* The plagiarism was always a side show in all of this. Ackman hopped on to allegations made by others that had previously gotten no traction - see Christopher Brunet in 2022. Neither Kornbluth (MIT) nor Magill (Penn) have ever been accused of plagiarism. And neither were they accused of being token hires or unqualified at the time of being hired. Magill's demise had nothing to do with Ackman and everything to do with the alumni of Penn (of which Ackman is not one).

* DEI is involved and relevant the past few months not because of plagiarism and hiring practices (i.e. promoting people of lower qualification who plagiarized, though that is one aspect of the Harvard-Gay story) but because DEI embraces the concept of groups of oppressors and oppressed, and in that context Palestinians, like Trans, Blacks, etc. seem to enjoy special status with respect to free speech on many campuses while the oppressors (those in groups that have historically had power like white males) gain extra scrutiny and at times have been quashed on many campuses. Hence, a double standard. This has proven a very tricky line to walk for universities - especially prominent private universities for whom free speech principles may be less relevant on campus.

* DEI with respect to free speech on campuses (here, the relationship is more conceptual) is a different issue from DEI programs that seek inclusion and representation in the hiring and management of institutions and corporations. IMO both have gone too far, but in different ways. Again, the Palestinian issue related to free speech, and that is what animated so many prominent, wealthy Jewish Americans.

* Ackman has seemingly now entered the DEI hiring and management issue for institutions and management. Many on this board probably know and have experienced DEI in the institution or corporate setting much more than Ackman. In my own experience across 4 companies in the DEI era, and in one case which includes working for a Black female CEO of a public company who was (and still is) a big DEI proponent, it got out of hand. So much so that I decided to leave the company I was at with this CEO. She and I worked great together until we didn't agree on this and it became her #1 focus (as opposed to running the business and advancing shareholder value). She is no longer at that company, but now is a professional board member and speaker on advancing diversity in the corporate world. No doubt Ackman is familiar with instances of where it has gone overboard and is echoing the sentiments of others who have experienced oppressive DEI regimes.

* Many who are critical of DEI - and what it has became in some corporate environments - remain committed to the principles of diversity and inclusion. We have practiced it. But we are troubled by the zealotry and actions of some of the thought leaders and have experienced what it is like to disagree with those who embrace it so fully.


P.S. My former CEO believed strongly that change needed to be forced upon an organization. She believed hiring at lower levels with mentorship was the old model. She believed in advancing people before they were qualified because waiting for the diverse folks to be qualified takes too long and "no one is ever really ready" anyway, especially in the old model where good ol' boys always got roles without being ready, either. Another example: she told our outside auditor Partner from PWC (a white female, leading an audit team that was 80% female and had an Hispanic as #2 serving our account) that by the next board meeting she "better have a fucking Black person added to the account." This is certainly one way to effect change - not one I agree with. Having whole DEI staffs/departments is one problem, this approach is another.

efforts to those who opppose him. If his desire is to create a true meritocracy where those who take shortcuts should not succeed then investigate everyone liberal and conservative alike. Investigate Business Insider and the WSJ and everyone in between.

As I have thought about this issue over the weekend I kept coming back to one thought. When someone like Dr. Gay fails in her job it is because she was a DEI hire and clearly there were better qualified non DEI hires that were rejected. There are plenty of white males who have failed in their role at Universities / Businesses / Non-Profits / Government / Churches. What is the cause of those failures? Why arent thos failures attributed to the fact the search was too narrowly constrained to white males?

Someone can be "qualified" for a job and still fail. Likewise someone can not be "qualified" for a job and succeed. Only when a DEI hire fails is it because of the color of their skin.

Darryl “the Hammer” Isaacs, the PI attorney on every billboard in Indiana is a shyster. Bill Ackman is not shyster. And his wife is definitely not a shyster.

But your peer, the Hammer, that guy is a shyster.

Ackman shorts stock and then does everything he can to drive down the value of the shares, stepping well into the gray area of ethics and law. He also caused or contributed to cause the COVID market collapse at the beginning of COVID and pocketed $2 billion.

Go buy some Gamestop, bro.

On this Board and on Rocks’s. I hope you are ok. Sincerely.

What DEI is all about. I’m not arguing the DEI has not been co-opted by certain people and movements, but his interpretation of it is bullshit

elephant vibes. DEI means something different to different people. Some view it as a way to correct for prior sins, others view it as the oppressed becoming the oppressors, or reverse racism.

I think that DEI being somewhat subject to interpretation is part of the problem here. If we cannot agree on what DEI means and what it is trying to solve for, then we are just talking past each other.

between intent and reality. The principles of communism sound nice. They don't work in practice. I tend not to ascribe malicious intent to those who support a reasoned version of DEI, even if it doesn't work. There are DEI nuts, and there are anti-DEI nuts. Both probably think they are right, and are victims of the other "side."

The problem is when principled concepts turn into religious dogma. Similar to the PC movement. It's perfectly fine to want people to be nicer to each other, and to use more accurate and positive language. But when it becomes monitoring of all speech all the time for hidden microaggressions it has gone too far.