Skip to content

Renowned University Professor Quits Position Over DEI Push, Says “Duty To Truth” At Odds With “Anti-Racism”

A New York University professor is the latest classical liberal to stand up to the toxic, destructive forces of cultural marxism and speak out against its malicious narratives firsthand. Even for liberals, the ever-encroaching and increasingly-aggressive tactics used by the political left have made existence for people who merely believe in individual freedoms nearly impossible.

Jonathan Haidt announced the resignation from his professional organization on his blog, The Heterodox, in light of their aggressive push to incorporate values branded under various titles like DEI, anti-racism, equity, and everything else that runs counter to truth. 

Writing about his resignation, The College Fix said:

Renowned social psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote that he plans to resign from his major professional association, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, because he believes the DEI and anti-racism commitments it requires of its members are in conflict with his sacred duty, as a teacher and scholar, to educate and tell the truth.

The College Fix noted that Haidt’s underlying premise was that one can either accept the left’s efforts to indoctrinate everyone in DEI work or they can continue believing in basic truths, but not both. More specifically, Haidt merely notes that there can only be one overarching “telos” – the end, goal, or purpose for which something is done – and that social justice and truth compete for this target. 

Haidt laid out his position by confronting the problem with a university’s claim to search for truth while demanding adherence to a rigid and intolerant worldview. 

“The telos of a knife is to cut, the telos of medicine is to heal, and the telos of a university is truth,” Haidt said in the blogpost. “Universities can have many goals…and many values (such as social justice, national service, or Christian humility), but they can have only one telos, because a telos is like a North Star.”

"*" indicates required fields

Are you voting in the midterm elections?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“As teachers I believe we have a fiduciary duty to our students’ education,” he continued. “As scholars I believe we have a fiduciary duty to the truth.” Unfortunately, his search for truth puts him at direct odds from his professional organization, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. 

The College Fix explained that one of the final moments before the fissure came as Haidt was asked to explain how his research promoted equity rather than advance great understandings:

“In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining ‘whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.’ Our research proposal would be evaluated on older criteria of scientific merit, along with this new criterion,” he wrote in the post.

Additionally, “most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, so these mandatory statements force many academics to betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting, or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity.”

“I refuse to do this,” Haidt wrote.

Even more, the conference requirements state that “every psychologist who wants to present at the most important convention in our field must now say how their work advances anti-racism.”

One of the most jarring examples of anti-racism, from Ibram X. Kendi, is that the only solution to racism is not, as one might expect, to simply end racism; instead, it is to become anti-racist – essentially changing who experiences discrimination and hate. The solution to racism is more racism.

In response to that notion, Haidt says this line of thinking is “incorrect morally” because “[they require] us to treat people as members of groups, not individuals, and then to treat people well or badly based on their group membership.”

Haidt concluded his powerful essay with a bang.

“I cannot remain loyal to an organization that is changing its telos and asking its members to violate their quasi-fiduciary duties to the truth,” he said in the conclusion. “I am especially dubious of the wisdom of making an academic organization more overly political in its mission, especially in the midst of a raging culture war, when trust in universities is plummeting.”