An EGALITARIAN Refutation of Billionaire Bill Ackman's Denunciation of Harvard's racism (DEI) and antisemitism

This billionaire tries to channel the sensible opposition to the Harvard Corporation into anti-egalitarian support for billionaires and class inequality

Read about billionaire Bill Ackman’s screed in full here. Akman’s two chief points are these:

1. He opposes Harvard’s DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) policy as racist on the grounds that, as he puts it, “[A]ccording to DEI, capitalism is racist, Advanced Placement exams are racist, IQ tests are racist, corporations are racist, or in other words, any merit-based program, system or organization which has or generates outcomes for different races that are at variance with the proportion these different races represent in the population at large is by definition racist under DEI’s ideology.”

2. He denounces [former] Harvard President Gay for, in her Congressional testimony, not explicitly condemning advocacy of the genocide of Jews and for not declaring that anybody who does advocate that at Harvard would be disciplined/expelled.

What is the EGALITARIAN take on these accusations against Harvard?

DEI and merit-based programs

The liberal wing of the billionaire ruling class promotes DEI to make it seem as if the idea of equality is just plain stupid because it denies what everybody knows is true, that some people are more talented or knowledgeable about this or that than others, duh! The ruling class, of course, never talks about the EGALITARIAN idea of equality, which does NOT deny what everybody knows is true.

I have written about egalitarianism and meritocracy here. I say the following:

There is a meritocratic aspect to an egalitarian society. For example, in an egalitarian society, passenger airplane pilots and surgeons and architects and so forth* would hold those positions only if they had demonstrated that they merited them, i.e., that they were truly sufficiently skilled and knowledgable and well-motivated to properly carry out the responsibilities of those positions and that they truly deserved the respect of those to whom they would give authoritative leadership. Nobody would hold such a position merely because they were of the "right" race or gender or ethnicity, etc.

Why? Because egalitarians (which is to say, most people), being (in the majority, at least) sensible and not crazy, would not want people to hold such positions unless they truly merited them. And yes, some people will and other people will not be talented or skilled or well-motivated enough to hold such positions. People are not all the same, and egalitarians know this.  Egalitarianism is NOT about making everybody be the same; I discuss this here.

At the same time, passenger airplane pilots and surgeons and architects and so forth would, like everybody else who contributed reasonably according to ability, have the right to take from the sharing economy what they need or reasonably desire or in the case of scarce things have equal status with the others when such things are rationed equitably according to need. In an egalitarian society there are no rich and no poor (and money is not used).

In an egalitarian society the motive for being an airplane pilot or surgeon or architect, etc., is not to become richer than other people (which is a major motive in our society of class inequality) but rather to be--for any of a number of positive pro-social reasons, of which there are many--an airplane pilot or surgeon or architect, etc.

The real issue, the issue that inequality-loving billionaires such as Ackman always want to obscure, is NOT whether or not people should be judged according to their personal merit (yes, they should be), but whether or not there should be some rich and some poor (no, there should not be.)

Antisemitism and genocide against Jews

Regarding former President Gay and antisemitism, I have written about this here. Briefly, this is what I say:

First, Gay should indeed have said that she and Harvard absolutely condemn the advocacy of genocide against Jews (including the advocacy or support of deliberate killing of Jewish non-combatant civilians just because they are Jews) and that those who advocate this will be expelled from the university.

Second, the specific examples of so-called advocacy of genocide against Jews that the congress members asked Gay to condemn were not actually advocacy of genocide against Jews; they were advocacy for ending Zionist oppression of Palestinians and (equivalently) ending the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and as such were advocacy for things that would BENEFIT, not harm, ordinary Jews.

Third, Gay should have explained that the so-called advocacy of genocide against Jews that the congress members were asking her to condemn was not actually such advocacy. She could not do this, however, because it would have meant exposing as a lie the Zionist assertion that Zionist oppression of Palestinians was for the purpose of making Jews safe. Gay would have had to explain (as I do in great detail here) that Zionism’s purpose was not at all to make Jews safe, but on the contrary to enable billionaire Israeli Jews to control the Israeli working class and get rich and powerful at its expense. Gay could not do this because she is beholden to the billionaires (including the likes of Ackman himself) who are all pro-Zionist.

Fourth, Gay knew that if she did discipline/expel students or faculty at Harvard who called for ending Zionism or (equivalently) ending the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, this would result in shutting down Harvard because LOTS of students and faculty know that opposing Zionism is morally right and they would have gone on strike against any attempt to discipline/expel those who advocated ending Zionism. Gay knew that the billionaires to whom she was beholden (such as Ackman, himself) did not want Harvard to be shut down. This is why Gay was forced to behave the way she did, with all of her evasive answers, when testifying before Congress.

If Gay had taken a principled, moral stand before Congress—a stand against the unjust oppression of Jews and against the unjust oppression of Palestinians—, then billionaires such as Ackman would have screamed bloody murder and called for her head!

HOW CAN WE MAKE AN EGALITARIAN WORLD THAT OUTLAWS OPPRESSION INSTEAD OF THE KIND OF WORLD THAT THE BILLIONAIRE ACKMAN WANTS?

My suggestions for what YOU can do to make this happen are here.