|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Edited by: TJVNews.com
Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman has declared his separation from the Democratic Party, citing concerns about “racist” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. In a recent CNBC interview, Ackman expressed his disapproval of the party’s evolution, characterizing Democrats as having “morphed” into advocates of woke ideologies, as was recently reported in the New York Post. Ackman, formerly a supporter of the Democratic Party, has now distanced himself from its current direction.
During the interview on “Squawk Box,” Ackman emphasized his origins as a “Bill Clinton Democrat” and underscored his discomfort with the party’s transformation. According to the report in the Post, he criticized the Democrats for embracing divisive and dangerous DEI initiatives and woke culture, leading to his decision to sever ties with the political faction.
In response to his concerns about higher education and the impact of DEI programs, Ackman revealed plans to establish a think tank. This objective of this organization will be to scrutinize higher education in the United States, with a specific focus on issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as was noted in the Post report. Ackman envisions the think tank as a proactive entity that not only studies these issues but also develops and implements solutions to address the inherent challenges.
Ackman’s criticism extends to his alma mater, Harvard University, where he played a role in pressuring for the resignation of Harvard president Claudine Gay. According to the information provided in the Post report, Ackman accused Harvard of insufficiently protecting Jewish students from anti-Semitism in the aftermath of events related to the October 7th Hamas’ terror attack on Israel in which 1200 Israelis and others were brutally massacred. He also voiced concerns about Harvard’s adoption of diversity and inclusion programs, contending that such initiatives undermine meritocracy.
In a social media post, Ackman argued that Harvard’s DEI policies are the “root cause of anti-Semitism” at the university. He labeled DEI as racist, asserting that reverse racism is still a form of racism, the Post report said. Ackman criticized the DEI movement for contributing to societal divisiveness and breeding resentment, which he identifies as a significant driver of racism.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the Harvard Corporation Board’s support for Claudine Gay, even after her contentious congressional testimony on anti-Semitic protests, Ackman called for the resignation of board members, as per the report in the Post. He sees this move as a necessary step toward addressing the issues he perceives within Harvard and higher education more broadly.
Specifically, Ackman criticized the university’s leadership, calling for the resignation of Board Chair Penny Pritzker and other members. The Post report also indicated that Ackman has alleged mishandling of the controversy surrounding ousted Harvard president Claudine Gay and advocates for a significant overhaul to begin the process of repairing the damage. Additionally, Ackman is supporting four alums vying for positions on the university’s board of overseers, emphasizing the need for fresh perspectives to address issues such as free speech, student well-being, and financial management, according to the Post report.
The candidates—Zoe Bedell, Logan Leslie, Julia Pollak, and Alec Williams—share a platform focused on protecting free speech, preventing bullying and harassment, and addressing financial mismanagement, including overseeing the university’s substantial $50.7 billion endowment, the Post report mentioned.
The four candidates backed by Ackman bring diverse backgrounds and experiences to the table. Ranging in age from 26 to 38, all have served in the United States military, highlighting a commitment to public service, the report in the Post said. Ackman sees their candidacies as a potential “wakeup call” for Harvard, advocating for change and increased transparency.
To be eligible for election to the board of overseers, the four candidates must gather a minimum of 3,300 signatures from Harvard graduates by the end of January. This requirement represents 1% of those entitled to vote in the election. As was reported by the Post, the candidates’ success in collecting the required signatures will determine their eligibility to participate in the election process and potentially influence the governance of Harvard University.
The outcome of the upcoming elections and Ackman’s continued involvement may shape the trajectory of Harvard’s future leadership and policies.
