Racenut wrote: ↑April 7th, 2021, 1:53 am
While the introduction any of these distinguished individuals would certainly elevate Liberty's perception in the conservative community, would it do anything to drastically change the "Culture" at Liberty? I think not. Would curriculum change or major doctrinal changes be entertained? Probably not. Would it change Liberty's reputation in the liberal, woke culture that dominates the mainstream media and celebrity squawk boxes? Not in the least.
I wanted to start my response to your post with this idea. I think we are way too worried about how we appear to the left and the right of the political spectrum. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Prevo has told people he was worried about the conservative watchdog groups and how that was influencing the things he did/said. That's a problem.
I am far less concerned how we appear to people in the political world and much more concerned with how we appear to the Christians of the world, specifically the generation who is about to enter college.
Racenut wrote: ↑April 7th, 2021, 1:53 amI was somewhat surprised to see the emphasis go in the direction of treatment, retention and the qualifications of faculty and how Liberty is perceived compared to other Christian Universities and even secular schools to some extent. The make up and qualifications of the Board also came into question and immediate call for diversity was echoed.
Is this really an issue or is it part of the on-going narrative that paints all conservatives as the racist boogeymen?
There are two things at play here: diversity and representation. I think they're both important to talk about in their own right.
Diversity - as PH stated earlier in the thread, the diversity we need starts with diversity of background and experience, not diversity in race. When you have an administration full of nepotism and cronyism, you have one full of people who think and act the same. It's how the things that have happened over the last ten years are able to happen without any recourse. When there's no one to challenge bad decisions, immoral actions, and toxic leadership - or when there's a culture of fear that keeps people from challenging those things - there's no true accountability. With no accountability, bad things happen.
With cronyism and nepotism also comes a duplication of thought process. When you hire people exactly like you, there are no different thought processes in the room making decisions. That means there's no one there to shine a light on particular blind spots and biases. That does not mean anyone in our senior leadership is racist. Every single person - myself included - has blindspots and should surround themselves with people of diverse backgrounds to shine light on those blindspots. It's how we grow.
The absolute first step we need to make to change our culture is diversify the background, experience, and leadership styles of our executive and senior leadership.
Representation - lest more people accuse me of woke liberalism, let me tell you how I was first introduced to the idea of representation:
In 2009, I was sitting in Carey Green's office waiting to do an interview for LibertyFlames.com. As we were getting ready, he showed me the newest brochures Liberty had just produced as marketing collateral for our coaches and recruiters to use in trying to get kids to Liberty. He looked at it and said, "How am I supposed to get black kids to play here if all they see in this are white kids?" Until that time, I had never even thought of the idea of representation and how important it was to see an example of yourself in where you're going. That's my driving force in wanting to see a more diverse faculty and more diversity in convocation speakers. It is not to check a box with liberals. It is to recruit the next generation of Champions for Christ.
Racenut wrote: ↑April 7th, 2021, 1:53 amWould a Thomas Sowell, a Ben Carson, a Clarence Thomas, a Condoleezza Rice or even a Candace Owens or Tim Scott satisfy the liberal criteria set forth to make the staff and leadership more diverse? Probably not.
Would this signal a shift in "Culture"? I doubt it.
I would challenge the basis of this question on the basis of satisfying a liberal criteria. I've been the most vocal about diversity and representation and I couldn't care less about satisfying a "liberal criteria."
I think the people you mentioned would be welcomed with open arms at Liberty. However, I think there's no chance any of the ones you listed - or anyone of their stature - would ever consider a full-time position at Liberty with the way we treat our faculty currently. We don't pay nearly enough and we don't guarantee their position for longer than an academic school year. On top of that, we don't allow faculty to speak their mind or challenge things they disagree with. There's such a culture of fear within our faculty that many will not dare say anything that could hint at being negative in email, on university phones, or in their offices for fear of potentially being under some form of surveillance. That culture has to change before we can even begin to think we can attract the likes of a Ben Carson or Condoleezza Rice.