Thread: An understated trend in higher ed is the influx of faculty jobs that focus on race, gender, identity, and critical theory. These have become the hottest areas, the specialties most likely to land a job.
Here are a few from the first page of the MLA's job board.
Duke University is hiring two literature professors.
Ideal fields include critical race and ethnic studies, gender and sexuality studies, decoloniality and post-colonial theory.
Priority given to candidates in Latinx studies.
UC Davis Department of English is hiring a professor of Chicanx/Latinx literature.
Specializations: "Indigenous literary and cultural studies," "disability studies," "gender and sexuality studies," "environmental humanities."
Fairfield University's English Department is hiring in 20th and 21st Century Postcolonial Literature in English.
The job listing encourages a secondary focus on "anti/post/decolonialism" and "critical theory."
Wake Forest University, Spanish.
The department is "particularly interested in candidates whose critical perspectives are linked to the experiences of groups historically underrepresented in higher education in ways that inform and influence their pedagogical approach."
Dartmouth is hiring a professor of Native American Literature and Indigenous Studies.
Secondary fields: "women’s, gender and sexuality studies," "critical race theory," "queer theory," etc.
Again, these are just from the first page of a languages job board, basically a random sample, and yet a majority focus on identity, with ideologically-coded language.
Toronto, Assistant Professor, Inter-Asia Gender and Sexuality.
(See highlighted text.)
"The English Department at Southwestern University invites applications for a tenure-track position in Latino/a/x-Chicano/a/x literature and culture."
Colgate University, Assistant Professor of German.
"We are particularly interested in candidates with interests in environmental humanities, gender studies, art and aesthetics, or transnational/multiethnic and colonial/postcolonial cultures in German-speaking contexts."
Williams, Assistant Professor of German.
The department has "a particular interest in candidates who work in the areas of migration, race and anti-racism, post- and decolonial approaches, disability, and/or memory studies."
Of course, scholars should be able to study race and gender. Universities shouldn't ban scholars from focusing on critical race theory.
But when a majority of a random sampling of jobs are like these, it starts to resemble a political agenda.
Ohio State, Latinx Folklore.
Also Ohio State:
On top of that, of course, most of these roles require diversity statements.
At Bates College, candidates for a role in Japanese Language and Asian Studies must submit a statement on how their work advances "equity, inclusion, access, antiracism, and educational justice."
But for many roles, the whole job application is functionally a diversity statement. Like this position at St. Olaf College in African American Studies, which calls for a focus on "Black Feminisms."
This is only the beginning. Universities now regularly emphasize that they want to hire more people in these areas, in an effort to increase demographic diversity.
This kind of push influences every area of higher education.
Graduate students: to get a good job, emphasize race and gender.
English and German classes: taught by a scholar who focuses on race and gender, focuses on race and gender.
Faculty research: focuses on race and gender, and rewarded for that focus.
SCOOP: The NIH is giving $250m to universities to hire medical scientists who show “an interest in DEI.”
The NIH says the program doesn't “discriminate against any group.” Public records tell a different story.
As one email put it, “I don’t want to hire white men for sure."
The NIH FIRST program funds “cluster hiring” at universities and med schools around the country.
The program follows a popular model, reasoning that universities would hire minorities as a byproduct of heavily weighing DEI statements. On paper it bars racial preferences.
But in grant proposals, for projects funded by the NIH, universities repeatedly and openly state they'll restrict who they hire on the basis of race.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center promises to hire 18-20 "Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander" scientists.
NEW: For hiring new professors, Columbia University recommends valuing “contributions to DEI” on par with “research.”
The sample evaluation tool also weighs DEI more highly than teaching.
That’s an especially wild default given how Columbia defines “contributions to DEI"... 🧵
Columbia provides an in-depth rubric for assessing DEI credentials. Which, of course, is pretty important if DEI might carry the same weight as research.
Take a look. The rubric gives a low score to candidates who are skeptical of racially-segregated “affinity groups.”
Here’s the rest of the Columbia rubric.
It rewards things like speaking at workshops “aimed at increasing others’ understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
NEW: Yale University’s department of molecular biophysics and biochemistry requires all job applicants to submit a DEI statement.
Here's the evaluation rubric, which shows the exhaustive DEI criteria for assessing any scientist hoping to work in the Yale department.
It's a remarkable document, which puts a thumb on the scale for progressive sensibilities.
Scientists get points for understanding the “challenges faced by underrepresented minorities”—likely to favor those fluent in the language of "microaggressions" and "implicit bias."
This DEI litmus test—or as some might say, loyalty pledge—evidently carries serious weight.
A presentation on the department’s hiring protocols declares that hiring committees should put “DEI at the center of every decision.”
The Washington Post Editorial Board calls for the end of DEI statements in faculty hiring.
It argues that the policy has led in practice to "ideological policing." That's a big deal—focusing on how the policy plays out in real life, not in some imagined best-case scenario.
In practice the ideological policing is impossible to deny. Here are just a few examples of how "DEI contributions" are evaluated, as shown by public records.
Here’s a wild example: At Texas Tech, a DEI evaluation of biology job candidates show one being penalized for not properly describing the difference between equality and equity.
Another job candidate was rewarded in their DEI report for giving a “land acknowledgement” at the beginning of their job talk.
The NIH funds DEI-related hiring in the biomedical sciences through multi-million dollar grants to universities around the county.
I've acquired hundreds of records related to this program—which I discuss in-depth in today's WSJ. A thread to highlight a few of those records. /1
NIH FIRST funds DEI "cluster hiring" at universities and med schools. A core requirement of the program is that every scientist hired submit a “diversity statement,” an increasingly controversial policy.
What does this look like in practice? The records speak for themselves. /2
Cornell University’s grant proposal describing how it will evaluate its hard-science job candidates: “Note that the statement on contribution to diversity will receive significant weight in the evaluation.” /3