To the Editor:

The person who exited Monday’s Community “Conversation” on Race was me and here’s why:

Back in February, we had the first community “Conversation” on Race. It was Zoom-based and I followed the process to participate but was rejected citing too many participants. So in my opinion, what actually transpired was a highly orchestrated DEI workshop, not a “community conversation.”

Fast forward to Monday. A second Community “Conversation” on Race was held at the library. This one was in person and I was excited because I wanted to challenge the basic legitimacy of DEI that our nation is systemically racist in need of remediation by “correctly thinking” academics, clerics, and activists.

I was prepared to do this, not with opinion, but with facts, figures, history, and economics.

Things started off promisingly enough with [Library Director Doug] Lord setting the ground rules that no one try to “dominate” the conversation. The only problem was that these rules apparently did not apply to the “panel” and the “moderators” who proceeded to dominate the conversation for 30-45 minutes without the “community” having a chance to comment whatsoever.

Not willing to sit thru another DEI workshop I finally interjected and requested to be able to participate. This appeared to disorient the “moderators” but one noted that it looked like “I had something I wanted to say”, and she was right.

I cited my background as commensurate with the panelists having been a professionally trained Race Relations instructor in the United States Army, and 10 years an Elder at perhaps the most diverse, open, and inclusive, Christian congregation in Connecticut.

I said the DEI ideology of focusing on race, and the privilege/oppression narrative, sowed division, discord and dysfunction in a congregation that had previously been an example of Christian unity. I have years of experience with DEI and know it bears the same fruit whether in churches, schools, cities, or the military.

I wanted to continue the “conversation” by taking exception to a panelist who several times apologized for his “white “privilege,” but a “moderator” stepped in saying they wanted to proceed with even more questions for the “panel.” Having no appetite to sit thru another workshop as opposed to a “conversation,” I exited.

These experiences have taught me there are two ways to control ideas: Cancel them, or install like-minded “panels” and “moderators” who monopolize the proceedings and call it a “Community Conversation.”

Thank heavens for The Bee … one of the few places left to voice one’s viewpoint. As for future “Community Conversations”… count me out.

Tony Keating

Newtown