Boston U Center for Antiracist Research controversy

[Langue_doc]

An Ambitious Antiracism Center Scales Back Amid Allegations of Poor Management
Ibram X. Kendi, the center's leader who has become a flashpoint of national controversy, faces an inquiry into complaints from staff members.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/ibram-x-kendi-antiracism-boston-university.html?searchResultPosition=2

Behind a paywall, but here is the link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/ibram-x-kendi-antiracism-boston-university.html?unlocked_article_code=7yyA-XmaUPwkRMcTMIqQlgX8mjvd581_UBYrnRTekP9l0PyWyDOGe95HcgJGrUXaTmUjCTvHTZ4jp8aCmpvkiGIRcCiS8jk8OsbaJkQkheyIG5hm4m0kds5mbF-Kp5k1NTox2ABa1J-7oVS-2igWnypU_FQMrK05_fDmpURjBsXMpvqAqQSvBQTfXFE0FCZD_lcrDY4GcuWpcm6cOQfnYRsQjBb0vROOgMrqMw0uADhv9pGlAVzPxRX4HRajJKPbgWJ6v0VFz-x3ob53cxQTylSjvYpzhFltL6vi3SWEXMNORyZo52d_tWlN_FJkbfD5cVbx1yRe7jzj_B5oDFs-prL3rXXrUvocZ_p1A7-hEA&smid=url-share

The first few paragraphs of the oped "Ibram X. Kendi and the Problem of Celebrity Fund-Raising" by Michelle Goldberg:

The turmoil at Ibram X. Kendi's Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, which recently laid off more than half its staff, has been a schadenfreude bonanza for the right. Kendi, who argues that there's no such thing as racial neutrality, that all ideas and policies are either racist or antiracist, was perhaps the biggest intellectual star to emerge from the febrile, quasi-revolutionary moment following the murder of George Floyd. The Center for Antiracist Research launched in 2020 with a grandiose vision, seeking to "understand, explain and solve seemingly intractable problems of racial inequity and injustice." Money poured in; it ultimately raised nearly $55 million.

Three years later, there are considerable questions about what's been accomplished with all that money. Major initiatives, including plans to develop degree programs in antiracism, have been shelved. Little original research has been produced. People who worked at the center have alleged a longstanding pattern of severe mismanagement, with administrators amassing grants with little commitment to doing the work proposed in them. Boston University has begun an inquiry into how the center has been run.

Conservatives who see Kendi as the living embodiment of the style of social justice activism they deride as "wokeness" are, naturally, gleeful. Jeffrey Blehar wrote in National Review that he "cannot emphasize enough" how much the Kendi affair "fills me with delight." Many on the right see the center's apparent implosion as proof that the antiracist politics that flourished three years ago were always and only a con. "The point was always to line grifters' pockets off of the white guilt of liberals and the major corporations they run," said a Washington Examiner column.

It's almost hard to blame right-wingers for their delight; Kendi's mistakes played right into their hands. But for the rest of us, it's important to understand that the center's apparent implosion is more the result of a failed funding model than a failed ideology. It exemplifies the lamentable tendency among left-leaning donors to chase fads and celebrities rather than build sustainable institutions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/opinion/columnists/kendi-center-antiracist-research.html

[marshwiggle]

An Ambitious Antiracism Center Scales Back Amid Allegations of Poor Management
Ibram X. Kendi, the center's leader who has become a flashpoint of national controversy, faces an inquiry into complaints from staff members.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/ibram-x-kendi-antiracism-boston-university.html?searchResultPosition=2

Behind a paywall, but here is the link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/ibram-x-kendi-antiracism-boston-university.html?unlocked_article_code=7yyA-XmaUPwkRMcTMIqQlgX8mjvd581_UBYrnRTekP9l0PyWyDOGe95HcgJGrUXaTmUjCTvHTZ4jp8aCmpvkiGIRcCiS8jk8OsbaJkQkheyIG5hm4m0kds5mbF-Kp5k1NTox2ABa1J-7oVS-2igWnypU_FQMrK05_fDmpURjBsXMpvqAqQSvBQTfXFE0FCZD_lcrDY4GcuWpcm6cOQfnYRsQjBb0vROOgMrqMw0uADhv9pGlAVzPxRX4HRajJKPbgWJ6v0VFz-x3ob53cxQTylSjvYpzhFltL6vi3SWEXMNORyZo52d_tWlN_FJkbfD5cVbx1yRe7jzj_B5oDFs-prL3rXXrUvocZ_p1A7-hEA&smid=url-share

