Amazing here how the authors trot out all the usual misrepresentations about how UC actually uses DEI statements, then fail to note how UC already does EVERYTHING the authors suggest as better paths forward.
chronicle.com/article/how-to…
chronicle.com/article/how-to…
As usual, the authors fail to note that the 5 (not 8) searches at Berkeley that attracted 893 applicants in 2018 were specifically searching for faculty who had made strong DEI contributions. That was the job description, not some add on. This is not our general hiring procedure. 
The authors fail to realize that Berkeley experiment was addressing the very problems the authors say they care about: institutional and journal prestige bias! Berkeley was showing what would happen if you don't use CVs to do the initial cut in a hiring search.
In the searches these authors criticize, Berkeley was literally doing what the authors say they want: creating new tenure lines "to make space for more diverse faculty to come on board."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
