I'm reading
"The Hypocrisy of Mandatory Diversity Statements
Demanding that everyone embrace the same values will inevitably narrow the pool of applicants who work and get hired in higher education" by Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic).
John D. Haltigan sued the University of California at Santa Cruz in May. He wants to work there as a professor of psychology. But he alleges that its hiring practices violate the First Amendment by imposing an ideological litmus test on prospective hires: To be considered, an applicant must submit a statement detailing their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion. According to the lawsuit, Haltigan believes in “colorblind inclusivity,” “viewpoint diversity,” and “merit-based evaluation”—all ideas that could lead to a low-scoring statement based on the starting rubric UC Santa Cruz publishes online to help guide prospective applicants. “To receive a high score under the terms set by the rubric,” the complaint alleges, “an applicant must express agreement with specific socio-political ideas, including the view that treating individuals differently based on their race or sex is desirable.” Thus, the lawsuit argues, Haltigan must express ideas with which he disagrees to have a chance of getting hired....
What began as an option to highlight work that advanced “diversity and equal opportunity” morphed over time into mandatory statements on contributions to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”...
Mandatory DEI statements send the message that it’s okay for academics to chill the speech of colleagues.... Do academics really want to assert that any value should be held by “every” faculty member?... [M]andatory DEI statements are profoundly anti-diversity....
Posts
74 comments:
"...will inevitably narrow the pool of applicants who work and get hired in higher education"
The statements are reverse loyalty oaths intended to confirm progressive status, not deny it. So of course it will. By design.
Is there a "compelled speech" issue here? UCal is a state institution. How do they evaluate the diversity statements? Is there a diversity of views in the approved mandatory diversity statements?
Tsk, tsk.
The Left wants to control every aspect of our lives. It’s all about power; not freedom.
I like Ann’s theme for today: The Left is opposed to freedom.
Imagine the University of Wisconsin trying to control the speech of Professor Ann Althouse!
Everyone must wear the ribbon!
"Do academics really want to assert that any value should be held by “every” faculty member?"
Yes, they do. When people tell you explicitly what they want, believe them for fuck's sake.
How long will it be before The Atlantic and Friedersdorf give in to the mob and apologize for this hurtful
hate speech which is literally violence?
The SPLC
Sorting your trash
Affirmative Action at Harvard
DEI
Is there a theme to the blog today, noble causes degenerating into rackets?
Why is the Atlantic taking this position? Weird.
The modern left are not only lying liars who lie - not only speech code cretins, they are the brown-shirt antifa-Nazi - mind-crime thought-crime loyalty-test obedience police.... found and forced in every corporate entity they can infect.
All while they lie about mom's for liberty.
Harvard says in defence of its admissions practices that diversity means diversity of life experiences, and diversity of views only insofar as they relate to those. How great if a Sherpa and a black chess whiz from Baton Rouge both end up woke. No debate about wokeness is encouraged.
Good luck, John D Haltigan. I'm on your side. DEI statements are creepy as all get out.
Conor perpetually holds the red pill against his lips but never puts it in his mouth.
Soon there will be mandatory naked goosestep parades at the University of Wisconsin in Madison for all tenured PhDs and Administrators.
Let's not forget that the first loyalty oaths in the us were instituted by DEMOCRAT president Truman.
Executive Order 9835 was signed in March 47 and covered all civilian federal employees.
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/executive-orders/9835/executive-order-9835
Eisenhower Republican revoked the order in April 53 early in his first term
John Henry
This was not "the" red scare Era, it was "a" red scare Era.
The 1906-08 red scare led to Bonaparte and Roosevelt founding the Fbi (as Bureau of Investigation) over congressional prohibition.
Another was in 1918-20 under Wilson which culminated in Palmer Raids.
In the 30s the American Legion, among others fomented a lot of anti-red raids across the country.
The HUAC anti-red activities of the 40s were just the latest in a long line of "red scares"
And let's not even talk about the Hollywood Blacklist of the 40s
John Henry
"The lawsuit compares the DEI-statement requirement to Red Scare–era loyalty oaths that asked people to affirm that they were not members of the Communist Party."
First thing that came to my mind when I first saw these. The parallels are obvious. So obvious that I was a bit disbelieving that the lefties would actually do this. But they either have no self-awareness or they believe that their cause is so righteous as to not be comparable.
I last taught for Southern New Hampshire University in 2009.
I don't remember when it started, perhaps 4-5 years previous but for every course I taught I had to physically sign a statement that I would not discriminate on the basis of race and 6-8 other things. I could not discriminate against gays and lesbians. I don't remember being forbidden from discriminating against trannies.
