In the summer of 2023, the University System of Georgia (USG), led by Chancellor Sonny Perdue, announced a new directive: all institutions must remove “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) statements from hiring documents. During an August meeting at Kennesaw State University’s (KSU) Coles College of Business, Dean Robin Cheramie relayed this change, sparking a moment of awkward honesty from a female management professor: “Does this mean we can’t say we’re targeting women?” I couldn’t help but laugh out loud—she had just vocalized the unspoken truth. While the dean, a proponent of DEI, appeared visually uncomfortable, it was clear that many in academia are more interested in pushing political agendas than in genuine inclusion.
Instead of embracing this directive, some university presidents embarked on a rebranding spree, hoping to dodge taxpayer scrutiny. KSU is a prime example. In December 2023, KSU President Kathy Schwaig announced the formation of the Division of Organizational Effectiveness, Leadership Development, and Inclusive Excellence, helmed by Sonia Toson, who previously served as KSU’s Chief Diversity Officer. Sure, the name sounds different, but make no mistake—this is the same old DEI under a shiny new banner.
While Toson was the Interim Chief Diversity Officer in 2021, faculty, staff, and students were invited to a six-week “Check Your Privilege” workshop offered under her leadership. The only two resources to be used for instruction were concerning “white privilege” and antiracism materials. I personally canceled these programs when they crossed my desk by simply speaking up and calling out the absurdity of the DEI workers’ agenda. Thus, President Schwaig’s decision to place Toson in charge of “leadership development” at KSU is baffling.
What’s truly troubling isn’t just the rebranding of DEI at KSU; it’s the deliberate obfuscation of the very ideologues who have long pushed divisive and politically charged agendas. Toson, who has seen her title change multiple times since her tenure at the Coles College of Business, is now in charge of essentially the same DEI work. This shell game isn’t just misleading—it’s an affront to Georgia taxpayers, who are unknowingly footing the bill for these initiatives.
Let’s not overlook the curious case of Toson’s inflated title, either. In what can only be described as academic puffery, President Schwaig repeatedly referred to her as “Dr.” in a single email, despite Toson holding a JD—a law degree that doesn’t typically merit the title of “doctor,” which is normally reserved for PhDs and MDs. This misrepresentation is not just a slip; it reflects a broader pattern of dishonesty. To add to the absurdity, Toson is listed as an “Associate Professor of Law” at KSU, a university without a law school. If that isn’t enough to raise eyebrows, I don’t know what is. After all, we’ve all heard it: if you see something, say something. And that’s precisely the service I provide to all Georgians. After all, I am an academic who seeks the truth and speaks it without needing the approval of college bureaucrats.
Now, let’s return to the matter at hand. When I sent the internal email below to uncover the identities of the employees in Toson’s new division, I was met with resistance—can you believe it? I was informed that I would have to file an Open Records Request for that information. Taxpayers are footing the bill for this work, yet KSU is actively hiding who’s behind it. After filing my request, I received a table showing that over 90 percent of the hidden employees are women. So much for gender “inclusive excellence!” Meanwhile, I—like many other faculty members—am required to have my name and photo splashed across the university website. What are they trying to hide?
Screenshot of the Initial Email Request for Information
This isn’t just a KSU issue. Across the nation, universities are rebranding their DEI staff, even in states where legislators have explicitly banned DEI from public institutions. A relevant example comes from Speech First’s report, “No Graduation Without Indoctrination: The DEI Course Mandate,” which found that several universities in Florida continue to impose DEI mandates in their curricula despite anti-DEI laws. Education reformers should be cautious about celebrating victories that merely target DEI bureaucracies; those same ideologues often reappear under new titles throughout the system.
I encourage tenured faculty in the state of Georgia to come forth and speak out! I have been investigated twice by KSU and its diversicrats and equity-czarinas, and it has caused me much stress and anxiety. However, I will not turn my back on Georgia taxpayers who are funding the political agenda of the left. I look forward to giving overpaid and value-destroying administrations the public spotlight they so desperately deserve.
Let’s see if Chancellor Sonny Perdue and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia can provide proper leadership through concrete and meaningful actions. A policy change, written words on paper, does absolutely nothing; college administrators need to be replaced and their leftist, woe-is-me echo chamber destroyed.
The time for rebranding is over—it’s time for accountability.
