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: Louis Galarowicz (@nasorg) and I have acquired a trove of records from University of Colorado, Boulder, that show how the entire university coordinated to advance a system of brazen race-based hiring.
The receipts are pretty astonishing... 🧵
@NASorg We acquired the approved/successful proposals for the university's large-scale diversity hiring program. Here are a few examples:
The College of Engineering & Applied Sciences said its cluster hire had “the goal of doubling our underrepresented faculty in the college.”
@NASorg Another example:
The Renewable And Sustainable Energy Institute proposed a specific candidate—who it noted was “an outstanding BIPOC scholar” who would increase the program’s “domestic Faculty of Color...”
NEW: According to emails I've acquired via records request, Dana Renga, Ohio State's Dean of Arts and Humanities, enthusiastically approved a faculty search committee report that boasted about blatant race-based discrimination.
🧵🧵🧵
As I’ve previously reported, an OSU search committee, hiring a professor of “black France,” stated it was "essential" to hire a “visible minority.”
“We thus chose three Black candidates” for on campus interviews, the report states.
Remarkably, the emails I acquired show that Renga—who was responsible for approving the report—read it closely enough to catch a minor detail.
The committee didn’t list when all of its members attended the mandatory inclusive hiring training.
I talk to a lot of professors who hesitate to publicly push back against institutional madness.
It makes sense. Universities can make their lives miserable.
But two recent examples should inspire dissenters. Faculty who take a stand hold more card than one might think...
🧵🧵
Yesterday, a University of Michigan physics professor called out the president and board of regents — directly, in a public setting — for supporting what he described as blatantly discriminatory programs.
A truly remarkable statement.
That brings to mind an episode from the University of Washington.
In the summer, a professor stood up at a meeting and—while others tried to shout her down—directly confronted several administrators over allegedly wide-spread illegal hiring.
At the University of Michigan, a large-scale hiring program only recruits scholars who show a “commitment to DEI.”
In practice, its a career pipeline program for scholars in activist disciplines—like “trans of color epistemologies” and “queer of color critique."
🧵🧵🧵
After the New York Times published on Michigan’s DEI bureaucracy, the university scrubbed (❗️❗️) the Collegiate Fellows Program directory from its webpage.
But I saved archived links.
Here’s what the much-celebrated initiative looks like in practice.
1⃣ A gender studies professor hired through the program studies how “transgender Latinas are racialized and sexualized in sexual economies of labor and the US nation more broadly.”
At the NIH, the Distinguished Scholars Program hires scientists who show a “commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Through a public records request, I’ve acquired redacted NIH hiring documents that show what this criterion looks like in practice.
🧵
Note, the NIH's former chief DEI officer emphasized that this program does not limit hiring based on race or sex—because, as she puts it below, “legally we cannot.”
Instead, it purports to boost diversity by proxy, hiring scientists who value DEI.
But...
...the records I acquired show—first of all—that NIH applicant reviewers repeatedly highlight gender and minority status.
Here's an example, in the section soliciting positive and negative comments on the potential NIH scientists.
NEW: The University of Michigan has hired over 50 professors via initiatives led by its chief diversity officer, Tabbye Chavous.
In records I've acquired, U-M boasted that, for these hires, diversity statements serve as a near-perfect proxy for racial preferences.
The University of Michigan Board of Regents may soon ditch DEI. In the unfolding drama, Chavous plays a central role. Her vision for higher education hangs in the balance.
In my latest, I unpack the FOIAed record, which sheds light on that vision.