and an advocate for new immigrant integration and viewpoint diversity.
References:
Thank you Neil for such an insightful article. It's a great example of how style can quickly overcome substance or good governance when people and organizations become more concerned with image over making substantive change.
Thanks for this thought-provoking article.
Over the past couple days, I've spoken to two people about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and what it means to them. L says "the fundamental principles of DEI have been pulverized into particles of divisiveness. DEI is about to DIE ...just saying!" J says "I think leadership has failed here by not implementing proper DEI programs. They treat it as a check box exercise rather than a culture change"
As it happens both these people are Black women.
While I don't particularly care if a person is able to parlay their recent success into more success and opportunities, my concern is about the message. To be clear, however, $43M is an incredibly obscene amount of money and the concern about mismanagement is troubling but that is not the purpose of my comment.
We live in divisive times and all the divisiveness that was being swept under the carpet in the name of multiculturalism and "melting pot-ism" has now bubbled over. This divisivness was designed to play on people's fears. Its message changes according to the racial makeup of the group but it is about fear.
On the face of it, I do not disagree with Kendi on the intractability of racism. It is an insipid form of hate that can negatively affect people's lives. Contrarily, I also recognize that demonizing, downplaying, or devaluing the contribution of people who are not BIPOC is not the way to solve this problem. This is why I particularly like the quote you started this article with. You cannot root out hate by simply applying more hate to the equation.
I have always supported the principles of DEI - indeed they are high minded and worthy of attaining. Furthermore, I have always spoken against simple rubber-stamping or check-boxing DEI principles in the workplace. However, humans, being what we are, cannot seem to get away from "going overboard" especially when it comes to social change. So, the pendulum inevitably swung too far; and now what started out as principles worthy of attaining in our society has become a stick that is wantonly being used to bash the head in of any suggestions that maybe - just maybe - the pendulum has swung too far.
We must have more conversations like these and articles like this one help inspire them. Thank you.