MIT recently banned diversity statements. People opposed to this move argue that diversity statements are not ideological litmus tests. But this argument plainly obscures the difference between "diversity," "equity" and "inclusion" as VALUES, and DEI as a packet of ideologies. 1/
I think diversity, equity, and inclusion are important. My syllabi and approach to the classroom reflects that. (Many of you would find them very "woke"). Anyone who is not committed to cultivating a classroom where everyone can learn is not qualified to be a professor. 2/
Mandating that people who occupy specific roles adhere to a set of accepted professional values isn't some new ideological authoritarianism. It's plainly uncontroversial that doctors should be committed to patient welfare. We don't call the Hippocratic Oath "compelled speech." 3/
However, "diversity statements" are not like the Hippocratic Oath. They were born of an ideological firmament that coalesced in the 2010s and became entrenched post-2020. They're not designed to suss out your commitment to diversity but your adherence to DEI and anti-racism. 4/
Unlike "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion" which all professors should value, DEI and anti-racism are specific – hotly contested, deeply politicized – philosophies grounded in understandings of race and justice that are controversial, including among minority academics. 5/
Do SOME search committees use diversity statements only to assess a job-candidate's commitment to teaching inclusively? Yes. And if that's how they were primarily used I think they would be basically fine. (If redundant: this should all be addressed in the teaching statement). 6/
But in reality, diversity statements are intimately bound up with DEI and anti-racism, and they are very often used to ascertain a candidate's commitment to and fluency in those discourses: are they hip to the jargon and best practices as determined by anti-racist ideologues? 7/
I am familiar with a number of cases in which POC candidates were rejected or dinged for not telegraphing their familiarity with anti-racist ideas and DEI research. This is especially a problem for international minority candidates who aren't immersed in American DEI jargon. 8/
This is ALSO a problem for candidates (again, often POC) who come from under-resourced PhD programs that don't have the same mentoring and elaborate DEI infrastructures as elite programs, and which serve to familiarize job-seekers with all the latest anti-racist niceties. 9/
I support affirmative action, and I support diversity, equity, and inclusion as values. But "diversity statements" are not about this. They're a gatekeeping mechanism designed to facilitate elite reproduction by offering fellow elites opportunities to recite a catechism. 10/
Anyone who insists that diversity statements are not "litmus tests" is pretending that these are neutral statements about values we all should share, rather than about adherence to a particular ideological matrix that many find intellectually anemic and politically noxious. 11/
I worry that we are in the midst of an over-correction that will erase some of the important work universities DO do around diversity, equity, and inclusion. But the banning of diversity statements is not an over-correction, it's removing a pointless bit of ideological paperwork.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