So this DIE stuff goes back a long ways.
John Henry
EDU has morphed into a Hasidic Marxism. If you want in, you must curse the USA, and then you get your cut of the loot from from Federally guaranteed student loans and get to play “hate straight White Supremacist” games all day long.
It’s not about diversity. It’s about uniformity.
Or applicants can just lie, like Dean Erwin Chemerinsky (of UC Berkeley Law School) admitted he would do if deposed about the school's hiring practices.
If its a lie for social justice is it still a lie?
Many years ago, I went to a talk by Virginia Postrel at the Harvard Graduate School or Education. All around the outside of the school were 8 foot by 8 foot panels with artwork and going around three sides, some diversity happy talk. Having spent a good deal of time at Harvard, I was turned off by the hypocrisy. I imagined the panel I wanted to see: a cartoon person looking up--seemingly at a speaker--repeated many times, differing only in that some are green, some red, some yellow, etc. Running along the three sides:
The best diversity is
when everyone looks different
and thinks like me.
It seemed more accurate.
1950s loyalty oaths vs. DEI compliance oaths: Fuchs, Hiss and the Rosenbergs vs. Moms for Liberty.
It narrows the pool of applicants to those who've got their minds right, so it's all good.
Of course the intent is the same. Make sure that only those of the right ideology are selected. At least McCarthy was concerned about external enemies.
"The Hypocrisy of Mandatory Diversity Statements"
Why hypocrisy? Progs rule and want to impose their will. Diversity always meant discrimination in favor of blacks and Hispanics.
"Demanding that everyone embrace the same values will inevitably narrow the pool of applicants who work and get hired in higher education"
So what? The value convergence has already happened, many fields have no conservativers at all, and Harvard as a whole has maybe a handful. Who cares? Progs like the narrow pool as long as it's the right, i.e. left, pool
"Thus, the lawsuit argues, Haltigan must express ideas with which he disagrees to have a chance of getting hired"
Correct.
"What began as an option"
. . . turned into prog coercion. Surprise!
"Do academics really want to assert that any value should be held by “every” faculty member?"
Prog academics, yes. Sure, you could have a few token deplorables, let righties have their Mansfields.
"[M]andatory DEI statements are profoundly anti-diversity...."
How so? Diversity means just what progs want it to mean.
It's doing exactly what it is intended to do. Non compliance leads to the gulags.
The spirit of Tailgunner Joe McCarthy has returned from the grave and now inhabits the heads of many college deans and presidents. Loyalty oaths for all--to today's secular religion known as DEI. Not that far from a different Deity, but its adherents are equally fervent and will punish heresy.
The Red Threat was real, and loyalty oaths arose from real spies really spying on government-funded military, diplomacy, and medical research, as well as countering established anti-American propaganda programs that have turned academia into the rat ass circus it is today.
DEI is one fruit of that tree.
File the lawsuit under "ironic."
Another nail in the coffin of higher education.
It's illegal for Universities to discriminate against hiring Republicans - but they've been doing so for decades. Secretly, but illegally.
The gov't funded colleges should be sued, lose, and the Presidents & those making illegal discriminatory hiring decisions should be fired.
The "private" colleges that discriminate should lose tax exempt status, including that college connected to the massive Harvard endowment hedge fund.
Expect to see more calls to have gov't stop subsidizing edu orgs that illegally discriminate.
are you now? or have you Ever Been? a free thinking person?
"...To be considered, an applicant must submit a statement detailing their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion..."
Since no clear and stable meaning attaches to any of these words --diversity, equity or inclusion-- one could supply a statement saying pretty much anything or nothing; just carefully phrased in saccharine generalities.
That said, it's quite offensive, a loyalty oath of the worst kind, and it --and its proponents-- should be attacked directly, relentlessly and with complete commitment. We're at war now, let's get on with it.
Gusty Winds said...
Soon there will be mandatory naked goosestep parades at the University of Wisconsin in Madison for all tenured PhDs and Administrators.
SOON? where were you last month?? Soon is NOW
It's worse than the Red Scare. DEI is the spiritual successor of the Nuremberg Race Laws.
It's not enough to just file lawsuits. These DEI cult fanatics and Roland Freisler wannabe zealots need to be brought to trial for crimes against humanity and treachery and sedition against the American citizenry.
Mandatory Diversity Statements Demanding that everyone embrace the same values will inevitably narrow the pool of applicants who work and get hired in higher education" by Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic).
