UAA Department of Writing affected by Board of Regents’ anti-DEI motion

The Board of Regents passed a motion on Feb 21. requiring all University of Alaska campuses to remove public facing DEI language.

The Northern Light interviewed UAA writing professors Dr. Martha Amore, Dr. Zebadiah Kraft and Professor Shane Castle, to gauge the effects of the Board of Regents’ motion. Dr. Raymond Weber, who serves as the Dean of the UAA Department of Writing, was also interviewed.

A major change at the department was the removal of the anti-racism statement from their website. Unlike anti-racism statements across the UA system, it wasn’t related to hiring. 

“It was a statement about writing pedagogy. It contained our department's stance on writing and evaluating student writing,” Amore said. “It’s not just a general statement by people who care about anti-racism, it’s an academic statement written by experts in the field of writing.”

Kraft said it wasn’t just an issue of free speech. “Not only is the freedom of speech of the department being infringed, it’s the academic freedom of the department.” 

Weber confirmed that the removal of the statement was due to specific language. “It was removed to meet the Board of Regents’ motion,” said Weber. As of now, the statement is still absent from the website.

Weber is working with the Department of Writing to get the statement republished. 

“The Department of Writing and I are looking for the best way to present their intended message,” Weber said. “As more information comes from the Board of Regents and leadership, we should be able to find a way to get it back up in some form.”

Castle said the statement will likely go back up at some point, but doesn’t yet know in what form. 

“We are still in limbo, and we are trying to figure out whether we can repost it as it was before the removal by explicitly retitling it as a statement of teaching philosophy,” said Castle.

Castle said the effects of the decision have reached faculty. However, “the effects on the faculty are minimal compared to the effect of the dread such decisions have on students,” he said.

“Particularly students who come from marginalized groups in this country that have historically not only been treated poorly but attacked, beaten, enslaved and murdered to the benefit of the ruling class.”

“In our department, most of us are wrangling with how to effectively respond to this authoritarian move, and that is difficult, but it definitely doesn’t land on us the same way it does students,” said Castle.

Amore said the effect of the decision isn’t limited to the removal of the anti-racism statement. 

“Students have asked if they can use words. Students at the Writing Center are wondering if they’re allowed to state words or write on certain topics,” said Amore. “I’ve done my best to reiterate that students and faculty have academic freedom and freedom of speech.”

Kraft said students are concerned they won’t be able to write about meaningful subjects. 

“Students ask if they’re allowed to confront these topics anymore, and absolutely you can,” said Kraft. “You are allowed to write whatever you want to, and we will all teach the way that we want to teach.”

Castle said that many students in his classes want to talk about the decision. “Some are seeking assurance and predictions about what comes next, but I have to admit that I am like them in not knowing, but planning for the worst.” 

He said, “I suspect this authoritarian censorship is ineffective because it’s actually making students more aware of the relationship between words and power. When you are told your university can’t even use a common word like equity, it makes you want to use it more.”

Kraft showed one of his classes the department’s anti-racism statement. “It was unanimous that it should not be left down. There was some conversation on maybe changing some of the wording and clarifying the statement is focused on pedagogy in the title, but students agreed it should be on the website.”

Amore said that teaching her writing and the humanities class would be impossible to teach if DEI-related terms were excluded. 

“We discuss theories like critical race theory and feminist theory,” said Amore. “And these aren’t just theories I made up, they’re the major theories of the humanities. If I were told I couldn’t teach those theories, I would keep teaching them even if I lost my job.”

Kraft said he won’t stop teaching topics in his classes, no matter where the order comes from. 

“I am a combat veteran, I was in the infantry, and I spent my whole life learning about these things,” said Kraft. “They’re important, and I’m not going to stop teaching it unless you remove me by force.”

Amore said she doesn’t know what she would teach in her classes if topics were banned. “I don’t know what I would teach because what are being labeled as DEI topics are what the class is,” said Amore. “I wouldn’t be giving students the education that they need.” 

Kraft said that what the university teaches right now is a patriotic education. 

“Anyone who calls for education to limit perspectives such as DEI isn’t promoting a patriotic education,” said Kraft. “What they’re promoting is a nationalist education, teaching only the religious and political doctrine of the people in power, which is a slippery slope.”

Castle said that without a plurality of voices, writing will worsen. “The universe is complex, and no one language or dialect — or limited focus on a particular range of safe subject matters for that matter — can possibly capture all of that,” said Castle. “Any suggestion that they can or should is problematic and antithetical to critical thinking and democracy.”

Amore said removing diversity of opinion would be detrimental to students learning to write. 

“We help students develop their writing, but we’re not punitive, we’re not saying you have to do it exactly this way,” said Amore. “We’re helping them to find the best way they can to reach their audiences, whoever that may be. But without diversity of opinion, that goes away.”

Kraft said there is no one way to think in his classes. “Every opinion is acceptable in my classroom, and I’m sure that’s true across the university, because that’s what a university is supposed to be,” he said. 

“We present ideas about the world in class, students have conversations and do research about them and talk about their own experiences. None of that is guided by political opinions of the professor, the only ask of professors is that people are accepting of others’ ideas,” said Kraft

Castle said the removal of diverse perspectives will ultimately lead to an inability to think critically. “If students can’t read and engage with diverse perspectives, their writing is going to suffer, and so will their ability to think broadly and critically,” he said. 

“And that is what the authoritarians running this country want. A stupid population serves them better because it’s easier to make us mere tools for increasing their already unconscionable profits.”

Castle said that there is some difference in opinion within the Department of Writing. “Like any other group of people, we don’t all agree in our analyses of the recent censorship or effective pedagogical responses to it,” he said. “There is nuance in discussion. But I think that democratic process of deliberation is exactly what is at risk here.” 

Castle said, “Powerful people are trying to stymie thoughtful analysis, silence dissent and split us apart. So it’s important to say what is plainly true, which is that more conversations are needed now, not fewer”

Amore said there hasn’t been a bigger threat to free speech in the history of the United States. 

“People bring up the McCarthy era and the McKinley and Roosevelt era, but the censorship that took place in those eras wasn’t happening to universities at this level,” she said. “They weren’t ordering every university to make institutional changes.” 

Kraft said it’s concerning that the impact of removing DEI has been so broad. “It’s not just universities or education systems, they’re making changes to the Arlington National Cemetery website and other public facing government websites,” he said. 

“In other times of censorship, they cracked down on individual groups. This is much bigger than just individual groups, this is the entire country,” Kraft said.

Amore said now, more than ever, the public needs to do some inventory on their beliefs. “It's important to get beyond politics and talk about what’s happening and think, is this right? Do these decisions line up with my morals and ethics?”

Kraft said it’s important to talk with others around you about the changes occurring. “People have spent their lives trying to make students' lives better, are you ok with removing those people because they use words like equity or are open to diverse opinions,” said Kraft. “I don’t think most people will be ok with this, because no matter what their political belief is, others' voices being shut down means their voice can be shut down too.”

Castle said students need to dump their individualism and self-obsession and come together. “This struggle is one that requires collective ideas and action, and that’s perfect for writing students or any student who has a pulse” he said. 

“A university has always been a communal space for the building and maintenance of the commons. Remember that and act and write accordingly.”