Photo of Kennesaw State University on Flickr
The following comment was sent to me by Abigail Ott addressed to Dr. Peter Wood:
Dear Mr. Wood,
I am writing about a recent article published on Minding the Campus. In the October 3rd issue of
Minding the Campus, an article covered Kennesaw State’s rebranding of its DEI program, its
relation to Georgia legislation, and how this ties back to Georgia taxpayers. As a future educator,
I am concerned about the stigma surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The
erasure of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives can limit teachers in creating an inclusive
classroom environment that celebrates our differences and cultivates student engagement and
discussion.
I understand the desire for transparency with the public concerning how Georgia taxpayers fund
these programs. Yet, the rebranding of these programs resembles an effort to help serve
marginalized students. Educators are tasked with engaging their students in the curriculum and
making connections. Employing culturally responsive teaching (CRT) can aid teachers in
addressing social barriers that can prohibit student achievement. Dr. Dawn Kremslehner-Haas, a
professor at Pölten University of Applied Sciences, relays the importance of CRT and that it is
“based on the premise that academic knowledge and skills are acquired more easily and
thoroughly when they are situated within ‘the lived experiences and frames of reference’ of
students.” The loss of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives will be felt in the education field.
Affirming our identities is a step towards building inclusivity. Members of the mainstream
culture must be wary of the echo chambers surrounding them.
Sincerely,
Abigail Ott
It’s clear by Abigail’s letter that her leftist-programming is complete; the words she uses are straight from the ‘inclusive language’ guides of the woke-cult in the education colleges.
Merit-based education is what is needed. Can you imagine something worse than low-IQ individuals teaching our children through ‘culturally responsive teaching’ (CRT). America should take the opportunity over the next 4 years to rid the education field of these cultural-Marxists.
Wow riveting Base White man who make 180k complains about taxes. Cry me a river
Wow! This white man has earned every dollar is his possession; and your cited number is incorrect and too low. If you work hard in America, and study something useful in college, you can also achieve financial success. But you won’t get far with improper English skills.
And the article wasn’t about taxes; pick up your participation trophy on the way out!
Hi Dr. Ed,
I now understand that you don’t have tenure, and I respect your level of cautiousness.
No one has ever heard of:
Dr. Kamala Harris
Dr. Stacey Abrams
Or Dr. Michelle Obama.
All of these folks are liberal, black women who have earned a JD degree. In fact our lead legal counsel is a black women with a JD, and she refers to herself as “Mrs.”
If you ever want to talk privately, and in confidentiality, about issues at your institution, you can find my work email online. I am publicly stating things that most people, even those with tenure, don’t have the testicular (or ovarian) fortitude to say; this is my gift to the conservative Americans out there. And sometimes it may come off as petty or obnoxious, or rude, but so be it. There are millions of great folks who agree with me, and might even appreciate my communication style, though they have never read this article.
Others can be ‘kind;’ I will be correct.
David
Kamala Devi Harris #146672
License Status: Inactive
Phone Number: 202-456-1414
Present Inactive
2/1/2021 Inactive
6/14/1990 Admitted to the State Bar of California
Kamala Harris can call herself a “lawyer” or put “Esq.” after her name because she passed the bar exam. That’s the phone number for the White House switchboard and she probably didn’t renew her license, take the continuing ed classes and such — and I’m actually surprised she didn’t.
This is public information — every state permits you to look up who is a lawyer in that state, and I suspect you will find that a lot of the JDs calling themselves “Dr.” aren’t actually “lawyers.” I’ve encountered a lot of “law school graduates” who were university administrators and while they can call themselves “Dr.”, you have every right to point out that they aren’t members of the Georgia State Bar (if, in fact, they aren’t).
That will be very effective — so go look them up…
One other thing — even if they don’t show up on the website, I would still make the phone call to the state bar and confirm that they aren’t members of the Georgia Bar.
It’s not being petty as much as you absolutely must be right — get one fact wrong and you will destroy your credibility on everything else. So make damn sure you aren’t wrong — and if the GA bar confirms that Suzy isn’t a lawyer, it’s *their* fault, not yours, if it turns out that she actually is.
David, you are a brave man. I hope you will serve as a model for others to pursue honest university administration. And I wish you success in your quest for a return to an academic university in place of our current ideological university.
Thank you, Philip!
And I’m proud to stand along side brave academics like yourself; we will have to reform it as tenured professors because those in power are incompetent and/or infected with the woke mind-virus of social justice.