Which is exactly the point. It's a not very clever way to filter out "undesirables."
What's especially interesting is that, instead of compelling a loyalty oath in which you disclaim the views of the fewer than one percent who were Communist, you are compelling a loyalty oath disclaiming the views of 45% of the population. Much more ... problematic,no?
By the time I retired in '15, I had been proving myself annually with statements about my commitment to fighting discrimination and engaging with the community.
It was boilerplate stuff, mostly, but IMO clearly a sign of pressures to some.
My job involved community engagement anyway, both retail and wholesale, and my (second) history masters program prepared me well to educate others about local, regional, Southern, American, and global history. I learned women's history from feminist scholars, and B/black history from B/black ones, and was able to put it all to good use.
But I'm glad that I left when I did, and would probably never be hired for a comparable position if I was 30 years younger.
[What's the difference between Witches and Commie Spies?" Commie spies actually exist.
I'm old enough to remember when that would have struck everyone as obvious; nowadays you might get prosecuted for denying a person's Witchhood.]
For the bureacrats in college administrations, it's never been about education. It's been about clawing for power and pushing your bureacratic rivals down or out. And that's gone on for a long time--and not just in academia.
Let's not forget that the first loyalty oaths in the us were instituted by DEMOCRAT president Truman.
They were widely imposed during the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, under REPUBLICAN president Lincoln (as well as Democratic president Johnson).
“Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies.”
―Nicolás Gómez Dávila
under the tenets of Diversity Inclusion Equity (DIE!).. Everyone, MUST
Conform!
Cancel!
Give Preferential Treatment (to POCs)!
It's simple, Really.
Sounds like a winning lawsuit. The far left has about as much respect for diversity of beliefs and individual freedom as does the far right. Nil. The difference is the far right is much larger.
"Diversity is our strength!"
"We demand 100% ideological conformity!"
-- Quoting the highest ranking DEI employee at every state-supported college
Interesting work you’re doing to publicize and promote the right-wing viewpoint in seemingly impartial ways. I would have left it up to the conservatives to fend for themselves on these controversies, but maybe they need an advocate.
In any event, there’s a reason they promote opposition to diversity. To say so sounds better than voicing their real preference: Conformity. Or uniformity.
There’s a reason they oppose inclusion. It sounds better than their real preference - one for exclusion.
And they oppose equity because it sounds better than their general strategy of spreading inequity.
So they say they’re against DEI as that’s a better sell than advertising their true agenda of imposing CIE (conformity, inequity and exclusion).
All you have to do to determine what the right-wing is up to is to voice the opposite of what they say they want and ask if they’re against that. They are. But it sounds a better to make “diversity” “equity” and “inclusion” sound like BAAAAD things. You know, because they’re three syllables in length or four.
“Haltigan believes in ‘viewpoint diversity.”
Great. So the physics department should be open to the diverse views of flat earthers. Biology should encourage the views of creationists. Econ needs to include trickle-down supporters and political science should embrace the views of fascists. I mean, is he in favor of viewpoint diversity or not?
Non-conservatives understand that moral and empirical prerequisites to viewpoints are appropriate before taking them seriously in normal human beings, let alone in academics. Conservatives think it’s more important to have unyielding faith in a silly and unproven so that evidence-based theories don’t predominate. They apparently think it’s bad for society to not have blind faith in belief systems that exist merely to reinforce authority. If evidence-based perspectives make it harder to believe conservative or religious nonsense, they will just deny the factual evidence of it rather than allow challenge to what they perceive and reinforce as their “time-honored” superstitions.
John Henry - So your take away is that if this lawsuit is successful professors will be free to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc.? Geez. Glad you retired from teaching. People like you certainly deserve some of the blame for the over-reaction.
Make sure that only those of the right ideology are selected.
I encourage you to start your own university where your preferred ideology of anti-empiricism flourishes. Data and observation will be off-limits, and only superstitions that reinforce male, European cultural authority, Christianity and the social domination of the moneyed class, billionaires and corporations are reinforced. All challenges to such things, no matter how supported they are by evidence, observation or sound reasoning will be rejected. Is that right?
IOW only seminaries and Prager U will be supported.
No new knowledge or technology will ever come into existence but I’m sure that’s not as important to you as the wonderful social mission you’ll be mandating!
The mandatory DEI statements just bring into the open what has been going on behind the scenes for the past 30 years. There's always at least one person on a hiring committee--and often the whole committee--who are probing for political orientation under the guise of "collegiality."