The first few paragraphs of the oped "Ibram X. Kendi and the Problem of Celebrity Fund-Raising" by Michelle Goldberg:

The turmoil at Ibram X. Kendi's Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, which recently laid off more than half its staff, has been a schadenfreude bonanza for the right. Kendi, who argues that there's no such thing as racial neutrality, that all ideas and policies are either racist or antiracist, was perhaps the biggest intellectual star to emerge from the febrile, quasi-revolutionary moment following the murder of George Floyd. The Center for Antiracist Research launched in 2020 with a grandiose vision, seeking to "understand, explain and solve seemingly intractable problems of racial inequity and injustice." Money poured in; it ultimately raised nearly $55 million.

Three years later, there are considerable questions about what's been accomplished with all that money. Major initiatives, including plans to develop degree programs in antiracism, have been shelved. Little original research has been produced. People who worked at the center have alleged a longstanding pattern of severe mismanagement, with administrators amassing grants with little commitment to doing the work proposed in them. Boston University has begun an inquiry into how the center has been run.

Conservatives who see Kendi as the living embodiment of the style of social justice activism they deride as "wokeness" are, naturally, gleeful. Jeffrey Blehar wrote in National Review that he "cannot emphasize enough" how much the Kendi affair "fills me with delight." Many on the right see the center's apparent implosion as proof that the antiracist politics that flourished three years ago were always and only a con. "The point was always to line grifters' pockets off of the white guilt of liberals and the major corporations they run," said a Washington Examiner column.

It's almost hard to blame right-wingers for their delight; Kendi's mistakes played right into their hands. But for the rest of us, it's important to understand that the center's apparent implosion is more the result of a failed funding model than a failed ideology. It exemplifies the lamentable tendency among left-leaning donors to chase fads and celebrities rather than build sustainable institutions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/opinion/columnists/kendi-center-antiracist-research.html

Sounds kind of like this:

After Raising $90 Million in 2020, Black Lives Matter Has $42 Million in Assets

Last month, New York Magazine reported that funds raised by the foundation were used to buy a house in California for nearly $6 million in cash in October 2020. The tax filing shows property worth $5.9 million, held by a Delaware company. The house was to be used, among other things, as an artist retreat, the filing said, but identifying information "is not being released here due to safety and security concerns and threats to B.L.M.G.N.F.'s leadership, staff and creators," the form said.

The tax form indicated that Ms. Cullors received no compensation during the fiscal year but instead "served as an unpaid volunteer." A family member, Paul Cullors, was listed on the tax form as receiving payment for "professional security services" amounting to $840,993.

Grifters gonna grift.....

[Hegemony]

I have no idea what's going on with the antiracism center, but it's an undisputed fact of history that those who espouse worthy causes do not always have good management skills, and those who espouse horrible causes do not always have terrible management skills. Many a good cause has been brought down by lack of practical skills. And many have been hijacked by selfish or nefarious interests. It's not like the trope in TV and movies, that the good guys are always better shots than the bad guys. However, of course when something on the other side fails, the opposition is full of glee.

[marshwiggle]

I have no idea what's going on with the antiracism center, but it's an undisputed fact of history that those who espouse worthy causes do not always have good management skills, and those who espouse horrible causes do not always have terrible management skills. Many a good cause has been brought down by lack of practical skills. And many have been hijacked by selfish or nefarious interests. It's not like the trope in TV and movies, that the good guys are always better shots than the bad guys. However, of course when something on the other side fails, the opposition is full of glee.

It's also the case that a "cause" doesn't automatically benefit from a bunch of cash, at least in any way that it can be largely solved by enough of it. And the bigger and/or more amorphous the cause, the worse it is.

Regardless, it's as easy as pie to burn through massive amounts of cash, whether it serves any noble purpose or not.

[apl68]

I've said before that I'm on board with the goals of DEI in principle.  But stuff like this makes it easy to see why some have qualms about jumping on board with DEI and "anti-racist" initiatives and idealogies.  And as the last paragraph Langue_doc quotes observes, this sort of foolishness makes it very easy for political opportunists to gain attention by claiming to defend ordinary hard-working people against it. 

[kaysixteen]

Is there any chance that the guy really is just a grifter, a race hustler?

[marshwiggle]

Is there any chance that the guy really is just a grifter, a race hustler?

How would you describe the difference between a student who is actually trying to game the system and get a grade and one who is simply delusional about the amount of effort required for a grade?

