With rapidity and stealth, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) ideology has come to replace the classical liberal values of merit, fairness and equality (MFE).
By: Robert Maranto, Michael Mills and Catherine Salmon
Published: Nov 7, 2022
With rapidity and stealth, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) ideology has come to replace the classical liberal values of merit, fairness and equality (MFE) in the academy, professional organizations, media, government and large technology companies. DEI bureaucracies have mushroomed. Many operate behind the scenes with ambiguous DEI definitions, goals and policies.
This is a significant cultural and ideological revolution, one that has been accomplished with almost no debate or operationalization of terminology. Who originated DEI? Why DEI and not another set of laudable values? Does “equity” refer to opportunity or result? How do those of mixed race fit in diversity assessments? Is the goal of racial representation proportionate to that of the population, the history of marginalization, or something else? DEI terms are defined so obtusely that they can refer to a spectrum of policies from mere platitudes to radical agendas including litmus tests and racial quotas.
In its most radical forms, DEI is derivative of neo-Marxist identitarian ideologies that attribute virtually all average group differences — from arrest rates to medical school admissions — to systemic discrimination. However, average group differences in outcomes can reflect a variety of factors (see Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel”). The unexamined acceptance of DEI, however defined, is surprising in a free society where critics are encouraged to challenge and debate significant social changes. The time for a national debate over the conflicting values of DEI and MFE is long overdue.
For example, one-fifth of the advertisements for higher education faculty jobs (and more for prestigious posts) require applicants to write statements of allegiance to DEI. Academic employment often depends on DEI relevant presentations at scholarly conferences and publications in scholarly journals. Increasingly, scholars are required to explain in advance how their research supports DEI. Such litmus tests are traditionally associated with totalitarian regimes and, in America, with McCarthyism. We all know how well those turned out.
Professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association, the American Bar Association, and even the more moderate American Political Science Association are adopting DEI initiatives, embracing empirically contested concepts such as implicit bias and endorsing legally questionable hiring and admissions policies that utilize de facto racial quotas.
In the academy, DEI and other identitarian orthodoxies are often mandated to be taught in student orientations and required courses, and enforced by campus DEI bureaucrats who now outnumber history faculty. By categorizing virtually any criticism as “prejudiced,” DEI bureaucracies can chill free speech and have empowered some college presidents to slander their critics as bigots and then terminate them. Program renewals for academic departments, and thus continued employment for professors and graduate students, are increasingly tied to embracing DEI rhetoric and goals.
DEI in many respects is a revolutionary ideology. But it is winning. This is in part due to fear of ostracism, censorship or termination — but also because you can’t beat something with nothing.
Enter University of Chicago Professor Dorian Abbot’s DEI alternative, merit, fairness, and equality (MFE), which is consistent with traditional Enlightenment and scientific values. Under MFE, academic decisions are based primarily on academic merit, well validated standardized test scores, grades and, for faculty, publication and teaching records. Individuals are primarily evaluated on their achievements, not by their group identities. This respects individual dignity and promotes the primary mission of research in higher education: the production of knowledge.
MFE also accords with public opinion. The Pew Research Center found that more than 90 percent of Americans want high school grades to influence college admissions and more than 80 percent want standardized testing to play a role. Seventy-five percent of Americans believe that gender, race or ethnicity should not factor into educational admissions decisions. As Kenny Xu points out in “An Inconvenient Minority: The Attack on Asian American Excellence and the Fight for Meritocracy,” MFE would actually increase demographic diversity by ending the unfair quotas against Asians at elite schools. One study found that at Harvard an Asian American applicant with a 25 percent chance of admission would have a 35 percent chance of admission if Caucasion, a 75 percent chance if Hispanic, and 95 percent if Black.
But the powerful avoid debating their critics. Just as Alabama segregationist governor George Wallace never debated Martin Luther King, DEI backers with institutional power show no enthusiasm for defending their ideas in real debates. Without vigorous open and civil debate, DEI bureaucracies will continue to impose doctrinal training programs, litmus tests, censorship and discrimination. Unless this is challenged, we risk entering a new era of institutionalized McCarthyism.
