Mandatory faculty diversity (DEI) statements undermine the future of the University of Washington and other universities

At the University of Washington and many other academic institutions, applicants for faculty positions must complete a Declaration on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) describe their past actions to support DEI and how they would promote DEI if appointed. In addition, these mandatory statements typically require the applicant to express support or commitment to the DEI principles.

As will be shown below, such DEI claims have questionable legitimacy, suppress diversity of opinion, and politicize academic institutions. They are undermining the foundational values ​​of academia, creating unique views, serving as a test of political conviction, and often hurting the groups they purport to support.

DEI Represents the Politics of the Academy

Although the terms diversity, equity and inclusion may seem generic and innocuous at first glance, the working definitions used in most universities are partisan and politicized. High. Diversity generally refers to the promotion of representation of certain identity groups, based on race, color, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Equity refers to equal outcomes for all groups, not equality of opportunity. And Inclusion often includes only certain priority groups.

The political nature of such DEI ideas is highlighted by the wide divergence in favor of DEI across the political spectrum. In a recent poll of 1491 faculty members from the nonpartisan group FIRE (Farm for Individual Rights and Expression), 75% of liberal or left-leaning faculty supported mandatory diversity statements while 90% Conservative lecturers and 56% of politically moderate faculty members see them as inappropriate political litmus tests. Several Republican-led states are abandoning DEI claims, in contrast to states where the Democratic Party is dominant. Thus, DEI faculty statements claim the support of ideas supported by only one side of the political spectrum—the very definition of politicization.

Compulsory words and obligatory actions

The First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing people to express ideas they don’t want to say. As a result, it is illegal for a state university, such as the University of Washington, to require faculty to speak, and this is especially serious if the requested speech is political in nature.

To illustrate, some current University of Washington faculty vacancies require speeches by asking applicants to state their commitment to DEI principles. For example, applicants for the position of Assistant Professor of School Psychology at the UW College of Education must provide a “one-page diversity statement describing your experience and commitment to diversity.” diversity, equity and inclusion”. This is clearly contrary to the First Amendment.

As noted by University of Chicago law professor Brian Leiter, “the new diversity claims require applicants to declare allegiance to a range of controversial moral and political views that have little or unrelated to the pedagogical and academic duties of a faculty member.”

Illegally coerced speech in DEI statements is such an obvious problem that one of the leading proponents of faculty DEI statements, University of California, Davis, Law Professor Brian Soucek has made note that such obligatory speech on DEI should be avoided (he said this during a debate with Professor Leiter). Instead, Professor Soucek recommends that DEI statements should address actions only: past actions that demonstrate support for DEI and promised future actions that will enhance ideas. DEI ideas and principles. However, one should ask: if forced speech is illegal, how can forced actions be less troublesome? Isn’t forcing someone to take an action they don’t agree with is worse than being forced to say words they find problematic?

The required speech on faculty DEI statements is similar in nature to the University’s infamous oath of allegiance in the late 1940s and early 1950s, where applicants had to attest to their commitment. with American institutions and rejected communist ideology. The promotion of such loyalty claims by major universities (such as the University of Washington) is now considered undemocratic and illegal, representing an unfortunate stain to the reputations of the universities. major academic institutions.

We don’t need to repeat this

Abuse of Faculty DEI Statement

DEI statements have the potential for significant abuse, such as as a test of political conviction, screening candidates of specific backgrounds and beliefs, or favoring candidates from groups specific race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Such claims also have the potential to reduce the quality of faculty teaching, research, and service, or reduce diversity of opinion among university faculty.

At some institutions, such as some in the University of California system, DEI reports have been used to filter faculty candidates BEFORE their academic and teaching credentials are reviewed. Therefore, an outstanding faculty member destined for Nobel Prize-level contributions will be rejected if her commitment to DEI is insufficient. For example, certain rejections will occur for any faculty candidate that makes the simple statement that all students should be treated equally as individuals and that no student should be favored. or be punished for their background. Political views, rather than promise in research and teaching, are the main filter at the UC system.

