Professor Dorian Abbot, a tenured faculty member in the Department of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, is currently under attack by a mob of university students, faculty, and alumni after he posted a series of YouTube videos criticizing his department’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Committee.
According to Professor Abbot, EDI efforts “promote a worldview in which group membership is a primary aspect of the human being and different groups are taught to view each other antagonistically.” For this reason, he hoped his videos might ignite a spirited intellectual discussion, while depicting the dangers of vilifying groups based on race, class, and gender.
Instead, Professor Abbot was blown away by the social media firestorm and backlash to his videos. “I think I was a little naive,” he told the Chicago Thinker. Finding the comment section unproductive and not conducive to a civil debate, Professor Abbot decided to delete the videos.
However, one can still access the slides featured in the original video posts. Since Professor Abbot merely read off of his presentation slides in the videos, his message is still publicly available. “What concerns me,” said Professor Abbot in one of his videos, “is that we have been trying to fix bias problems by building new biases into selection processes.”
Last year, Professor Abbot served on a committee for a competitive postdoctoral fellowship, as well as on the hiring committee for the Geophysical Sciences department. Professor Abbot reported in his videos that both of these committees made selection decisions based upon sex and race. According to Professor Abbot, some common phrases he heard in these meetings were the following:
“We need more X diversity in our department, not more Chinese…[b]ecause Z is a white male, he has no right to discuss certain issues…[and] [w]e should hire Y primarily because he or she will help us with our problem with X diversity.”
Professor Abbot also disclosed to the Thinker that, when he was on the department’s hiring committee, he and the other committee members were told that the dean of the division wouldn’t consider a faculty candidate, regardless of ability, unless he or she was a woman or an underrepresented minority.
Professor Abbot provided the following quotation from an email he received while on that committee: “…the only hires that will be considered are for women and/or under-represented groups. I know we cannot legally say that for an advertisement, but it may affect how things play out if we move forward with interviews…”
This was not an isolated incident. According to Professor Abbot, Assistant Professor Graham Slater, who is a member of the EDI departmental committee, recently gave a seminar to the department, which included the following quotation: “If you are just hiring the best people you’re part of the problem.”
Meanwhile, Professor Abbot released a thorough response to these incidents. And he remains committed to his argument:
“I am speaking out on these issues because I believe I have a moral obligation to warn about the dangers of adopting a group-based framework in the academy and in society more generally… I am firm in my belief that sometimes people need to be challenged to think through the implications of ideologies they are advocating [for].”
In his video presentation, Professor Abbot says he is trying to remind the University of its primary goal: “the creation of important new knowledge” and “the education of students.” He believes that the University should not be involved in “advocating particular political ideologies, religious instruction of the population, attempting to adjudicate and effect social justice, and providing for the national defense.”
“Let’s stay focused on doing amazing research and teaching, because society depends on us to do that. Let’s continue to hire and promote faculty based on their ability and promise in research and teaching,” he concluded.
Unfortunately, in academia, Professor Abbot’s statements are highly controversial. Professor Abbot, who says he’s “just a sciences guy” was in shock after he received fierce opposition from a group of his students and colleagues, many of whom expressed being “hurt” and feeling “unsafe” due to his beliefs.
Professor Slater wrote on Twitter that “[d]ropping videos on [Y]ou[T]ube and then promoting them to members of the community without an outlet for moderated conversation is an aggressive act.” He added that Professor Abbot’s behavior has “the potential to do considerable harm. It has already done harm. It is an act I completely repudiate.”
Professor Slater was not alone in his criticisms. The following examples demonstrate the collective outrage, posted in response to Professor Abbot’s commentary:
Finally, staff, students, and alumni of the Geophysical Sciences department created a letter containing 11 demands addressed to the Geophysical Sciences department faculty. In it, the group contends that the contents of Professor Abbot’s opinions “threaten the safety and belonging of all underrepresented groups within the department and serve to undermine Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion initiatives driven by the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Coordination Team (EDICT).” They also assert that his videos “represent an aggressive act” towards research and teaching communities.
