The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
University of Toledo Backtracks on "Inclusive Excellence Award" to Conservative Professor Lee Strang
As at most law schools, the faculty at University of Toledo leans strongly to the left. Nevertheless, in an admirable display of ideological ecumenicism, the law school faculty overwhelmingly nominated their conservative colleague, Lee Strang for the university's second annual Inclusive Excellence Award, and the university announced that he would receive the award this year. [Update: A university release state that Strang "received an overwhelming number of faculty nominations." I thought that meant he was nominated by his colleagues. I've been informed that this was an error, and instead means that of faculty members, he received an overwhelming number of nominations, assumedly from students.] According to the university's chief diversity officer:
The individuals who nominated Strang for the award recognized his conservative point of view as a minority in academia and a benefit to legal debate.
One nomination read: "Professor Strang always welcomes students to present and defend their perspectives while respectfully challenging them to consider points of view contrary to their starting point. I believe the academy at its best is a place where truth claims and viewpoints can contend with one another based on their own merits and scholars from all life experiences have the opportunity to wrestle with the arguments of others as well as their own assumptions."
Another wrote, "As much as any demographic measure of diversity, the diversity of thought and perspective is at the very heart of our identity as an academic institution."
It is for these reasons Strang was recognized with the 2021 award.
Unfortunately, you can guess what happened next. Giving the award to Strang created an uproar among students, who started an online petition to revoke the award. In the course of doing so, students dug up an article from 2003 in which Strang argued in favor of discouraging homosexuality. Strang, for his part, noted that he no longer would make the same argument today, and that he had indeed long since successfully asked the publisher to pull the article from its website.
What Strang wrote in 2003 should be neither here nor there. He was being awarded for his commitment to "inclusive excellence" while working at Toledo, and no one has suggested that he said or did anything to make anyone feel unwelcome during his tenure at the law school.
One suspects that most of the objecting students and others were crying foul because the university actually lived up to its commitment to "inclusive excellence" by giving an award to a white man with conservative views, a professor whom his liberal colleagues found expertly facilitated classroom dialogue between people of opposing political point of views. Surely that comes within a literal definition of "inclusive excellence."
But in fact, the common understanding of "inclusive excellence" in the university context is that concern for inclusivity is limited to designated minority groups, with the goal of making them feel comfortable; a white male Christian professor who devotes classroom times to making sure viewpoints on all sides are represented and debated not only doesn't fit that ideal, to a significant extent he contradicts it. This is especially true if one believes, as many do, that disagreement with woke orthodoxy makes people feel "unsafe" and may even constitute "violence." And "excellence" in the common understanding, when prefaced by inclusive, does not mean a commitment to academic excellence, it means "we are excellent in our inclusivity." This in turn precludes conservative voices who dissent from the progressive version of inclusivity described above.
So the university was faced with a choice: (1) live up to the literal, plain meaning of inclusive excellence, and defend the award to Strang because diversity of opinion is crucial to the academic enterprise, and a professor who facilitates difficult, ideologically laden discussions is a boon to the university; or (2) backtrack, and suggest the award was a mistake.
Again, you can guess the rest. The university's diversity officer in essence promised reforms to ensure that such a mistake won't recur:
We have learned that more work is needed on our part to inform our campus community and our alumni of this recognition opportunity and to seek their nominations. Our UToledo alumni is an audience we had not actively engaged for nominations and will do so in the years ahead. In addition, we will broaden the review committee beyond the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to be sure we have diverse perspectives during the selection process for this honor.
In these first two years of the awards in 2019 and 2021, the recipients have been selected based exclusively on the nominations submitted. We are working to revise the nomination and review process to be sure we take a comprehensive approach in selecting the recipients to ensure their bodies of work represent our diversity and inclusion values.
As an institution we are committed to promoting a campus environment where every member of the UToledo community feels included and respected. I will continue to do my best to acknowledge and facilitate respectful discussions that enable us all to grow and do better.
That said, at least University of Toledo has not completely embarrassed itself. Near as I can tell, it has not announced a decision to revoke the award.
[UPDATE: I see while composing my post, Josh Blackman wrote a post on the same topic.]
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If they have a diversity officer, they are not interested in diversity.
They are interested in enforcing left wing dogma.
Is there a single 'diversity' officer on any campus that voted for Trump? If they did - would they be allowed to keep their job?
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Diversity is Conformity
Let’s slaughter Iraqis in order to liberate them.
That was just applying the lessons of Vietnam . . . in a perverse, evil manner.
I feel threatened by the Diversity Office. I am reporting the U of Toledo Law School. Shut it down now to end mt trauma.
Lol, David lives on Mt. Trauma.
I feel bullied and threatened by this denier of reality. It needs to be banned. I demand Volokh send it a nasty email.
Oh, stop your crying.
