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.
Accreditors have played a serious and underrated role in ramrodding ideological and discriminatory policies throughout higher ed.
Some examples 🧵
The problem is perhaps worst in the medical sciences, of all places.
Example 1: In 2020, the Liaison Committee for Medical Education found Oregon Health and Science University’s medial school lacking in the area of "faculty diversity."
OHSU responded with a mammoth DEI action plan, which promised “incorporate DEI, anti-racism and social justice core competencies” in performance appraisals.
Also, “consequences” for faculty who didn’t get on board.
Faced with outside pressure, universities continue to circle the wagons in the name of "faculty governance" and autonomy.
But for years, big donors and university administrators have blatantly undercut faculty authority—all to promote sweeping social justice projects.
🧵
Dozens of universities have embraced fellow-to-faculty hiring schemes to promote their social justice goals, as I’ve described before.
Through these programs, an admin-led team hires postdocs who are then given special favor for tenure-track jobs.
Turns out, this is a powerful tool for strong-arming departments.
Multiple professors have told me how deans denied or limited their departments’ funds for regular hiring, while strongly encouraging them to hire through fellow-to-faculty programs.
As huge NIH funding cuts become a real possibility at places like Harvard, it's worth putting the agency's role in perspective.
Put simply, the NIH is biomedical science in the US. Private money will not be able to pick up its tab.
🧵🧵🧵
2/ This year the NIH requested a fiscal year budget of $50 billion, and in years past its been close to that amount.
The top ten medical schools by NIH funding all get more than half a billion dollars annually.
Let’s put that in perspective…
3/ The top philanthropic funder of the medical sciences, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, happens to also be the second largest charity in the country behind the Gates Foundation.
It’s endowment is $27 billion, just a little more than half the NIH’s total budget.
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.