More specifically, the co-signers’ 11 demands would effectively ostracize and shame Professor Abbot, by stripping him of departmental titles and privileges, as well as by allowing offended students to transfer out of his courses. The group also demands that the Department of Geophysical Sciences formally and publicly denounce Professor Abbot’s views, and change hiring and promotion procedures so as to prioritize EDI. When it comes to free speech, “[t]here is a group [on campus] that’s trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them,” Professor Abbot told the Thinker.
The University of Chicago prides itself on the “Chicago Principles,” a mission statement claiming a commitment to the defense of free speech and open debate. However, in practice, these principles are routinely ignored. Students and professors understand that there are repercussions, both professional and social, for speaking freely if their opinions defy current campus orthodoxy.
Incidents that suppress free speech on campus abound at the University of Chicago. A few recent examples include the vicious harassment of conservative students, including a PhD student who presented research that contradicted leftist ideology, and the revocation of Steve Bannon’s invitation to speak on campus.
A petition was created and has been signed by over 9,000 people, asking President Robert Zimmer to affirm Professor Abbot’s right to free speech and calling on the University to uphold the Chicago Principles.
To the University’s credit, President Zimmer released a strong statement maintaining that, as prescribed by the Chicago Principles, “faculty are free to agree or disagree with any policy or approach of the University, its departments, schools or divisions without being subject to discipline, reprimand or other form of punishment.”
However, the letter penned by angry students, staff, and alumni calling for Professor Abbot to be censured was not addressed to President Zimmer—it was addressed to the Geophysical Sciences department faculty. The angry signatories are requesting a response addressing each individual demand from the Department of Geophysical Sciences by the end of Autumn quarter, Friday, December 11th.
It has yet to be determined whether the Geophysical Sciences department will maintain the University’s commitment to the Chicago Principles or if President Zimmer will further intervene. If the department punishes Professor Abbot in direct contradiction with the University’s principles, President Zimmer may have to defend free speech and diversity of thought by taking greater action.
Professor Abbot, for his part, appears to be at peace with his decision to speak his mind about the perils of groupthink and race/gender-based bias. “I’m not worried about any of this” and “I don’t feel like a victim,” said Professor Abbot. “If they run me out of the University, then I don’t want to be here anyway.”
I got curious and did a quick search. I found that between the math, physics, geophysics, and chemistry departments, there is exactly ONE black person listed under “faculty”. Given that seeing people who look like you in a field is a key predictor of people’s belief in whether the field is viable for them, this matters a LOT. It’s long past time to admit that there are rampant inequalities in STEM that contribute to this horrifically low diversity that need addressing.
This is in response to “The Mob”.
Are you aware that a Black African runner from Kenya has won the Chicago marathon ~ 17 out of the last 20 times.
Are you aware that ~ 85% of current NBA basketball players are Black A. American men between 18 and 32 even though the USA’s % of it’s population that are Black African American men between the ages of 18 and 32 is under 5% – can this all be explained by RACISM!
Are you aware that Chicago has had a Black women’s business expo at our McCormick place for something like 23 consecutive years and no one has gotten upset, held a protest?
What if there was a White men’s business exposition at McCormick place? M’thinks there would be massive Antifa, BLM riots, mass looting.
It’s sort of my impression Mr “Mob” that you are more than a bit hypocritical about racial/sexual realities.
Hey The Mob:
So your answer is to admit faculty who can’t do the work?? You want faculty who are intellectually inferior to the best The University can and should hire. You want the faculty who stare dumb-faced at the blackboard as they don’t know what the fuck is going on in the room. You want to dumb down The University as its too competitive? If you want that, go to another place that prioritizes quotas over talent….Yale, Brown, Berkeley and Princeton are short flights away.
There are lots of affirmative action hires there to soothe your …. they have lots of unqualified folks who make the photos look good, but who are doing nothing but nonsense like various forms of grievance studies and other “exciting” new fields of gibberish (Critical Race Theory, etc, etc).
You are a fucking imbecile.