==
The only loyalty in the academy should be to truth and knowledge.
NYU professor Jonathan Haidt is resigning an academic association after attempts to force diversity statements into his work.
By: J.D. Tuccille
Published: Sep 30, 2022
It was probably inevitable that Jonathan Haidt, an academic long concerned about the politicization of academia, would eventually be caught up in the displacement of intellectual inquiry by ideological rigidity.
Last week the New York University (NYU) psychology professor announced that he would resign at the end of the year from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, his primary professional association, because of a newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." It was the sort of litmus test against which he has warned, and which he sees as corroding institutions of higher learning.
"Telos means 'the end, goal, or purpose for which an act is done, or at which a profession or institution aims,'" he wrote in a Sept. 20 piece published on the website of Heterodox Academy, an organization he cofounded that promotes viewpoint diversity on college campuses, and republished by the Chronicle of Higher Education. "The telos of a knife is to cut, the telos of medicine is to heal, and the telos of a university is truth."
"The Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP)—recently asked me to violate my quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth," he added. "I was going to attend the annual conference in Atlanta next February to present some research with colleagues on a new and improved version of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. I was surprised to learn about a new rule: In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.'"
Such diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements have proliferated at universities and in academic societies, he notes, even though "most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, so these mandatory statements force many academics to betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting, or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity."
But the SPSP requirement went a step further, dropping "diversity" in favor of "anti-racism," a term frequently associated with Boston University's Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist and other works. Among the book's passages is a widely shared one highlighted by Haidt:
"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
That's an "explicitly ideological" interpretation of social interactions, Haidt objects, along with prescribed remedies to which he has moral and professional objections. He believes individual members of SPSP should be free to adopt the sentiment themselves, but adherence shouldn't be compelled.
"So I'm going to resign from SPSP at the end of this year, when my membership dues run out, if the policy on mandatory statements stays in place for future conventions," he concludes.
Mandatory DEI statements became a concern well before Haidt's run-in with the SPSP and the substitution of "anti-racism" for diversity." Just weeks ago, Reason's Emma Camp noted that "in many American universities, prospective professors are now expected to include lengthy diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements in their job applications."
A recent American Association of University Professors survey found that DEI criteria are included in consideration for tenure at 21.5 percent of colleges and universities, and at 45.6 percent of large institutions of higher education.
"In many cases, these policies threaten to restrict employment or advancement opportunities for faculty who dissent from the prevailing consensus on DEI-related issues of public and academic interest," warns the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "These policies may even negatively impact faculty who broadly agree with their institution's DEI values but disagree on some of the specifics, or who simply cherish the right to speak without compulsion."
FIRE acknowledges that private institutions have the right to adopt any ideological requirements they wish (public institutions are bound by the First Amendment). But it says DEI mandates threaten the commitments to free speech and academic freedom that most universities espouse.
"Academics seeking employment or promotion will almost inescapably feel pressured to say things that accommodate the perceived ideological preferences of an institution demanding a diversity statement, notwithstanding the actual beliefs or commitments of those forced to speak," agrees the Academic Freedom Alliance in a statement released last month.
Haidt, years ago, sounded the alarm that colleges and universities were compromising their intellectual mission with growing commitment to a particular set of political beliefs.
"I believe the conflict reached its boiling point in the fall of 2015 when student protesters at 80 universities demanded that their universities make much greater and more explicit commitments to social justice, often including mandatory courses and training for everyone in social justice perspectives and content," he wrote in 2016. "Now that many university presidents have agreed to implement many of the demands, I believe that the conflict between truth and social justice is likely to become unmanageable."
The conflict certainly became unmanageable for Haidt himself, who chose what he sees as the pursuit of truth over required affirmation that his work serves a political purpose. He's still uncertain how his dispute with the SPSP will shake out, or the ultimate fate of academia writ large.
"I have gotten about a dozen supportive emails from other social psychologists, and no real criticism beyond a few psychologists on Twitter who, perhaps shaped by Twitter, go to great lengths to assume the worst about me and my motives for writing the essay," Haidt told me by email. "I have the sense that there is a large generational split. Psychologists and academics who are older than me (I'm 58) seem uniformly supportive: they are all on the left, and the left used to be creeped out by loyalty oaths, whether administered by the McCarthyite right or the Soviet left. But young people on the left seem to be very comfortable requiring such pledges."
