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.
Emails show how this worked in practice.
At the University of New Mexico, the program gave each underrepresented minority a "second look" in the search process.
In one email, faculty ask whether a south Asian job finalist was a "second look" candidate.
He didn't count. So they eliminated him. Noting that the department was "really low on women."
Other emails show search committees closely scrutinizing the race and sex of job candidates.
At one point, an NIH program official stated that race candidates should have no bearing on hiring.
This confused the grant recipients, who speculated that maybe the official "has" to say it that way, noting that she’d hinted at this before over zoom.
The records raise serious questions about the NIH FIRST program. And about the use of diversity statements in faculty hiring. Lawmakers should investigate both.
I provide the full story in today's Wall Street Journal. Please give it a read.
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.