Dear Editor,

I continue to be aghast that my alma mater, one of the finest institutions of learning in the world, has not signed the letter supporting Harvard and other universities from the direct attack on our freedom to teach and learn.

I have sent messages to the chancellor’s office with no reply. I am now relying on The Hustler to serve as our final line of defense and fulfill its rightful role as the fourth estate.

Capitulation to a bully never does what you think it will do. This craven response to local congressmen and the president, a convicted felon, won’t stop at appeasement. It will only get worse.

We used to call our great university “the Harvard of the South.” It now plays the role that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did toward Nazi Germany.

I beg The Hustler and student body to take a direct and aggressive role: Hang campus banners decrying our leadership’s failures. Organize peaceful protests. Publish a newspaper with the headline “Craven!” Bring in radical speakers. I don’t have all the ideas, but I am sure you do.

You have my support and the support of many alumni.

Sincerely,

Steve Giles (B.S. ‘80)

~~~

Dear Editor, 

Elimination of DEI programming is a choice — not a mandate. In his Executive Order 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” President Donald Trump did not prohibit all DEI, just the “illegal” kind. Though the Department of Education’s Feb. 14 “Dear Colleague” letter created confusion as to the underlying legal standard, the DOE then released a FAQ dispelling any ambiguity:

Question 8: Are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs unlawful?

…whether an initiative constitutes unlawful discrimination does not turn solely on whether it is labeled “DEI” or uses terminology such as “diversity,” “equity” or “inclusion” [but rather on] the facts and circumstances of each case.

So, which facts and circumstances point to DEI of the “unlawful” variety? The answer looks the same today as the day before E.O. 14173 was signed: those that constitute discriminatory practices under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as interpreted by the Supreme Court most recently in 2023.

As a U.S. citizen and Tennessee resident, I expect my senator to understand the law and to advocate for Tennessee at the federal level. Monitoring DEI programming at VUMC is well outside the purview of Sen. Blackburn’s job description, just as political theater is a poor substitute for truth and facts in civil discourse.

As an employee of VUMC, I expect better of our senior leaders. For over two months, VUMC has not only failed to clarify Dr. Balser’s misstatement from the Feb. 12 special message but also continued to operate as if the initials DEI could be deemed illegal — and has amply demonstrated the danger of such an unlawfully broad standard, going well beyond the elimination of DEI programming by censoring entire bodies of research. 

To be clear, for VUMC to defend higher values indeed might further jeopardize our federal funding. We must, however, understand the choice we are making. Are we complying with a new regulatory requirement? No. VUMC has chosen to dismantle DEI, to abandon our racial equity plan and to ban from our websites any terms or concepts potentially offensive to President Trump. 

VUMC may refuse to own this choice. But the world is watching, and history will remember. 

Sincerely,

Lynne Berry (Ph.D. ‘97)

~~~

Dear Editor,

As a Vanderbilt alumnus from the A&S Class of 1974, I am appalled at VUMC’s decision to capitulate to President Donald Trump’s and Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s (R–TN) demand to dismantle all of its DEI programs. Though Vanderbilt and VUMC have been legally separate entities since their 2016 split, they remain inextricably linked in common perception. VUMC is behaving just like Columbia University did when its president acquiesced to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Republican Party in persecuting Palestinians and their predominantly Jewish supporters. When I accepted Vanderbilt’s admission to its undergraduate program in 1970, it was based on my admiration for former Chancellor Alexander Heard’s courageous choice to stand up to the Board of Trust and other right-wing officials who opposed his allowing the Vanderbilt Student Association to invite Stokely Carmichael in 1967 and William Kunstler in 1970 to speak at the university’s annual student-run Impact Symposia.   

Why don’t the present Vanderbilt and VUMC administrations have the guts to stand up to bullies like Blackburn and Trump? If Harvard can still stand up to the MAGA crowd, why can’t my alma mater? Do you want to have a scenario where angry alumni turn in their diplomas just as many Columbia alumni have done?

Sincerely,

William Delzell (B.A. ‘74)