Where SPSP stands on the matter can only be inferred from Its actions. Officials in the professional society acknowledged my query but hadn't responded by deadline. As of now, everybody presenting research at the society's upcoming conference will have to pledge that their work advances political goals.
==
When ideology supersedes truth.
American higher education continues its navel-gazing decline into irrelevance. China is rubbing its hands gleefully as the US’s self-immolates its own future competitiveness.
Required ‘diversity and inclusion’ statements amount to a political litmus test for hiring.
By: Abigail Thompson
Published: Dec 19, 2019
Seventy years ago the University of California introduced a loyalty oath, requiring employees to swear they were “not a member of the Communist Party.” After a contentious period in which 31 faculty were fired for refusing to sign, the requirement was reconsidered. An eventual consequence was the current Standing Order of the Regents 101.1(d): “No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee.” This is a statement of principle. No one will be denied a position at the University of California based on political beliefs. No communist, no conservative, no progressive, no liberal.
Now the university appears to be abandoning this principle. In the past few years “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” statements, in which applicants for faculty positions profess their commitment to these social goals, have become required on eight UC campuses and at colleges across the country. These requirements are promoted as fulfilling worthy goals: to help redress the historic exclusion of underrepresented groups, to ensure that candidates from all backgrounds apply for and are given fair consideration for faculty jobs, and to make sure faculty respect and support all students in their teaching and mentoring.
There are many constructive ways to pursue these admirable aims. For example, professors can reach out to underrepresented communities at every level. We can enact family-friendly policies that help young faculty balance family life with jobs. We can encourage students from all backgrounds to explore and succeed in academic careers.
The mathematical community, my own discipline, has widely embraced the ideals of inclusiveness. But I have become increasingly uneasy with the use of DEI statements in faculty hiring. This spring the university issued guidelines instructing each campus to develop and use a scoring system, called a “rubric,” for applicants’ diversity statements. No longer will faculty hiring committees use their own judgment about how best to create a diverse and inclusive environment in their fields.
Instead, each candidate’s commitment to diversity will be assigned points. To score well, candidates must subscribe to a particular political ideology, one based on treating people not as unique individuals but as representatives of their gender and ethnic identities.
A rubric from the Berkeley campus, singled out because it is available online, specifies that job applicants who describe “only activities that are already the expectation of Berkeley faculty (mentoring, treating all students the same regardless of background, etc)” will score poorly (1 or 2 points out of 5). A low score in this or other areas will disqualify a candidate. This system specifically excludes those who believe in a tenet of classical liberalism: that each person should be treated as a unique individual, not as a representative of an identity group. Rather than helping achieve inclusion, these DEI rubrics act as a filter for those with nonconforming views.
Earlier this year, I was invited to submit an essay to the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, the most widely read journal in mathematics. I decided to express my view that these required statements have become political litmus tests, and that this should worry us all. My submission provoked an intense controversy—confirming that this has become a dangerously politicized issue.
Social media posts called my views disgusting, condemned the American Mathematical Society for publishing the essay, and called for my public shaming. Mathematicians were urged to steer their students away from studying at UC Davis, where I teach, and to contact the university to question my fitness as chair of the math department.
A letter misrepresenting my views attracted hundreds of signatures. It inaccurately stated that I had equated “actively attempting to include more students in mathematics” with the “Red Scare.” Two supportive letters also circulated, gathering hundreds of signatures. One emphasized the value of open discussion without fear of intimidation if we are to make mathematics a welcoming community for everyone. Another agreed that mandatory diversity statements “undermine faculty governance.”
I received more than 150 emails, overwhelmingly supportive, many from leading mathematicians in the U.S. and overseas. Some recalled similar required statements in Soviet bloc countries, which they encountered earlier in their careers. Some pointed out that the diversity statements tend to be formulaic, with many candidates coached on how to write them, and that the content often emphasizes ideology over accomplishments. Others noted that the statements disadvantage foreign applicants and candidates from low-income groups, who may not have opportunities to participate in voluntary activities that demonstrate a commitment to diversity.
