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
Princeton President Chris Eisgruber argues: Trump’s demands violate academic freedom, the admin is using science funding to influence policies that have nothing to do with science (e.g. admissions policies).
It's hard to take this completely seriously. Here's why: (🧵)
The federal government constantly uses its funding “clout” to elicit university policies. Most recently, this has come in the form of heavy handed diversity requirements, which of course involves admissions policies.
As far as I know, Eisgruber has never raised the issue. 2/
To give just one example: at the NIH, large scale training grants (T32s) have long required applicants to submit special plans on enhancing diversity, which have to meet a certain scoring threshold for the project to be funded.
Trump is hurling earth-shaking threats at America’s universities. The response from elite opinion leaders has been fascinating, if you read between the lines.
The pattern is: denounce Trump’s actions, but also, in a way, vindicate them. The New York Times is a good example.
🧵
The NYT editorial board declares: now is the time for universities to defend themselves.
But also, universities have valued ideology over truth-seeking (i.e. their basic mission). They've silenced debate. They've ostracized political outsiders.
David Leonhardt says: Trump is borrowing from the Modi/Putin/Erdogan playbook.
But also, universities (even community colleges!) have acted in a way that’s “inconsistent with their mission." Editor Patrick Healy adds a story about required campus orthodoxies.
NEW: A scholar pushing a "prison abolitionist agenda." A "neuroqueercrip" student studying decolonization. A working group on "tribal critical race theory."
Each is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation—a driving force behind the scholar-activist pipeline.
🧵🧵🧵
2/ Andrew Mellon made his mark on American politics a century ago as Treasury secretary.
In my latest, I describe how today his foundation injects identity politics into our universities and—most notably—bankrolls the career development of activist scholars.
3/ Throughout this series, I’ve shown how fellow-to-faculty hiring schemes are especially clever because they help administrators bypass normal hiring procedures.
As dozens of documents show, this is a favored tool of the Mellon Foundation.
Notable reporting from Emily Kopp. A study purported to show that mortality is higher for black infants seen by white doctors. By now, the issues with this study are widely known.
FOIAed notes show how the authors in fact cut points that they said "undermined the narrative."
As I told @emilyakopp, the study illustrates a vicious cycle. Health equity research justifies DEI policies, which elicit more health equity research. Eventually, a bunk study might end up cited in a dissenting opinion for the country's highest court.