The California faculty mandatory DEI statement has been used (illegally) to favor individuals of certain races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations (affirmative action is prohibited by law in California). We know this thanks to a summary report at the University of California, Berkeley, for 2018-2019. For a position in the life sciences cluster, 896 applicants applied, of which 54% were Caucasian, 26% Asian, 3% African American, and 13% Hispanic. Dental. Of these applicants, 679 (78%) were rejected because of their DEI statement before considering their research and teaching potential. After looking at the DEI filter, only 14% were Caucasian (down from 54%), 59% Hispanic (up from 13%), 18% Asian (down from 26%) and 9% are African-American (up from 3%). It’s clear that there’s been deep racism and preference, with the DEI claim to be the central tool. Jim Crow’s racism is wrong, racism based on mandatory DEI statements is also wrong.

Since there is no clear yardstick for grading DEI statements, such statements are inevitably subjective and reflect the views, prejudices, political views, and preferences of faculty in each department. More progressive/leftist disciplines, such as education, social work and Global Public Health will tend to require faculty candidates to have the highest political commitment, ensuring the highest level of political commitment. unique, a problematic situation for an academic community where ideas need to be challenged and explored.

A compelling example is found in the current job announcement for the position of Assistant Professor of Teaching in Global Health at the University of Washington.

“We are dedicated to recruiting faculty who model the principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, anti-racism, and global health decolonization across all elements of our academic portfolio. We consider equity and social justice essential to our mission of building excellence. Successful applicants will be expected to embody these values ​​in our activities. their teaching, mentoring and services, and in any research or practice activities in which they engage.To be considered for this position, all applicants must have an explicit commitment to work. against racism and decolonization principles, and is ready to continue developing new skills that align with our school’s EDI Roadmap.”

Applicants with moderate or conservative views, or unwilling to “fit” into the school’s EDI pathway, will be rejected. So much for the diversity of views in that department.

Politicization is also taking place in more moderate STEM departments. For example, a young faculty member in UW’s engineering department opposed the initiative to require faculty DEI reports for current faculty (as they advance). Some left-leaning members of his department later protested his pay raise. Fortunately, other faculties opposed such inappropriate politicization, and the raise was approved. It’s no surprise that this promising faculty member has decided to leave UW next year. There are stories like this in other departments.

There is no evidence that mandatory DEI statements are beneficial

One would think that before universities required DEI reports from thousands of faculty applicants, given the considerable effort and expense required for their creation and review, there would need to be some evidence of the validity and effectiveness of such claims. Surprisingly, no such evidence exists. An extensive search of the academic literature found no published research documenting the validity of the faculty’s DEI statements, and questions asked by supporters of the DEI claim indicate that they do not have a degree. any evidence to cite. In contrast, faculty DEI statements have the potential to be significantly damaging and divisive.

It is important to note that faculty applicants can always voluntarily note any contribution or interest to DEI in their faculty application.

Just the tip of the iceberg

Faculty DEI statements are just one example of the massive transformation that has undermined American institutions of higher education. Universities like UW have put enormous resources into the DEI bureaucracy and related programs, resulting in a decrease in diversity in the views of faculty and students. Many instructors are afraid to speak their mind on controversial topics. Massive financial spending on diversity pays well Deans, staff and “advisors” have reduced support for teaching and research, and increased university tuition. Recent events at Stanford Law School, where a diverse dean persuaded a visiting speaker, are just one example of the profound degradation that has occurred at top universities.

Summary

If one wants to design a measure that undermines the essential foundations of an academic institution, few measures are more effective than mandatory DEI statements for new faculty. It reduces the diversity of views of new faculty members and encourages a monoculture of similar political and social ideas on one side of the political spectrum. It undermines academic quality by directing decision-making away from the teaching and research abilities of prospective new faculty members to consideration of their social and political views. As a result, both academic institutions and their students are affected, with no studies showing evidence of any benefit. In addition to these obvious problems, DEI statements often represent illegal imperative speech.

If you agree that the required faculty DEI statements are a bad idea, let UW know about it. Talking to your state legislator is also a good idea.