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 University of Michigan Board of Regents has asked its president for a plan "to defund or restructure" the Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion—according to the UM faculty senate chair.
In an email, the chair says the board could vote on the plan early next month!
The email, which was addressed to the faculty senate, calls on faculty to defend DEI at an institution that has sunk millions into a sprawling social justice bureaucracy.
It also quickly blames and dismisses @nickconfessore's recent NYT piece ("a tendentious attack").
The email also states that several regents spoke with Confessore, and that they "actively engaged the NY Times journalist" by "offering perspectives, information and contacts in ways that helped set up the articles biased framework and conclusion."
In 2022, a paper drawing from “critical whiteness studies" analyzed how "whiteness" shows up in Physics 101—concluding that, among other things, the use of whiteboards perpetuate whiteness in physics.
Here's what's crazy: this "research" was funded by the federal government.
🧵
2/ But first: what's Critical Whiteness Studies?
Per the article, it's a research framework that starts with the assumption that omnipresent, invisible whiteness pervades our ordinary interactions and institutions to ensure "white dominance."
3/ It's a bold starting point—with more than a hint of racial animosity. Applied to physics, it gets weird.
The article finds that the values of "abstractness" and "disembodiment" in physics ("physics values") reify whiteness and reflect human domination and entitlement.
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.
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.”