Your friend,
David
While I have come to the conclusion that some activities, even if they are run by rebranded DEI employees, can do some good — I applaud David Bray for continuing his efforts to expose what is going on at Kennesaw.
My caveat would be to not get distracted by the titles as it makes you look petty. I agree that a JD (which essentially is a second BA) shouldn’t be called a “doctorate” but it is.
If she should hold the title of “Associate Professor” is the battle I would fight in the Faculty Senate — is she worthy of the title and is she actually teaching? But if she IS teaching “law” courses, then she is a professor of ‘law” — and not astronomy or accounting.
Undergrad colleges routinely teach “law” classes — e.g. business law for management majors, education law for education majors, and hospitality law for hotel & recreation majors. These are legitimate courses that people entering these professions need to have — and the ABA prohibits law schools from teaching them.
So if she is teaching at least one “law” course, so be it. I might get a copy of her syllabus and address both academic rigor and content (is she teaching what the law *is* or what she would like it to be) but attacking her on the title alone is petty.
They want you to file a sunshine (FIOA) request — fine. Request the entire university payroll figures and then put it into something like Access to sort it. Make an issue of the cumulative cost of not just her but all her minions. Add in the overhead of office space, travel, and incidentals. This will likely be seven digits, possibly eight — and THAT is what you make an issue of.
Likewise, while we know that the same people with new titles are likely going to be doing the same things, you need to DOCUMENT that. You need to do either a qualitative or quantitative study to SHOW that this is just a shell game. Follow the money…
There you are, and thank you for the compliment! Being called ‘petty’ from an anonymous, internet troll is what keeps me going. You know what they say, “Petty over cowardness.” And I believe in your last trolling exercise you stated you have a higher ed degree? “…mine is in curriculum from a Department of Teacher Education and School Improvement.” Please link your research here if you had to complete a dissertation. Many of the them for the EdD are “Dear Diary” entries full of emotional, woe-is-me diatribes about how the leftist identity tribes are ever-oppressed.
Schools of Education are notoriously known to have the least capable folks and are the epicenter of ideological rot on campus. Is that ‘petty?’ I hope so!
See you on the next article, Dr. Ed!
Sir, I did not call you “petty” and apologize if you somehow took what I wrote to mean that. What I wrote was “…makes you LOOK petty.”[emphasis added]
I perhaps should have added an additional paragraph and will here — the other side is going to throw all kinds of mud at you and hope that some sticks — so you need to pick your fights lest the disinterested bystanders (your audience) concludes that the other side is wrong.
The Juris Doctor (JD) degree was invented by the law schools a century or so ago — they used to award Legum Baccalaureus (Bachelor of Laws or LLM) degrees. I argue that they still should, I suspect you may agree, but this is not a fight we are going to win, the ABA is too well established and too powerful.
However, unlike all other doctorates, the JD is not a terminal degree, as there is both a masters and doctorate beyond it. Remember that institutional accreditation is based on the percentage of faculty with terminal degrees, not doctorates, although the doctorate is usually the terminal degree and many confuse these two things. But the MFA is an example of a terminal degree because you can’t get a doctorate in fine arts.
The battle you will win is that she lacks a terminal degree — she can call herself “Dr.” all she wants but she doesn’t have a terminal degree…
This goes to my second point, which I was perhaps overly nonchalant with because I am familiar with tenure, tenure standards and that sort of such because I am in the field of education — and forgot that perhaps everyone else isn’t. So let me clarify my comments on her being called an “Associate Professor of Law” — and I am still simplifying this to avoid going too deeply into the weeds.
At its most basic, a university can teach whatever the hell it wants to — it can teach law or the Lamaze birth technique — and it doesn’t have to have a law or medical school to do this. (Now if it wants these programs to be accredited for state licenses, that’s another story…)
So if she’s actually teaching a law class, you won’t win on that. But what you will win on is if she either (a) isn’t qualified to be an “Associate Professor” (e.g. because she lacks a terminal degree), and/or (b) she was appointed as an “Associate Professor” outside of the traditional search and appointment process. Furthermore, if she’s an administrator who has never actually taught law classes, there are issues with her being in a tenure track position.
I am anonymous because I have stalkers and have been subjected to doxing.
I also don’t have tenure to protect me.
Remember that the Federalist Papers were published anonymously.