Many emails contained a disturbing theme, typified by this line from one of them: “Some day I, too, hope to speak out on this issue, but it is simply too dangerous at present.” This is a frightening sentiment to hear in academia. If expressing a widespread but controversial view is seen as taking a tremendous personal risk, the university system isn’t healthy. Ideas cannot thrive and mistakes cannot be corrected if people are afraid to speak out.
To its credit, the UC Davis administration has supported my right to speak. I hope that continuing discussion will confirm the vital principle that scholars discuss ideas, they don’t silence them.
Mandatory diversity statements can too easily become a test of political ideology and conformity. “No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee.” This fundamental principle, forged in one of the most difficult periods the UC system has ever endured, must not be abandoned.
Ms. Thompson is chair of the mathematics department at the University of California Davis.
==
“Woke” ideological piety as a primary employment prerequisite. Never mind capability, credentials, qualifications, teaching history or anything that might suggest merit.
"You don't have to believe in God, you don't have to like it — you have to participate. If you don't, that's okay — you don't have to work here," the boss says.
"You're getting paid to be here. This is our first core purpose. So if you don't want to participate, that's okay. Leave your stuff here, you don't have to work here. It's not an option."
The diversity statements secular colleges increasingly require of faculty candidates have many similarities to the faith statements long required by religious institutions, Justin P. McBrayer writes.
By: Justin P. McBrayer
Published: May 23, 2022
In 2008, I was in graduate school and applying for tenure-track jobs in philosophy across the country. My applications fell into two piles: those that required faith statements and those that didn’t. Many religious colleges required applicants to either write their own faith statement or sign on to a standardized one. This bothered me.
It’s not that I didn’t have faith commitments. I did. But as a philosopher, I wasn’t ready to sign just anything. I craved the careful distinctions, nuance and subtlety that faith statements often papered over. As a result, I had to pore over the standardized statements to ensure that I could sign in good conscience or construct my own that hewed closely to my intellectual, moral and religious commitments. Secular institutions were so much easier.
Not anymore.
Contrary to what you might think, many secular institutions now require faith statements, too. They go by the name diversity statements, but they function in the same ways as faith statements at religious institutions.
The Ubiquity of Diversity Statement Requirements
Many faculty positions now require diversity statements as part of an application packet. The standard justification for this is that doing so will improve the success of diverse student bodies and enhance diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on campus. Job ads have a short shelf life online, but here are a few examples.
New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering requires that all faculty applicants include “a statement of your experience with or knowledge of inclusion, diversity, equity, and belonging efforts and your plans for incorporating them into your teaching, research, mentoring, and service.”
California State University, Sacramento, requires applicants for a history job to submit a statement showing, among other things, how the candidate would “advance the History Department’s goal of promoting an anti-racist and anti-oppressive campus to recruit, retain, and mentor students.”
For another history job, Northern Arizona University requires a diversity statement “that highlights an understanding of the role of diversity, equity, inclusion and justice in a university setting. Please include examples from past experiences and reference plans to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in your teaching, research, and service.”
Hofstra University in New York welcomes applications for an assistant professor of sociology as long as that person can demonstrate her commitment to critical criminology, restorative justice and racial equity in the criminal justice system and show how her teaching, research and service would contribute to a culturally diverse and inclusive environment.
Note just how demanding these standards are. Applicants are supposed to know the differences among inclusion, equity, diversity and belonging. They need experience with each. They should have a track record and/or plans to incorporate each of them into teaching, mentoring, service and research. Successful applicants will be committed to a goal of building an antioppressive recruitment strategy. Northern Arizona even wants a plan for advancing justice in teaching.
These examples are not an aberration. Last fall the American Enterprise Institute released a report on the prevalence of DEI statements in university hiring. AEI found that 68 percent of job ads in the fall of 2020 mentioned diversity, and 19 percent required a separate diversity statement. That number requiring diversity statements is even higher for elite schools and tenure-track jobs. Certain fields are more likely to require diversity statements than others, with political science being the most likely among fields included in the survey.
