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:
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.