What a cruel and mean spirited remark. I feel marginalized by this bully.
I bet you feel marginalized all the time, nuts are frowned upon.
That's remarkably discriminatory against those with disabilities.
Just nuts.
Queenie is in denial and delusional about the chromosomal genotype in its every cell. Yet, it calls others mentally ill.
Seriously? Two posts of conservatives pretending not to understand what the word "diversity" means as used in 2021 America, in order to wallow in victimhood?
Hi, Martin. Zero tolerance for bullying racists like you.
Tell it to the faculty who initially nominated Strang, and the university that gave him the award. But the entire point of my post is that everyone was pretending that diversity means something other than what it really means in practice (i.e., not actual diversity of thought, but quite the opposite), and they backtracked when called on it.
David, diversity = Commie. Zero tolerance for Commie. Expel these students, or the school gets shut down by force.
Many groups in the US do that every day. It is nothing new, Martin
In writing this
"But in fact, the common understanding of "inclusive excellence" in the university context is that concern for inclusivity is limited to designated minority groups, with the goal of making them feel comfortable; a white male Christian professor who devotes classroom times "
and bringing into the discussion the issue of "white, male, Chrisitian" the author ruins his very constructive points by trying to make the controversy about things that it is not. There is no evidence that those opposed to the award were motivated by animus against a white person, a Christian and a male, intead of what apparently motivated them, which was animus by the Professor against the gay community solely based on the fact that they were gay.
Finding animus and motives where they do not exist does not strengthen the post, it weakens it to the point where it may not be considered a serious effort.
If you think the administration would have backtracked under the circumstances if Strang were a black Muslim woman, I'm afraid I must strongly disagree.
That may well be, but the point of my was that the potential recission was not because the individual was a a white Christian male. The ethnic, gender and religious characteristics of the person do not appear to be the impetus for the action while the post suggested that was part of the decision.
Personally I am in agreement with the basic thrust of the post. So adding an unsupported implication is not helpful and obscures the very well stated position of the original post by Prof. Bernstein.
being a white Christian male was a factor.
Your proof fell off your post.
Lame and disingenuous reply. This isn't a court of law its an opinion comment section and of course I cant prove the thoughts in someones mind unless they outright announce them and they know better than to do that.
Inclusivity is about making traditionally persons from marginalized groups feel welcomed and supported. If this guy had written about Jews the way he wrote about gays Bernstein would be calling for him to be canned, much less given an inclusivity award. It's just that being decent to gays isn't very important to him.
Gay = Sad in the upside down world of the Commie.
Conservatives are marginalized in law schools
You know this from your armchair?
Indeed. With the fancy thing called the internet, I can do all sorts of research from my armchair.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/law-prof-ideology.pdf
QA,
No one should care what a gal/guy wrote 18 years ago in one article. What matters i how s/he treats people now.
One might have thought that was obvious but the current passion for thought crimes will not tolerate it.
People get to decide for themselves what matters to them.
Yup. You and I are allowed to be narrow minded
but they do not have a right to expect that others must thin the same way
The other day someone explained to me another comment-thread how "the purpose of the anti-discrimination statute is to remedy past discrimination against women" and therefore a men-only gym is illegal, but a women-only gym is fine.
If private discrimination against "traditionally dominant groups" is OK, would government discrimination against them also be OK?
Why not just declare such "groups" beyond the protection of law and be done with it!
What a fine, humanitarian ideology!
That should read persons from traditionally marginalized groups
Can't keep your gobbledegook straight?
Speaking of straight, do you have any actual evidence that engaging in sodomitical acts is comparable in any relevant respect to being Jewish?
(and in spite of my segue, I am aware that there are "straight" acts of sodomy)
Thanks for making my point for me Cal.
You haven't defined what constitutes being "decent" to gays. I presume you'd be in favor of being decent to Pentecostals or Trump voters (wouldn't you?), but that doesn't mean you have to affirm them or say they're good for the public. It certainly doesn't mean left-wing bakers should be forced to make cakes shaped like MAGA hats.
You really don't know how to be decent to gay persons, do you? Like I said, you're doing a great job of making my point that conservatives just don't care about them hence they're not worked up over someone writing homophobic nonsense about them.
I don't know if this person wrote "homophobic nonsense" or not, he pulled his article in an act of capitulation.
Perhaps you yourself know how to be decent to someone who thinks lives differently than yourself, thus you cannot imagine anyone who believes (say) gluttony to be a sin being decent to a glutton, or someone who believes sodomy to be a sin being decent to someone who engages in sodomy.
Saying that someone's a bad person because of who they are and that their existence is bad for the children of America is not being decent to that person. Again, if someone said these kind of things about any group that you'd care if they were discriminated against you most certainly wouldn't call it decency. Quite the opposite.