And these numbers are already two years old. Given the political climate, it’s likely that the proportion of positions requiring diversity work is even higher (Appalachian State University in North Carolina, for example, is building a summer working group on soliciting and evaluating DEI statements). Diversity statements are the new norm.
The Similarity Between Faith and Diversity Statements
Diversity statements function like faith statements. Even though they are nominally about different topics, they work in similar ways and have structurally similar effects.
First, both faith and diversity statements effectively screen out potential candidates at the application stage. When I was on the job market, I often applied to a different pool of colleges than fellow grad students studying the same areas. Non-Christians need not apply. Requiring a faith statement was an effective way of ensuring that religious people (or those willing to pretend) were overrepresented in the candidate pool relative to the general Ph.D. population. In other words, faith statements screen applicants.
Diversity statements do the same thing. I’ve heard from several colleagues on the job market this year who have declined to apply to certain jobs with stringent diversity statement requirements. People who are less certain about sociological issues surrounding demographic diversity or those holding nonstandard (read: nonliberal) views about diversity are discouraged from applying. Suppose you were a physicist: if you can’t say how you would incorporate diversity and inclusion in your research on nuclear fusion, you’d better not apply. And if the statement isn’t really supposed to be about your research but about how you would teach or hire people for your research, then the request is misplaced.
Further, at the screening stage, the already-narrowed applicant pool can be winnowed further on the basis of diversity contributions (or rhetoric) before academic credentials are even considered. Some colleges grade diversity statements with a rubric and assign applicants a diversity score as part of the first round of cuts. For example, stating your commitment to treat all students the same will earn you the lowest possible score on advancing DEI at the University of California, Berkeley.
And let’s face it: statements asking applicants to describe their experiences with diversity invite applicants to identify themselves by race, ethnicity, gender, etc., thereby priming search committee members by flagging features that are supposed to be irrelevant in a job search. The net result is that people who really believe (or are willing to say) certain things about diversity are overrepresented in the interview pool relative to the general job-seeking population.
Second, both faith and diversity statements require people to assent to claims above their epistemic pay grade. Various faith statements I’ve perused online, for example, require that applicants be willing to affirm that God exists as three persons, that the Bible in its original language was inerrant, that Mary had a virgin birth and that Hell is a literal place of eternal suffering. I submit to you that most job candidates in music and chemistry are unable to marshal very good arguments or evidence for these views (even applicants in philosophy and theology would struggle).
Diversity statements put applicants in a similar position by requiring all sorts of claims that are difficult to verify. Pop quiz: What’s the difference between race and ethnicity? Most of you reading this article won’t know. How many faculty members in accounting are able to clearly parse the differences among inclusion, equity, diversity and belonging (especially given the ongoing semantic narrowing of each)? Social scientists are in the best position to understand the role that things like racism and sexism play in society at large, and even they disagree. Should we expect applicants in sports medicine to understand them? In short, diversity statements too often require people to make claims that they neither understand nor have evidence for.
Let me be clear: it’s not that many applicants don’t believe all the things they say about diversity, society and justice. Rather, it’s that they won’t know them. Instead, most scholars hold their diversity-related beliefs as a matter of faith rather than evidence. In that way, they are no different from the applicants writing religious faith statements for other schools.
You might think that job applicants aren’t really expected to know very much about diversity but rather just to signal that they care about it. That brings up a third similarity between faith statements and diversity statements: both are signals of tribal loyalties. Humans naturally divide the social world into in-groups and out-groups, and we need reliable ways to tell who’s who. We do so by signaling to those around us and picking up on the signals of others. When a candidate says he doesn’t support the minimum wage, that reliably signals to the political left that he’s not one of them. When a group of politicians supports using force to inspect voting machines, that’s a reliable signal of their political allegiances. Signals that are less likely to be picked up by the other side are called dog whistles.
Even if it had no effect on the applicant pool, a faith statement is a clear signal about where an institution’s loyalties lie. Many religious schools have adopted faith statements and lifestyle statements to pacify religiously fundamental trustees and donors or to signal potential applicants. The expectation of a diversity statement sends a similar signal of loyalty to administrators, fellow institutions and donors, and submitting a statement that passionately extols progressive ideals on DEI reliably signals an applicant’s loyalties.
