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

A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed

The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.

After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less