Lmao, don’t forget that colleges lower the bar for conservatives in order to foster more “intellectual diversity”. And though I should probably only be attacking the implicit argument you make that “there simply aren’t any black people that can do the job right” I’ve also got to point out that you make a few grammar errors yourself. Not only is your comment racist, but it works to undermine your entire fucking “intellectual high horse” point. I’d much rather have a black professor with a PhD from literally any program than Jared Goldman behind the blackboard. Please read my work.
I am sorry, but one of the incidents that you cite as suppression of free speech is about how mandatory student fees funding abortion is a violation of the said right. Would you then also support the claim that making people pay taxes to fund the police is a violation of their free will, and any contributions to police should only be made through a voluntary charity system?
This is a fantastic article!! Thank you for bravely stepping up to tell Professor Abbot’s story. He is right to stand for merit-based selection! Isn’t that what every respected intellectual institution should want – the best and the brightest? Isn’t that what our country fought so hard for, in its struggles for equality? The people who angrily and self-righteously demand selection to be done on the basis of race or sex are undermining not only our institutions but our society as well. If we don’t stand up against what we know to be both unintelligent and morally repugnant, the hateful mob will strip us of our freedoms! I hope The University of Chicago stands firmly in support of the Chicago Principles and Professor Abbot! Thank you again for bringing this to light! I wish you, your newspaper team, and Professor Abbot all the very best! Stay strong!!
Abbot’s videos were poorly researched and argued. He cites data from a minuscule sample size without taking any time to critically examine other points of view. His callous citation of the Holodomor and other atrocities demonstrates that his desire to portray himself as a victim clouds his basic judgment. It’s ludicrous to compare biased hiring practices with a genocide that killed millions of people. If Abbot wants to avoid criticism from students, perhaps he should focus on his research instead of playing politics. I don’t think it would be appropriate to remove Abbott from his faculty position, but I also think it’s a bad idea to laud him as a “free speech hero”. This entangles his position at the University with his political beliefs, a concept he actually argues against in these videos. Abbot shouldn’t worry about this too much, however. I’m sure that the Thinker and others will turn their backs on him very quickly once they discover he is a climate scientist.
Really….
You are a fucking imbecile…..
Professor Abbot is EXACTLY the kind of Professor THIS University needs. Stanford thinks so too.:
https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-uchicago-woke-inquisition/
THIS University does not need you woke imbeciles…..The University should get the details of EVERY SINGLE STUDENT involved in attacking Professor Abbot the eliminate their scholarships, loans and all other forms of financial support.
Toss these scumbag imbeciles out of The University like the fecal waste they are.
Did you read my comment? I explicitly said that Professor Abbot should retain his faculty position. I object to his use of his faculty position to air his poorly researched political beliefs. Abbot is a geophysical science professor, and his time at the University should be spent performing research and instructing students, not playing political pundit.
Good luck with your witch hunt.
So your answer is to admit faculty who can’t do the work?? You want faculty who are intellectually inferior to the best The University can and should hire. You want the faculty who stare dumb-faced at the blackboard as they don’t know what the fuck is going on in the room. You want to dumb down The University as its too competitive? If you want that, go to another place that prioritizes quotas over talent….Yale, Brown, Berkeley and Princeton are short flights away.
There are lots of affirmative action hires there to soothe your …. they have lots of unqualified folks who make the photos look good, but who are doing nothing but nonsense like various forms of grievance studies and other “exciting” new fields of gibberish (Critical Race Theory, etc, etc).
You are a fucking imbecile.
Sorry Jared! I am a bit confused by your hostility. Can you please point me to the place where I stated my support of affirmative action? I believe that there are many good arguments against the practice of affirmative action. Professor Abbot seems to be, however, incapable of making those arguments.
Stop straw-manning people and take the time to look into what Abbot actually did wrong. He disrespected the millions of people who died in the Holodomor in an attempt to defend his political opinions that he aired to his colleagues inappropriately.
Thank God for Professor Dorian Abbot!!
I think the alumni and donors should unite, and withhold ANY AND ALL DONATIONS to The University that go to ANY of the students involved in this insanity.
Our money was hard earned, and will not support these imbeciles. Throw them out of The University and let them go to Brown, Yale or Princeton. We don’t want them here.