And much like a dog whistle, the signal goes deeper than the content made explicit in the statements. It’s eminently plausible that faith statements correlate with all sorts of social and political allegiances; diversity statements do the same. It’s not like one’s views about diversity, equity and inclusion are somehow isolated from the remainder of one’s worldview. How you write about diversity will be a reliable indicator about how you think and teach and vote on a wide range of other issues.
Fourth, both faith and diversity statements close questions. An open question is one that has not yet been answered. It is evidentially unsettled. A closed question is one that has been answered and set aside. No more inquiry is welcome on that front.
When a religious institution requires applicants to agree in advance that the world was created in six literal days, it is effectively closing the question on the origin of the cosmos. Anyone willing to challenge that dogma need not apply. Once again, diversity statements do the same thing. If the history department is only willing to hire applicants committed to building an antiracist recruitment pipeline, that closes the question on whether antiracist structures do more harm than good. If applicants are required to submit statements detailing how their service will dismantle structural racism in the university, that closes the question on whether structural racism is really the root cause of our lack of racial diversity.
In sum, both faith and diversity statements artificially limit an applicant pool, ask for commitments that go beyond our evidence, signal our tribal loyalties and close questions. Realizing that they are on a par should give us pause. Religious colleges are private institutions that are typically up front about their religious orientations. In that context, a faith statement makes sense. But requiring a functionally similar statement at a public institution is a bad idea.
Even setting aside questions of whether it’s legal to require diversity statements at public schools (arguably not) and whether doing so helps students (there’s no evidence that it does), doing so likely contributes to the further intellectual polarization of the academy. Faculty are already overwhelmingly progressive, and given our propensity to evaluate politically charged issues in light of our own biases, it’s plausible that requiring job applicants to provide diversity statements further increases the probability that applicants espousing progressive views about the nature of and solutions to diversity-related problems are hired over politically moderate or conservative competitors. That’s something that should worry anyone interested in building communities that are trustworthy, intellectually diverse and vibrant.
Ever since I was a teenager, I thought I wanted to be a college professor. I’ve always cared deeply about the pursuit of truth, so that seemed like the perfect career for me.
When I first made the decision to pursue a career as an academic scientist, it appeared I could simply focus on learning the literature, asking questions, formulating hypotheses, designing and executing experiments, and then conveying my findings as clearly as possible in scientific journals.
But that didn’t turn out to be the case.
When it came time to start applying to universities for professor positions, it became clear that my ability to do science or teach students was only a portion of what they cared about.
Many universities had adopted a new policy: they insisted that applicants submit a diversity, equity, and inclusion statement.
What is that?
Generally a DEI statement asks applicants to explain all the ways that they have contributed to fostering “diversity” in the past, and how they will continue doing so in the future. Sometimes they even asked me to explicitly to list all the racial and sexual minorities I had ever mentored.
Now I care deeply about diversity, equity and inclusion. But these DEI statements only wanted me to care about two kinds of diversity: diversity of physical appearance like skin color, and gender and sexual identity.
They only cared about inclusion of those two groups, and they only cared about equity if it meant equal outcomes rather than the fair and equal treatment of individuals.
But, as an academic, I care more about fostering diversity of thought and advancing science than people’s immutable characteristics.
I’ve mentored plenty of racial and sexual minorities, but listing them to advance my own career didn’t sit well with me. I never chose who to mentor or hire on that basis.
I hire scientists because they happen to be the best candidates for the job. That’s true equity.
To think about my mentees solely in terms of their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation felt dehumanizing. Like I was taking all their complexity, individuality, and humanity, and reducing it to a single trait.
Many DEI statement prompts make it clear what’s expected of the applicant. To score well on UC Berkeley’s DEI statement, for instance, applicants are explicitly told they are not to disagree with the use of racial affinity groups, which is the practice of racially segregating coworkers based on their skin color.
I hardly see how morally objectionable segregation increases diversity.
Why was I being required to agree with this in order to apply for a job as a scientist?
