Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Valuing intellectual honesty and DEI

Valuing intellectual honesty and DEI
Getty Images

Leland R. Beaumont is an independent wisdom researcher who is seeking real good. He is currently developing the Applied Wisdom curriculum on Wikiversity.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion, usually abbreviated as DEI, refers to efforts to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability. These three notions (diversity, equity, and inclusion) together represent three closely linked values which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks.


This is the right thing to do, especially considering historic inequalities. There are, however, circumstances where it is justified to exclude people or their incessant protests. It is often wise to exclude dishonest and disruptive dissent from deliberations and decisions. It is wise to expect intellectual honesty.

Intellectual honesty is the practice of accurately communicating true beliefs. True beliefs correspond to reality. True beliefs are accurate representations of matters of fact, as best they can be known.

What, if any, obligation do we have to include intellectually dishonest people in our conversations, on our influential platforms, and in our decision-making processes. Let’s consider some examples.

Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, a free and fair election. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion or of controversy. There is overwhelming evidence supporting this factual conclusion. For example, the 2020 presidential election was described by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) as "the most secure in American history," noting "[t]here is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised." Many claims of purported voter fraud were discovered to be false or misleading. Attorneys who brought accusations of voting fraud or irregularities before judges could not produce actual evidence to support the allegations.

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in nine states and the District of Columbia. Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.

The outcome of the 2020 presidential election is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion or controversy. The dissenters had their days in court, and they lost. It is time to accept the fact the election was free and fair, and Joe Biden won.

People who claim the election was stolen are intellectually dishonest. They are communicating untrue beliefs; they are communicating information that contradicts matters of fact. This may be because they are misinformed, disinformed, charlatans, or bullies. In any case, they are advancing falsehoods and fostering civil unrest. Being wrong does not justify disruptive behavior or violence. Falsehoods have no privileged claim to any particular forum.

People who are being intellectually dishonest deserve our civility but do not merit our acquiescence, capitulation, or acceptance of their falsehoods.

Consider the age of the Earth as another example. The Earth formed, it is here, and it has an age. There is a fact of the matter. The age of Earth is estimated to be 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial material and lunar samples.

This estimate of the age of the Earth is a matter of fact, corroborated by substantial reliable evidence collected and carefully examined and evaluated. Various estimates of Earth’s age have been proposed, challenged, and carefully examined by many scientists over many years of study. Our understanding evolves, and the Earth’s age is now known with great confidence.

Despite overwhelming reliable evidence and scientific consensus, young Earth creationism holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by supernatural acts of the Abrahamic God between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six literal days. A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found that 38 percent of adults in the United States held the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings.

While the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, we also have a moral obligation to seek true beliefs. Although tolerance is essential in the realm of opinion, it has no place in the realm of fact. Don’t be misled, know how you know so you can choose true beliefs and reject falsehoods.

Practicing dialogue with those holding dissenting views can provide valuable insights into their experiences, way of knowing, and motivations. These insights can help us come together.

Intellectual honesty and inclusion are the yin and yang of civil society. Reality is our common ground, and inclusion is our moral imperative. We can value both of these vital concepts simultaneously as we find common ground.


Read More

Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate

Veterans often lose VA healthcare, disability benefits, and education access during incarceration, disrupting PTSD and addiction treatment when continuity matters most.

Getty Images

Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate

A veteran’s PTSD doesn’t disappear when they enter prison. Traumatic brain injuries don’t cure themselves. Addiction doesn't vanish behind bars. Yet many of the systems designed to help veterans manage those conditions stop at the prison gate.

When veterans are incarcerated, they often lose access to VA healthcare, struggle to use education benefits, and face major cuts to disability compensation. The problem is not eligibility. The problem is continuity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why I’m Using My Influence to Defend Democracy Now

A group of people waving small American flags at sunset.

Getty stock photo

Why I’m Using My Influence to Defend Democracy Now

It was about this time of year in 1997 that I moved across the country and took my first job in the sector broadly known as “civil society.”

Since then, I have grown in my career. I have developed a profile. By dint of sheer survival and longevity, I have accumulated seniority.

Keep ReadingShow less
NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy

(L-R) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey, Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, Donald Trump, President of United States and Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of United Kingdom during a “family photo” at Beştepe Presidential Compound during a welcome ceremony for the NATO Summit on July 08, 2026 in Ankara, Turkey.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy

It seems just yesterday I was writing up a piece regarding the G7 summit taking place in southern France. In truth, it was a few weeks ago, but now that the NATO summit has wrapped up, I can’t be the only one with deja vu; world leaders meeting amid the continuing US-led war with Iran. I think I’ve seen this film before.

Welcome to Faultline. Last week, heads of NATO member states convened in Turkey for their yearly summit. Many issues were on the table for the summit, and the one expected to take center stage was the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, considering that the Iran war was supposed to be done, as had been announced weeks ago. However, less than 30 days into the alleged 60-day ceasefire, President Trump has announced that negotiations with Iran are over, and not because they reached an agreement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs outside of the Idaho statehouse.

Protesters rally for abortion rights outside of the Idaho Statehouse in downtown Boise, Idaho, on May 14, 2022.

Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman/AP

Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country

Idaho voters will weigh in on their state’s abortion laws this November. The secretary of state’s office certified a ballot measure that could, if passed, overturn one of the strictest bans in the country, the campaign to restore abortion rights in Idaho confirmed on Monday.

The measure would enact a new law establishing a state right to “reproductive freedom,” which it defines as allowing residents to make their own decisions in areas including fertility treatment, contraception and abortion. But it would not amend the state’s constitution, meaning it could still be overturned by the state’s Republican legislature. Currently, Idaho bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, with a narrow exception if staying pregnant threatens someone’s life.

Keep ReadingShow less