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: At San Diego State University, an intern training program teaches students how to challenge the “colonizer logic of work”—thanks to funds from the Mellon Foundation.
Through a records request, I acquired the grant proposal. It's possibly the worst internship prep ever. 🧵
The project's proposal lays out a simple rationale:
➡️Ethnic, women's, and gender studies students are seen as “unwilling or uncapable” of participating in the “hegemonic workforce.”
➡️This “deficit model” means the students end up underemployed.
The project’s solution: help students secure internships and then teach them to “resist” this “deficit model.” Specifically, by teaching them to resist the “colonizer logic of work,” “question specialization,” and retain “allyship.”
The remarkable thing about discrimination in higher ed: so much of it was documented. Approved in official records. Talked about in emails. All subject to FOIA.
Like this email, where a University of New Mexico professor just says: "I don't want to hire white men for sure."
Here's a search committee report from Ohio State saying: "We decided as a committee that diversity was just as important as perceived merit as we made our selection."
Here's an report from the University of Washington which concluded that its psychology department just blatantly discriminated by re-ranking finalists so the first choice wouldn't be a white woman.
NEW: During one hiring cycle at Ohio State, 60% of new arts and humanities faculty jobs fell in the “DEI” category, according to emails I obtained.
This was after OSU announced it would hire “100 underrepresented and BIPOC hires in all fields of scholarship.”
🧵on my latest.
In 2021, Ohio State’s then-president Kristina Johnson announced an initiative to hire 50 scholars focused on “social equity” and 100 “underrepresented and BIPOC” hires in all disciplines.
Documents I’ve acquired, reported in @CityJournal, shed light on how that played out.
@CityJournal The documents reveal how administrators were keeping tabs on the hiring spree.
In November 2022, an OSU diversity dean said over email that she wanted to meet with the finalists for a DEI-focused faculty job: professor of “indigenous knowledges.”
Last week, the DOJ released guidance for federal funding recipients.
The memo—which clarifies how nondiscrimination law should be applied—is a huge development for universities. A lot of their worst policies are looking more fragile than ever. 🧵
2/ The DOJ specifically highlights the use of racial proxies. Hiring on the basis of "cultural competence" or using diversity statements is unlawful if the purpose is to give an advantage to specific racial groups.
This is an even bigger deal than it might seem.
3/ Universities often take on large-scale hiring programs that select for an emphasis on "equity."
Inevitably the programs recruit ideologues. More importantly, this criteria is justified because it's seen as a way to favor minorities. It's right there in their own documents ⬇️
NEW: Around the country, college deans monitor finalist slates, shortlists, and applicant pools for faculty jobs. If a list isn't "diverse," a search can be outright cancelled.
I've acquired a trove of records that show who bankrolled this practice: the federal government.
🧵
As I’ve previously reported, these checkpoints give administrators diversity-based veto power in hiring (see ⬇️⬇️⬇️ for examples).
But the practice didn’t emerge organically. At many universities, it was adopted as direct result of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding.
Here’s what those grants look like.
In 2003, Case Western Reserve University received one of the early NSF ADVANCE grants ($3.5 million).
As a part of the grant, “deans could send a list back to the department if it did not reflect the diversity of the national pool.”