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...”
@NASorg Another example:
The Department of Journalism told the admin in its proposal that “Our commitment, should we be successful with this application, is to hire someone from the BIPOC community…”
@NASorg Another example:
“We have an urgent and qualified need for BIPOC femme/women of color faculty,” the Department of Ethnic Studies stated, adding that the scholar should contribute to a “thematic cluster hire in racism and racial inequality.”
@NASorg These are just a few examples, the list goes on and on.
The College of Media, Communications, and Information’s cluster hire, meanwhile, emphasized "hiring Black, Indigenous, Asian American, Latinx, and Pacific Islander faculty…”
But also note the disciplinary focus...
@NASorg As we argue in the @WSJopinion, racial preferences went hand-in-hand with ideological preferences.
Notice that this proposal to hire a German studies scholar touts how she's both a woman of color and has an expertise in “anti-racist pedagogy” and “decolonizing German Studies.”
@NASorg @WSJopinion One of the most remarkable troves of public records I've ever received, the implications here are far-reaching, both for the university and for federal policy.
Read our full analysis, with full context, in the Wall Street Journal.
@NASorg @WSJopinion Full link here. Please read and share:
NEW: During one hiring cycle at Ohio State, 60% of new arts and humanities faculty jobs fell in the “DEI” category, according to emails I obtained.
This was after OSU announced it would hire “100 underrepresented and BIPOC hires in all fields of scholarship.”
🧵on my latest.
In 2021, Ohio State’s then-president Kristina Johnson announced an initiative to hire 50 scholars focused on “social equity” and 100 “underrepresented and BIPOC” hires in all disciplines.
Documents I’ve acquired, reported in @CityJournal, shed light on how that played out.
@CityJournal The documents reveal how administrators were keeping tabs on the hiring spree.
In November 2022, an OSU diversity dean said over email that she wanted to meet with the finalists for a DEI-focused faculty job: professor of “indigenous knowledges.”
Last week, the DOJ released guidance for federal funding recipients.
The memo—which clarifies how nondiscrimination law should be applied—is a huge development for universities. A lot of their worst policies are looking more fragile than ever. 🧵
2/ The DOJ specifically highlights the use of racial proxies. Hiring on the basis of "cultural competence" or using diversity statements is unlawful if the purpose is to give an advantage to specific racial groups.
This is an even bigger deal than it might seem.
3/ Universities often take on large-scale hiring programs that select for an emphasis on "equity."
Inevitably the programs recruit ideologues. More importantly, this criteria is justified because it's seen as a way to favor minorities. It's right there in their own documents ⬇️
NEW: Around the country, college deans monitor finalist slates, shortlists, and applicant pools for faculty jobs. If a list isn't "diverse," a search can be outright cancelled.
I've acquired a trove of records that show who bankrolled this practice: the federal government.
🧵
As I’ve previously reported, these checkpoints give administrators diversity-based veto power in hiring (see ⬇️⬇️⬇️ for examples).
But the practice didn’t emerge organically. At many universities, it was adopted as direct result of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding.
Here’s what those grants look like.
In 2003, Case Western Reserve University received one of the early NSF ADVANCE grants ($3.5 million).
As a part of the grant, “deans could send a list back to the department if it did not reflect the diversity of the national pool.”
NEW: Universities across the U.S. have embraced diversity checkpoints in faculty hiring.
Administrators monitor the demographics of applicants throughout the process, with consequences for searches that don't "pass muster"—according to a trove of records I've obtained.
🧵
In one email—acquired via a records request—UT Austin professor Carma Gorman asked diversity-dean John Yancey whether her search committee’s pool was sufficiently diverse to advance.
The dean said yes, but if the numbers dropped “then things don’t look good anymore.”
At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), the Human Resources director would send weekly “diversity of the pool reports,” which would continue up to the selection of finalists.
If the makeup was deemed “insufficient,” more administrators would get involved.
DOCUMENTS: At Cornell, search committees that were hiring biomedical scientists had to pass four "checkpoints" to make sure their pools were "sufficiently diverse."
"That certainly looks like a Title VII violation," one legal expert told me when discussing the program.
🧵
In 2021, Cornell received a $16 million NIH grant for the Cornell FIRST hiring program—aiming, in the proposal’s words, to "increase the number of minoritized faculty" at Cornell and beyond.
I acquired a trove of documents that show how this played out.
According to a proposal and set of progress reports, the program's leadership team screened applicants at four separate stages—the initial pool, longlist, shortlist, and finalist slate—to ensure “as diverse a pool as possible.”