At one point I thought this was a reductio ad absurdam, but what if a movement emerges saying that telling fat people to go on diets is hateful and bigoted toward the gluttonous? That it's wicked to say that a corrupt society is encouraging unhealthy eating?
So many assumptions packed into your assertions - it's like you yourself can't imagine being nice to someone who thinks or lives differently than you, so you imagine any criticism of corrupt lifestyles must be motivated by pure Nazi-level hatred.
You're working with a strawman here because you really can't get the basic point. It's not about assuming 'Nazi-level hatred,' it's that equating gay persons to gluttons is itself not being decent to them, it's inherently insulting. And the University rightly has a conception of inclusivity that wants to do the opposite of insulting gay persons and other traditionally marginalized groups.
OK, now I'm going to come at you from the other side and ask why you hate gluttons.
Explain that you don't hate them, in terms these activists can understand:
https://naafa.org/
I guess you think people who write anti-Semitic things are being decent to Jews, they just hate the Judaism.
Begging the question again, I see.
You really don't have any compassion for people different from you, do you? The idea is so outside your comprehension that anyone who disagrees with any point of your aggressive political and social agenda must be a hater.
FWIW if anything sexual orientation is more immutable than being Jewish.
Tyranny, nastiness, acting the fool, and bullying of families are choices.
But enough about you.
You mean such as being a perv.
But most people still discriminate against them and think it is perfectly okay.
These groups marginalized themselves by acting like fools and being nasty to ordinary people.
Yeah, the fact that up until quite recently they were the subject of felony laws just for being who they are was totally because of their nastiness and acting like fools. Derpity Derp from Mt. Trauma Behar!
The killed 20 million people by their sexual selfishness. They are mass murderers.
When gays gain government power, it is a catastrophe. The Nazi Party was an all gay affair, all the way to the very top.
Gays intimidated Amazon into removing the 700 page review of the Nazi archives released after the fall of East Germany documenting the homosexuality of the entire Nazi hierarchy. They are always tyrannical and sadistic.
"The Nazi Party was an all gay affair,"
You are a demented nut, gays were targeted by the Nazis.
You cannot get a copy of the Pink Swastika. 700 pages of Nazi archives documenting the atrocities of these gay political leaders.
Some Nazis were engaged in homosexual acts but most did not and the Nazi party's official position was to send them to camps.
You are nuts. By your logic people who went out not wearing masks are mass murderers.
By setting the date of that determination of marginalized groups could include Italian, Irish, Chinese, perverts, Catholics, Mormons, Arabs and more.
But it's difficult to muster sympathy for someone who buckles so easily and tries to remove all trace of his essay in response to being called names by idiots. I have no idea if the essay is fair, or even fair to his current thinking, but instead of cancelling it he could have released an update explaining which parts of the essay he wouldn't write now, and why not.
Why bother defending someone who can't be bothered to defend himself?
Yeah, what idiots those gay persons were for being offended by someone writing about them: "a corrupt society that does not seek to prevent homosexual activity makes it more difficult for us to properly raise our children."
Again, imagine he wrote that about a group whom you would care if they were discriminated against.
Would you want your kids to be gluttonous, proud, lustful? Do you appreciate a corrupt society which encourages these qualities in them? Does that mean you don't know how to be decent to your kids?
Comparing gay persons to gluttons is not helping you here.
Again, if he had wrote "a corrupt society that does not seek to prevent Orthodox Judaism makes it more difficult for us to properly raise our children" you wouldn't be saying "he, you would call out gluttons wouldn't you, so what's wrong with calling out Orthodox Judaism?"
You're begging the question of which comparison is the appropriate one. Eating to please a corrupt appetite, endangering one's health - how could one encourage this to sexual misbehavior (yes, I include straight misbehavior, not that this will affect your narrative).
And again, I can't answer for this specific essay since the author pulled from the Internet in an act of cowardice.
If you want to say by assuming that gay persons being gay aren't doing anything wrong then I'm 'begging the question,' then yes, consider that question begged out. I don't think their orientation makes them equatable to a glutton or a prideful person and I don't think they are a threat to properly raising children. More to the point, given that the University values inclusivity as involving making gay persons feel welcome and supported Strang's writings are clearly not compatible with that.
"More to the point, given that the University values inclusivity as involving making gay persons feel welcome"
By making traditionalist followers of every major religion feel unwelcome?
That's your logic - disagreeing with people makes them feel unwelcome, so anyone who isn't a woke purple-haired hipster is being made to feel unwelcome.
Btw, I don't think Strang took his article down out of cowardice but as a realization of how offensive it was. A person need not stick with every thing they say once it's pointed out that its bigoted.
How on earth should I know? I didn't know the article existed until after it had been pulled.
I'm glad you had a chance to read the article before it was pulled - you did, didn't you?
He needed a job to pay the bills. So he had to cave to homosexual cancel pressure.