DOCUMENTS: Through a records request, I have acquired the University of Missouri's rubric for evaluating diversity statements.
As usual, the rubric proves the critics' point: DEI evaluations invite viewpoint discrimination.
As it turns out, Mizzou routinely uses diversity statements in hiring.
According to its Inclusive Excellence Plan, the College of Arts and Science has expanded its use of the statements. The college of agriculture has committed to using them for “all faculty applications.”
Mizzou’s Division of Biological Sciences (why is it always biology?) heavily weighs diversity statements.
Its website advertises its “equal weighting of the research, teaching, and inclusion and equity statements" in the first round of faculty job application reviews.
Meanwhile, Mizzou’s training on “Best Practice for Inclusive Excellence in Faculty Hiring” encourages hiring committees to assess job candidates’ contributions to DEI using a pre-established rubric.
Again, the Mizzou rubric I obtained through a FOIA request perfectly illustrates how diversity statement policies invite viewpoint discrimination.
Though innocuous-sounding, the phrase “diversity, equity, and inclusion” doesn't imply a set of neutral values.
In practice, it implies a set of controversial views about race, gender, and social justice. Again and again, this is demonstrated by university DEI initiatives.
By now, it should be obvious that diversity statements will inevitably function as ideological litmus tests—and huge failures of priority.
Unfortunately, they’re alive and well at the University of Missouri.
Read the full story, and take a look at the rubric, at @MindingCampus. Through top-quality research and reporting, we're documenting the ways that DEI has invaded higher education to the detriment of our public and private universities.
NEW: The Mellon Foundation gave $1.5 million to establish a "center for the defense of academic freedom."
In audio I've obtained, the group's leader says his goal is to undermine the newly launched classical civics centers: "map who these f---ers are... and knock them out." 🧵
I wanted to see what "The Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom" did in practice. So I FOIAed the emails of one of its fellows. They included links to meeting audio, transcripts, grant records, and more.
Housed within the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the group's conception of academic freedom seems to have little to do with free speech.
Here's a meeting where one fellow says that UPenn punishing Amy Wax for her speech was academic freedom in practice.
NEW: a report from Vanderbilt and WashU just dropped, taking on the "state of scholarship in the humanities and social sciences," a big topic among critics of higher ed.
Read along w/ me 🧵
The report's premise is that support for the humanities and social sciences has cratered among basically everyone.
It gives several possible reasons: the misuse of the hard sciences, "problematic philosophical view," and—most notably—ideological distortions.
Interestingly, the report immediately narrows its scope down to that last complaint, that scholarship has been overrun by political goals, distorting disciplinary standards and producing bad research.
American Sociological Association: SOC 101 should be taught "consistent with disciplinary standards" and not "political preferences."
That objection fails when a discipline itself mirrors political preferences—and, judging by the ASA's own output, that seems to be happening 🧵
"Rethinking Social Movements: Can Changing the Conversation Change the World?"
The title of the ASA's 2016 meeting, which asks whether movements like Occupy Wall Street can "muster the power to achieve lasting social change?"
"Feeling Race: An Invitation to Explore Racialized Emotions" was the title of the 2018 ASA conference—which promises to brings "attention to the subject of racialized emotions and to the urgent need to develop policies, practices, and politics to address them."
The University of Alabama scrubbed the "Path Forward Diversity Report" from its website, but archived webpages show just how extensive it was—and how President Bell directly supported it.
"I look forward to the work of this committee," he said. Take a look at that work 🧵🧵🧵
The plan calls for embedding "DEI competencies" into annual performance reviews which would "measure inclusive behavior" and "ensure accountability" for the university's social justice commitment.
It proposes conducting "a review of the tenure and promotion process" to recognize faculty service "in the interest of advancing racial equality."
Whenever you see a bizarre trend in academia, it’s worth asking whether its homegrown or funded from outside. I recently wrote about how the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has worked hard to make “trans studies" a legitimate academic field.
Here are some of Mellon's grants 🧵
The “Black, Indigenous, & Trans of Color Histories Lab” received $460,000 from Mellon in 2024. The “lab” recently hosted a symposium titled “Trans Joy, Pleasure, Freedom.” Its keynote address was delivered by a Rutgers doctoral student & self-described “p*rn archivist.”
Notably, the “lab” includes several Mellon grantees. Co-lead Joshua Reason was a Mellon undergrad & dissertation fellow. Alejandrina Medina, another co-lead, received a Mellon-funded “Trans Studies” fellowship—as did the event’s keynote speaker.
NEW: The Mellon Foundation doesn’t just fund research; it helps distribute jobs. In doing so, it blurs the lines between charitable patronage and a different sort: the patronage of a political machine.
Mellon is the country’s largest funder of humanities by a mile. In its giving, it focuses aggressively on creating career opportunities for scholars.
Mellon money follows—and sometimes ramrods—these scholars through every career chokepoint.
This can virtually guarantee a scholar’s career. To see how it works, consider Kaneesha Parsard, who is now professor at University of Chicago.