In many instances, these DEI statements were being used as a first filter for job applicants, meaning that applications with low-scoring DEI statements would not even be considered, no matter how brilliant of a scientist or professor they were.
And commitment to this kind of DEI is often a requirement for tenure or other promotions.
Not wanting to abandon my principles of diversity of thought, equity of treatment, and inclusion of anyone who can advance scientific progress, I ended up abandoning my dream of becoming an academic, a career I had pursued for over a decade.
But this video really isn’t about me. I’m ok - I do work that I love writing about science for the general public.
However, my experience is anything but unique. I’ve heard stories from dozens of my scientific colleagues who have also felt uncomfortable and confused about why they were being asked to pledge adherence to an intolerant ideology that has nothing to do with science.
Many of my colleagues who currently have academic jobs, some tenured even, are worried that their fundamental disagreements with how their departments are pursuing DEI, might result in their firing. Some are so afraid that they’re simply pretending to agree.
The pursuit of truth requires a strong commitment to academic freedom and free speech. If academics are self-censoring rather than voicing their honest opinions, we have a major problem: in that environment, universities can no longer function as institutions primarily concerned with finding truth.
DEI statements don’t foster diversity, but conformity. They don’t result in equity, but unfairness. They’re not about inclusion, but rather the exclusion of people with differing opinions.
We need diversity of thought to get the best ideas to fight racism and bigotry, but the DEI orthodoxy prevents that. Without including diverse perspectives we cannot identify our own blindspots. And when we create blindspots in the name of justice, no matter how good one’s intentions are, we can end up with severe consequences.
I’m Colin Wright. Join me in doing DEI right and building a better academia at FairForAll.org.
==
This practice makes it clear its proponents believe everybody with the same color skin, everyone of the same gender, everyone of the same sexuality, etc, is interchangeable.
"A perhaps more likely outcome is that some of critical race theory will be accepted by society’s mainstream and halls of power, while other parts of it will continue to meet resistance. The narrative turn and storytelling scholarship seem well on their way toward acceptance, as does the critique of merit.”
-- Delgado/Stefancic
Believe them when they tell you what they’re up to.
One department seeks applicants who "feel personal responsibility for helping to create an equitable and inclusive environment."
By: John Sailer
Published: May 23, 2024
Want to be a molecular biologist at Yale? Well, make sure you have a ten-step plan for dismantling systemic racism. When making hires at Yale’s department of molecular biophysics and biochemistry, faculty are told to place “DEI at the center of every decision,” according to a document tucked away on its website.
Meanwhile, every job advertised on the site links to a DEI “rubric” that tests candidates’ “knowledge of DEI and commitment to promoting DEI,” their “past DEI experiences and activities,” and their “future DEI goals and plans.”
The questions are designed to find out how they would infuse diversity, equity, and inclusion—a focus on race, gender, sexual orientation, and other categories of “marginalization”—into their work.
Applicants for professor and lecturer jobs, currently advertised on the site, will get “zero” points if they:
Have “no knowledge or awareness about DEI issues”
Do “not feel personal responsibility for helping to create an equitable and inclusive environment”
Were “not involved in activities that promote DEI”
Have “no goals or plans for promoting DEI”
But they are marked “exceptional” if they:
Have “clear knowledge of DEI issues”
Can demonstrate “strong interest in contributing to promoting DEI in teaching”
Have a “sustained track record of multiple efforts in promoting DEI”
Show a “clear and detailed plan for promoting DEI through teaching”
The assessment puts the thumb on the scale for those with progressive sensibilities. Scientists earn a high score in the category of “DEI knowledge” by showing they understand the “specific challenges faced by underrepresented minorities”—a criterion likely to favor those with a strong faith in the concepts of microaggressions, implicit bias, and systemic racism.
Diversity statements raise serious issues about free expression, and they also signal an ill-advised shift in priority—away from disciplinary excellence and toward social activism.
As one of the world’s most influential universities, Yale has popularized diversity statements. But they are finally past their expiration date. Yale should wield its influence and join MIT in putting an end to this misguided experiment.
==
This has literally nothing to do with molecular biology. It's a full-blown religious cult.