I think many of the people who make big bucks from stirring up anger and division feel entitled to the fame and rewards they get, like the delusional students, whether they actually have any interest in or ideas for improving the situation (other than ones that personally enrich them).

[apl68]

Is there any chance that the guy really is just a grifter, a race hustler?

I try to remember not to attribute to malice what can be explained just as well by incompetence.  Or clashing personalities.  Or, in cases like this, endless, unproductive argument among ideologues over the One True Way to build utopia.

[Caracal]

I have no idea what's going on with the antiracism center, but it's an undisputed fact of history that those who espouse worthy causes do not always have good management skills, and those who espouse horrible causes do not always have terrible management skills. Many a good cause has been brought down by lack of practical skills. And many have been hijacked by selfish or nefarious interests. It's not like the trope in TV and movies, that the good guys are always better shots than the bad guys. However, of course when something on the other side fails, the opposition is full of glee.

Exactly. I'd also argue that this kind of thing is often the result of mismanagement by administrators who want the credit and publicity but don't actually care enough about the results to set up structures that will make a program or institute sustainable and functional. A huge part of the job of director of a center like this is fundraising, and Kendi is clearly quite good at that and his status as well known public intellectual is something he can leverage to raise money. The problem is that the same things that make him a good fundraiser aren't conducive to good administration and management.

There are ways you could have made this work. There are a lot of academics who would be thrilled to be a co-director of a center, where they were mostly responsible for making sure the huge piles of cash coming in were being put to good use while Kendi did the fundraising and glad handing.

[ciao_yall]

This sounds to me like a classic example of throwing money at a problem without having a plan or goal to solve it. Or at least address it. Having worked with a startup back in the day that burned through $50M in one year, it's not that hard to do.

And, it's not a crime to collect a paycheck and not accomplish much.

"Solve racism" is not workable. But producing research, writing books, getting media placement, holding trainings and seminars can generate income for the institute and start making accomplishments toward that goal.

[Hibush]

This sounds to me like a classic example of throwing money at a problem without having a plan or goal to solve it. Or at least address it. Having worked with a startup back in the day that burned through $50M in one year, it's not that hard to do.

And, it's not a crime to collect a paycheck and not accomplish much.

"Solve racism" is not workable. But producing research, writing books, getting media placement, holding trainings and seminars can generate income for the institute and start making accomplishments toward that goal.

This was my impressio from the article. Kendi is an associate professor working on something that happened to hit a cultural moment. He was sprung from obscurity into an incredible number of expectations. Including building running a big center de novo and using a ton of money wisely. That stuff is hard. I'm sure he has tried to get up to speed, but the adminstrative and fiscal skills take a long time to master. Universities usually are not set up to mentor faculty who run into this situation, so who knows what BU was able to do besides give him titles.

[kaysixteen]

Obviously BU needs to thoroughly investigate this situation.  If crimes are discovered, prosecutors need to be called in.   But assuming the answer is merely incompetence, Kendi still needs to be made to hire a real, competent manager, and see his salary grossly curtailed in order to save as many of the jobs of the anonymous working slobs whose salaries the donors' checks were meant to underwrite.

[Ruralguy]

I'm not that old yet, but I have seen tons of people collect grant money or donations and pretend to do real work whilst doing almost nothing. Its mostly incompetence or distraction (thinking that their goal was easy, but it actually takes devoted back breaking effort, and they were unwilling to do anything but sit in from of a computer for several hours a day doing...whatever the hell they were doing).

I don't have to "old white-dude-STEM-guy 'splain" that there are tons of academics (and adjacent non-academics) doing meaningful work on racial issues.  Like anything else, the "real" work can be difficult, and you can define "real" in many ways (coming through with grants and getting results, working with communities, publishing meaningful work, publishing work for public consumption, etc.)

[Langue_doc]

Some paragraphs from a recent op-ed in the NYT.

With little administrative experience, Kendi may simply have been ill equipped to deal with a program of that magnitude. He may have been distracted by a nonstop book tour and speaking engagements. Or maybe he just screwed up.

More interesting is that many major universities, corporations, nonprofit groups and influential donors thought buying into Kendi's strident, simplistic formula — that racism is the cause of all racial disparities and that anyone who disagrees is a racist — could eradicate racial strife and absolve them of any role they may have played in it.

After all, this reductionist line of thinking runs squarely against the enlightened principles on which many of those institutions were founded — free inquiry, freedom of speech, a diversity of perspectives. As one Boston University professor wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal, that academia backs Kendi's mission amounts to a "violation of scholarly ideals and liberal principles," ones that betray "the norms necessary for intellectual life and human flourishing."

