NY Times columnist roasts Kendi’s ‘antiracist’ philosophy as ‘strident, simplistic’

A New York Times columnist criticized "antiracist" guru Ibram Kendi’s philosophy as "reductionistic" and "strident" while slamming the academic institutions, businesses and donors that bought into the notion in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder.

Times columnist Pamela Paul wrote on Thursday that institutions pushing Kendi’s school of thought were going "against the enlightened principles on which many of those institutions were founded — free inquiry, freedom of speech, a diversity of perspectives."

Paul’s column is the latest hit on Kendi, whose reputation has been damaged in recent weeks following news that his antiracism center at Boston University had undergone major layoffs.

In the fallout from these layoffs, workers came forward with bombshell allegations that the center "exploited" staff and "blew through" millions of dollars in grant money while failing to deliver on its promises.

FED-UP STAFF SEETHE OVER BOSTON U'S ANTIRACIST CENTER: ‘COLOSSAL WASTE OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS’

Paul began her piece with comment on Kendi’s fall from grace and then continued with an examination of why so many cultural institutions bought into his mantras in the first place.

She wrote, "The recent turmoil at Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, with more than half its staff laid off and half its budget cut amid questions of what it did with the nearly $55 million it raised, led to whoops of schadenfreude from Kendi’s critics and hand wringing from his loyal fans."

After noting how both right and left viewed Kendi, as either "what was right or wrong with America’s racial reckoning since the police murder of George Floyd," she wrote that it is "more interesting" that he was so propped up considering his "simplistic" ideas.

"More interesting is that many major universities, corporations, nonprofit groups and influential donors thought buying into Kendi’s strident, simplistic formula — that racism is the cause of all racial disparities and that anyone who disagrees is a racist — could eradicate racial strife and absolve them of any role they may have played in it," Paul wrote.

She rebuked these institutions, adding, "After all, this reductionist line of thinking runs squarely against the enlightened principles on which many of those institutions were founded — free inquiry, freedom of speech, a diversity of perspectives."

But because of their support, Paul added, "Kendi’s ideas gained prominence, often to the exclusion of all other perspectives."

After giving a brief history of how the racial thinker developed his ideas, the columnist claimed there are better, more nuanced ideas of confronting racism.

IBRAM X. KENDI RESPONDS TO BOSTON UNIVERSITY'S ANTIRACIST CENTER LAYOFFS

She first cited Kendi’s 2019 book, "How to Be an Antiracist," which was the basis for much of the antiracist thought that made him an often-cited expert in the George Floyd era.

Paula wrote, "In this book, Kendi made clear that to explore reasons other than racism for racial inequities, whether economic, social or cultural, is to promote anti-black policies. ‘The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination,' Kendi wrote, in words that would be softened in a future edition after they became the subject of criticism."

She summarized this assessment, adding, "In other words, two wrongs do make a right. As practiced, that meant curriculums that favor works by Black people over white people is one way to achieve that goal; hiring quotas are another."

Paula also noted how antiracism "requires a commitment" to "active opposition to sexism, homophobia, colorism, ethnocentrism, nativism, cultural prejudice and any class biases that supposedly harm Black lives. To deviate from any of this is to be racist. You’re either with us or you’re against us."

The columnist slammed these ideas, arguing that individuals can advocate less extreme positions and still be considered not racist. "Contra Kendi, there are conscientious people who advocate racial neutrality over racial discrimination. It isn’t necessarily naive or wrong to believe that most Americans aren’t racist," she said, adding, "To believe that white supremacists exist in this country but that white supremacy is not the dominant characteristic of America in 2023 is also an acceptable position."

Paula concluded the piece advocating for a "more nuanced and open-minded conversation around racism and a commitment to more diverse visions of how to address it."

Fox News Digital reached out to Kendi for comment. This story will be updated with any reply. 

Fox News Digital’s Kristine Parks contributed to this report.

For more Culture, Media, Education, Opinion and channel coverage, visit foxnews.com/media.