The statements themselves are a waste of time for everyone. I actually don't think it's morally wrong just to flat-out lie on a coerced statement, but many people do, and they must surely go through a lot of misery when it comes down to deciding whether to sign their name to piece of bullshit or to wreck their chance of getting a job. But multiple colleagues at various institutions have told me that they flat-out don't read the DEI statements, as you learn nothing from them except who is better at making it seem like they believe in the boilerplate.
Michael k, skeptical
I think we need to make a huge distinction between mccarthy and HUAC which most people fail to make.
McCarthy has been unfairly maligned for 70 years. HUAC has not been maligned anywhere near enough.
HUAC's mission was to investigate Americans for political beliefs. In most cases, these folk had NO connections to govt and were acting as private citizens. Their whooly legal beliefs were no business of the govt. Absent illegal actions as opposed to beliefs and speech, of course.
McCarthy Otoh investigated govt employees with access to highly classified information information and top security clearances. Many of these, we now now from the Venona Papers, were passing secrets to the Russians. Some for money, some for ideology and even a few out of misguided patriotism.
This is entirely legitimate Senate oversite function
Or are there some here who think security is not a legitimate concern?
In other words, what do you think mccarthy did wrong?
John Henry
The problem with loyalty oaths is that they absolutely do not catch the very worst of the people you are trying to catch. A loyalty oath might discourage a true-believer communist with moral integrity (if such people even existed, in which case MAYBE it would be useful as a test of gullibility and general historical ignorance), but a fully paid-up, dishonest wannabe traitor of a communist would happily sign a loyalty oath and then proceed to do his business.
Likewise, the people a DEI loyalty oath will discourage are exactly those who have too much integrity to sign on to a smelly little orthodoxy that they don't believe in, while manipulative, political operators who are intent on bringing down the system from the inside would simply write whatever they think would be most appealing to the hiring committee and thus out-compete the more honest people with scruples.
"Thus, the lawsuit argues, Haltigan must express ideas with which he disagrees to have a chance of getting hired.... "
Hey. It's not like they're forcing him to bake a cake.
BTW, when someone tells you that CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS ET AL means folks can now legally discriminate against gay folk, remind them that in actuality, it protects a devout Muslim, female web designer from being forced to create and maintain a website that promotes the idea -- and is titled -- "Islam is the Whore of Babylon and Mohammad is her Antichrist".
Because that's exactly what it does. As it should.
I remember a "loyalty oath" when I took a job at UC/Berkeley as a TA, ca. 1989. It was probably unchanged since the last official "Red Scare," which was by then some decades past. It creeped me out at the time, but I signed.
I am not so sure about this new version. My thought is that it's a trap, meant to catch people who aren't really woke. The UCSC grading scale is proof of that. Mouthing the words just isn't good enough any more; you've gotta believe them.
"The Left wants to control every aspect of our lives."
It's why they want your guns.
"It narrows the pool of applicants to those who've got their minds right, so it's all good."
Saddam Hussein did it so much better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLUktJbp2Ug
Two further comments on mccarthy
After the fall of the ussr, evidence was found of the Venona Papers in the Kremlin archives. The US govt announced that in the 40s they had cracked the codes. They knew who the Russian agents were at the time of the mccarthy hearings. They could do nothing about it, they said, without revealing we had the codes.
Pretty much everyone mccarthy investigated was an actual Russian agent.
The "Tailgunner Joe" is a cheap shot. He was intelligence, normally in the rear with the gear. He qualified as a tailgunner and voluntarily flew 12 combat missions.
He received the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal.
Not a bad war record for anyone. Certainly not something to be mocked.
John Henry
jim5301 said...
John Henry - So your take away is that if this lawsuit is successful professors will be free to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc.
I've no idea what you are talking about.
I guess maybe my comment about the DIE Statement?
That is specifically in compliance with the Supremes ruling. I committed to NOT discriminating. Just like the Supremes said Harvard must. I committed to following the law.
It seemed unnecessary but I had no objection.
SNHU was 20 years ahead of its time!
Many of my vendors, at least as far back as the 90s have had similar clauses in purchase order and contract boilerplate. Again, I have no objection to complying with the law.
"The Left wants to control every aspect of our lives."
It's why they want your guns.
Oh, I get why you’d think that! Because you have no life or identity apart from your gun ownership?
Sometimes it’s hard to find hobbies or social outlets. But don’t give up. Someday somebody might end up liking you, even if you don’t have to resort to threats of shooting them.
Tina Trent said...