Yet Kendi's ideas gained prominence, often to the exclusion of all other perspectives. He was a relatively unknown academic when his second book, "Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America," was a surprise winner of a National Book Award in 2016. It helped catapult him from assistant professorships at State University of New York campuses and the University of Florida to a full professorship at American University, where he founded the Antiracist Research and Policy Center.

In "Stamped From the Beginning," Kendi asserted that racist ideas are used to obscure the fact that racist policies create racial disparities and that to find fault with Black people in any way for those disparities is racist. People who "subscribed to assimilationist thinking that has also served up racist beliefs about Black inferiority," no matter how well meaning and progressive, were themselves racist. In Kendi's revisionist history, figures who were previously hailed for their contribution to civil rights were repainted as racist if they did not attribute Black inequality solely to racism. Kendi accused W.E.B. Du Bois and Barack Obama of racism for entertaining the idea that Black behavior and attitudes could sometimes cause or exacerbate certain disparities, although he noted that Du Bois went on to take what he considered a more antiracist position.

In 2019, Kendi took the ideas further, pivoting to contemporary policy with "How to Be an Antiracist." In this book he made clear that to explore reasons other than racism for racial inequities, whether economic, social or cultural, is to promote anti-Black policies.


"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination," Kendi wrote, in words that would be softened in a future edition after they became the subject of criticism. "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." In other words, two wrongs do make a right. As practiced, that meant curriculums that favor works by Black people over white people are one way to achieve that goal; hiring quotas are another.

Among the book's central tenets is that everyone must choose between his approach, which he called "antiracism," and racism itself. It would no longer be enough for an individual or organization to simply be "not racist," which Kendi called a "mask for racism" — they must instead be actively "antiracist," applying a strict lens of racism to their every thought and action, and in fields wholly unrelated to race, in order to escape deliberate or inadvertent racist thinking and behavior. "What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what — not who — we are," Kendi wrote.

Kendi's antiracism prescription meant that universities, corporations and nonprofits would need to remove all policies that weren't overtly antiracist. In the Boston University English department's playwriting M.F.A. program, for example, reading assignments had to come from "50 percent diverse-identifying and marginalized writers," and writers of "white or Eurocentric lineage" had to be taught through "an actively antiracist lens." Antiracism also requires a commitment to other positions, including active opposition to sexism, homophobia, colorism, ethnocentrism, nativism, cultural prejudice and any class biases that supposedly harm Black lives. To deviate from any of this is to be racist. Either you're with us or you're against us.

[Hibush]

Kendi has provided a statement that is worth reading. I'd quote is, but it is a series of images on X.  https://twitter.com/ibramxk/status/1705271803893911884/photo/1
The professor-turned-administrator gives this context.

In June 2020 CAR was an urgently needed startup in a challenging time in our nation's history.... Like many startup we experienced changes, and yes, we made missteps. My team and I have been learning from our missteps and working to build a stronger organixzation for the future. New organizations underrgo a difficult evolution before landing on a successful model.

I'd be critical if they jsut followed the initial plan without adjusting as they learned.

He goes on to put the hyperbolic criticism in the context of the kind of everyday racism that limits authority and leadership.

Leaders of color and women leaders are often held to different standards and routinely have their authority undermined or questioned. But I want to live in a world where all leaders of new organizations are given the time to make mistakes and learn and grow. I want to live in a world where all new organizations are given the time to have growing pains and develop. I want to live in a world where we are all about building and sustaining antiracist oranisations. Until we build that world, the crucial work fo CAR will continue.

A leading university is exactly the place where novel organizations get the space to develop.

In my view, he is pushing a sensitive concept harder than many are used to hearing. So there is pushback. Some legit, but much from people who just don't want that perspective to exist at all. It is worth identifying the latter for what it is.

That pushback to new ideas happens all the time. Racism is an especially touchy concept, so introducing new paradigms in athat are will get extra pushback. Plus an additional layer of the usual reflexive racist attacks. Plus disappointment from supporters when the scholarship isn't perfect ab initio but needs refinement. Pamela Paul's NYTimes editorial is a good example of pushback against new ideas. 

I say let him test out his ideas just like everyone else in the academy. Some will turn out to be wrong, some need revision and some will expand beyond where they are now. His activities are normal academic scholarship engaging with society. He's at the extreme in working on a lightning rod of a subject, with huge public attention, and money that comes with inappropriate expectations of him being an all-knowing messiah.