A grad student in the shoes of David Austin Walsh might think they have the right formula: even if you’re a white guy, just specialize in the right things, then you'll have at least a shot.
That is verifiably incorrect.
Universities very explicitly say these race/identity/social justice jobs exist to target specific groups. They get very close to openly declaring their intention to discriminate in the hiring process.
I've repeatedly found search committees openly admit to using racial preferences.
Ohio State sought a professor of French studies with a "specialization in Black France."
The search committee stated that hiring a “visible minority” was a key priority—so they only invited black candidates for on campus interviews.
The University of Washington conducted a search for a professor focused on diversity.
A white woman was the search committee's first choice.
A diversity committee member objected on the grounds of race.
They then re-ranked the candidates.
Here's the University of Washington diversity advisory committee member noting that it's "optically-speaking" a bad look that the offer to go to a white woman.
This is the goal of "cluster hiring," hiring multiple candidates at once w/ a focus on DEI, increasingly popular in academia.
In the sciences, that means heavily weighing DEI statements. But in the humanities, it commonly involves hiring w/ a race/identity/social justice focus.
A professor friend recently told me that everyone in his university system acts like cluster hiring is just a legal form of racial quotas.
But again, we don't have to rely on rumors. Administrators have literally said that's exactly what they're doing.
Our universities contort entire academic disciplines, narrowly focusing on social justice, applying de facto ideological weed-out tools like diversity statements—all for the sake of achieving (or masking) racial preferences.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As official policy, the Los Angeles Community College District requires faculty to complete an in-depth DEI evaluation and self-reflection.
A truly remarkable document. Quasi-religious. Take a look at some of the questions. 🧵
First, faculty have to "recognize the impact of racial and social identities in creating oppression and marginalization" and to describe their "commitment" to "anti-racist perspectives."
It's worth noting that the California Community Colleges system has been explicit about its definition of "anti-racism," which in good Kendian fashion is far from merely opposing racism.
Next, faculty in the community college district must "discuss" their "commitment to self-assessment" in anti-racism.
They're also asked to reflect on the effect of their implicit bias and—bizarrely—their understanding of racial "superiority or inferiority."
The MacArthur Foundation just announced its 2024 fellows. In addition to eight hundred thousand no-strings-attached dollars, these awardees can now flaunt the (unofficial) title of “genius.”
Two thirds won this honor for work on race, sex, or identity. (🧵)
This year’s “geniuses” (yes, I know, the MacArthur foundation doesn't like that title) include a “performer working in the cabaret tradition” who has been “at the forefront of Trans visibility and activism since the early 1990s.”
Another writes poems that “bring the reader face-to-face with violence inflicted on Black lives.”
Another’s recent book is titled “Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code”
1/ Harvard and MIT ended mandatory DEI statements for hiring faculty. Yet a mirror image of the policy is gaining traction in federal grant applications.
The NIH, perhaps most notably, has begun rolling out mandatory "Plans for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives."
2/ These plans essentially require grant applicants to describe their efforts to advance diversity and inclusion as they put together their research proposal.
This is how DEI statements in hiring are typically framed. The biggest issue comes in the evaluation.
3/ That's a red flag. When UC Berkeley gave guidance for scoring DEI statements, it penalized espousing race-neutrality.
The same criteria could easily creep into PEDP scoring, as a group of scholars and scientists (including @jflier and @McCormickProf) recently pointed out.
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.”