"The Red Threat was real,"
Yes it was. Lefties can't distinguish between fear and free people protecting themselves from a commie threat. They think they are so right, the only opposition that they could possibly face is a result of irrational fear.
The so called red scare is commie propaganda meant to belittle their enemies.
hpudding @ 4:19: "...Great. So the physics department should be open to the diverse views of flat earthers."
Did you go to a special school to learn how to reason and argue so poorly? Most everybody who comments here is IMHO interested in learning new facts and facing new and better arguments, so they can be just a little smarter and --who knows-- share some insights for the collective good. Would it be too much for you to try that?
Conservatives who are interested in learning new facts and basing their worldview in reason? You’re a funny guy, Owen! I appreciate the laugh. ;-)
Anyway, the lawsuit cited in the post laments an alleged lack of “viewpoint diversity.” It never says anything about viewpoints specifically rooted in factual reality or empirically evidenced. And neither you nor I should be surprised about that. Why, just a couple days ago a long-term commenter here asked me how I could be sure that January 6th 2021 actually happened.
Yeah, new facts. Right. I’ll be open to that when it happens. As I would insights for the collective good. Although I’d be careful about using words like “collective” around these anti-socialists - with their fear that communists are coming to get us and all that.
Happy 4th to you.
Owen, we don't call him Hpuddinghead for nothing.
Dave Begley said...
The Left wants to control every aspect of our lives. It’s all about power; not freedom.
So what is unique about this demand as compared to the RNC demanding that presidential candidates sign a loyalty pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, a point of contention among some candidates because of Trump's indictments.
I will not vote for any GOP candidate who signs such an agreement, especially since Trump's first answer was that it all depends on who the candidate is.
HPudding - loyal leftist BS pusher said...
"Great. So the physics department should be open to the diverse views of flat earthers. Biology should encourage the views of creationists. Econ needs to include trickle-down supporters and political science should embrace the views of fascists. I mean, is he in favor of viewpoint diversity or not?"
Wow - what crap.
who is pushing flat earth? or creationism? trickle down economics isn't fascism - ya hivemind red herring moron.
DEI is about forcing leftist speech codes on everyone. AKA- Leftwing Totalitarianism.
What DEI delivers: Pro-noun police, thought and word crimes of the leftist totalitarian variety, non-stop racial and gender identity obsession, "Compliant Training" MANDATED by THE federal government to private industry. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FASCISM.
H Pudding is a leftist lying liar who lies.
There's a long history of this. Not very long ago professors were required to certify that they were loyal to the United States and not members of any socialist party.
Prior to that they had to aver they were not any kind of Papist.
and prior to that, they had to affirm their Catholicism and aver Protestantism or any other kind of heresy.
In Spain, they had to be good Catholics and not "conversos" who secretly retained their Jewish faith.
And then there were the sorcerers and witches. Witches are like modern day racists. They all deny their witchcraft and it's impossible to find any actual instances of folks being turned into newts or whatever. Still, withcraft doees immense harm and the secret witches need to be continually hunted down.
Back in the Roman Empire the Gods were displeased by people who failed to acknowledge the Godhead of the Emperor and visited punishment on the whole community in response to such impiety.
And in the days of the Druids.... It's a long story but it ends with people being burned alive in wicket baskets.
So same old, same old...
gadfly is a Trump obsessed __________ who needs to turn off MicroSoft NBC.
I have been afraid of DEI attempts such as "...Mandatory Diversity Statements Demanding that everyone embrace the same values..." I've lived under 'Totalitarianism" and can attest, there is something demeaning and eventually soul-destroying about being expected to go along with claims you do not believe to be true. At some stage of humiliation there is simply no reason for majority groups not to play games back that have worked so well on themselves.
People often forget that the HUAC was set up in the late '30s to root out both Red and Fascist agents and subversion.
"Oh, I get why you’d think that! Because you have no life or identity apart from your gun ownership?"
- hpudding
I own no guns. I have never owned a gun. I never will own a gun. And I'm nearly as old as our host here.
So, try again.
Great personal attack, btw.
DEI statements and training are NOT simply to promise not to discriminate. No. They claim and want you to agree that as a white person you are inherently evil. They want you to agree that you are guilty of crimes committed against minorities (and women etc) well before you were born. The job applicants must demonstrate essentially that they are far-left activists. Neutral statements about not discriminating will get your application tossed.
The Hopeless gadfly: "I will not vote for any GOP candidate..."
Should have stopped right there Li'l Schiffty-Laddie.
Post a Comment