Sam Douglas/Fourth Estate

Divided APDUC tensely split during DEI proposal debate

BY SAM DOUGLAS, ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR

On April 17, the Board of Visitors met in Merten Hall to discuss a proposed resolution that would overhaul the university’s Office of Access, Compliance, and Community (OACC). If passed, the resolution would dissolve several OACC programs.

The packed audience full of faculty and students watched on, some holding signs, as the Board’s Academic Programs, Diversity, and University Committee (APDUC) debated the resolution.

The discussion on diversity, equity and inclusion started with the topic of diversity statements. Provost Jim Antony stated that Mason has never required diversity statements, but has not restricted them.

“In the current fiscal year, out of 522 position postings, three had some type of request for a diversity statement,” he said before denying diversity statements being accounted for in promotion and tenure decisions.

Committee Chair Lindsey Burke gave opening comments on the proposed “RESOLUTION OF GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY REGARDING THE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER ON DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION.”

“The big picture here is that DEI has perverted the highest purpose of the university, the relentless pursuit of truth,” Burke said. “Our peer institutions like the University of Virginia, James Madison University, VCU and Virginia Tech have already dispensed with DEI. It is time that we take action,” Burke ended.

Vice Rector Mike Meese disagreed, saying that while some parts of the resolution were necessary, Mason had not used race or ethnicity in admissions since 2007. “If we do need a resolution, that resolution oughta accurately reflect all of what we have learned as a board over the last year plus and where we should be going in the future,” Meese said.

Faculty Representative Melissa Broeckelman-Post stated that Mason is already enacting a majority of clauses listed in the resolution,“One of the fundamental differences that I think is important to address is how we define DEI and what we mean when we say the words diversity, equity and inclusion.” Broeckelman-Post said, “because the definitions you gave do not reflect the way we use that language at Mason.”

Faculty Representative Solon Simmons stressed that many of the professors do not support the resolution. He estimated that 90% of the faculty were against the resolution.

Mason’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors released a statement the week before, condemning the resolution and held a kiosk on Wilkins Plaza after the BOV meeting. Student Body President Maria Cuesta also released a statement against the resolution.

Sam Douglas/Fourth Estate

Economics professor Bryan Caplan was invited to speak by Visitor Burke. When he reached the podium, a member of the crowd spoke aloud, “why does he get to speak?”

Sam Douglas/Fourth Estate

Caplan, a vocal proponent for the resolution, compared DEI to McCarthyism.

“There’s no sign that my differing perspective, that this is a McCarthyian witch hunt, is included,” Caplan said, referring to Mason’s DEI policies, which he likened to loyalty oaths used during the Red Scare.

“I’m not quite sure why the history of McCarthyism is relevant to this,” Meese responded, “I think channeling through the faculty senate would have been a more appropriate way to deal with it.”

President Gregory Washington also did not agree on the handling of the discussion. 

“I do believe this whole discussion is about inclusivity, equity, fairness. If the board was going to allow this faculty member to speak, the inclusive and [equitable] thing would have been to allow another faculty member on the other side [to speak]. Everybody else speaking here is a part of this particular body and we allowed one person to speak and not the others. That is not the Mason way,” Washington said.

Sam Douglas/Fourth Estate

Visitor Cooper argued that Caplan’s testimony was necessary, as he didn’t feel the viewpoint of the estimated 10% of faculty who are for the resolution was spoken for.

After the meeting, the proposed resolution was revised to reflect the meeting’s discussion. It will be voted on at the full board meeting on May 1.