Want An Academic Job? Start Preparing Your DEI Statement.
More universities than ever are now requiring lengthy DEI statements from job applicants. Is that good for academic freedom?

In many American universities, prospective professors are now expected to include lengthy diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements in their job applications. Eschewing academic freedom concerns, these schools are requiring applicants to state their allegiance to a specific political perspective, to the point even of penalizing people who express their affinity for diversity in the "wrong" ways.
Last week Tablet magazine published an overview of the phenomenon, written by John Sailer of the National Association of Scholars. "It's conceivable that job candidates could list their plans to contribute to diversity and inclusion without indicating a commitment to any particular political or social viewpoint, but the most commonly available rubrics for assessing diversity statements demonstrate a clear ideological gloss," he reported. Berkeley's rubric, for example, gives a low score to any applicant who "states the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and 'treat everyone the same.'"
A 2021 American Enterprise Institute survey found that 19 percent of academic faculty jobs require diversity statements. Another survey, this one from the American Association of University Professors, found that 21.5 percent of universities require the statements for tenure evaluations; nearly 40 percent of institutions reported that they are considering the idea. Of the large institutions surveyed, only 18.8 percent neither have nor are considering such a requirement.
Many schools' guidelines for mandatory diversity statements are thinly veiled ideological litmus tests. For example, the Board of Governors of the California Community College system, which Sailer notes is "the nation's largest system of higher education, governing 116 colleges that together enroll 1.8 million students," recently approved changes to its employee evaluation policies. Among its criteria: a "race-conscious pedagogy and/or curriculum."
This poses a clear threat to academic freedom. Mandatory diversity statements, particularly when specific versions of "diversity" are explicitly preferred, can have a chilling effect on faculty who disagree with the approach. And when institutions, such as the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, require instructors to write about their specific actions to bolster DEI efforts, they raise of the spectre of punishing faculty who aren't interested in becoming diversity activists.
Faculty DEI statements end up "shifting the focus away from research and teaching explicitly to making it about a cause," says Samuel Abrams, a political scientist at Sarah Lawrence College. "It takes a lot of the decision-making process away from faculty and into the hands of administrators. So suddenly academic freedom is under threat and expertise is under threat."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You're too late, Reason. At this point, we should make the most of it and just roast marshmallows on the embers of our institutions and laugh about the good old days.
To be fair, most people who attend college aren't really seeking a rigorous academic training.
They're just checking a box to show future employers they can function in a bureaucracy.
It is the culmination of the essence of what college has been all along - virtue signaling.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. [res-05] This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
Speak for yourself. I learned a lot to get my engineering degree and that knowledge continues to serve me well.
Honest question, was this anytime in the last ten or fifteen years? I’ve heard STEM and the like is still relatively functional at university, but a lot of the rest is turning into woke sludge and has been for a while.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded me to take the (afr-08) opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
.....
——————————>>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
To be fair, most people who attend college aren't really seeking a rigorous academic training.
Well that's good, because they're not getting one.
That was funny. Not to interrupt.
Rigor requires effort and focus, which are oppressive white supremacy traits. And also inhibit time for organized protests. And maybe induce emotional strife.
My business partner is a tenured professor in the compsci department at a top-5 US university. For what it is worth, he is a rabid leftist, with a borderline manic hatred of Trump and Republicanism in general. Even he decries the state of US academia, believing that even prestigious universities have become indifferent to student mediocrity and cheating. They are far more interested in political homogeneity and their US News college ranking than they are in academic integrity and the intellectual freedom of their students and faculty.
Exactly and welcoming the “Hitler Youth” of the next generation. So much for free speech and diversity of thought. These “academics” are so inbred and their elitism towards the rest of us, “provincials” is so glaring. It all reminds one of that old saying about minds…like parachutes they need to be open to function properly.
What is the most important thing? (Looking at you, Don't look at me!)
I've stopped all alumni contributions and activities with my university. They don't require a DEI (I don't think) but their student government and Dean of Students have been issuing all sorts of woke shit that tells me they aren't far from it.
I really don't think that any school should be much influenced by alumni/donor contributions (or the real academic threat they pose - see Brown, Rockefeller, bimetallism, and Elisha Andrews). But more alumni do need to weigh in here and now since I suspect those massive endowments are creating their own lack of accountability for schools now.
You seem to be someone who would have been happier at a fourth-tier, nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, hayseed-producing, superstitious, backwater, conservative-controlled "school."
Why? I take it you went to a fifth-tier institution, clinger?
He’s a high school dropout. Arty does menial tasks for minimum wage. His boss is a wealthy conservative. Arty covets the things capable people have. Just like every prog.
You keep forgetting slack-jawed.
The Rev prob went to a college that didn’t have grades and majored in something like human relationships, or finger painting, but cost $100k a year (Hampshire or Bennington Colleges), which his parents could easily afford.
I would love to know the real truth about him. My guess is that he lives off his parents money and has never held a real job in his life or accomplished anything. People like that are always attracted to leftism because it offers the prospect of an unearned sense of superiority. Kirkland is a horrible person. So it is hard to have any sympathy for him. But, he is by far the saddest and most pathetic person I have encountered on the internet. He is sadder and more pathetic than Shrike. And that is saying something.
I would love to know the real truth about him. My guess is that he lives off his parents money and has never held a real job in his life or accomplished anything.
He's power-leveled himself enough to reveal the following:
--He's an older Boomer who grew up in one of the Rust Belt towns that fell apart in the late 70s-early 90s.
--He worked as a newspaper editor during his career, mostly in central Pennsylvania.
--He has associates in the Wolf administration, probably dating back from his days in the news industry, meaning he likely lives in PA still.
People like that are always attracted to leftism because it offers the prospect of an unearned sense of superiority.
He's a hicklib for that precise reason; he's embarrassed that he didn't grow up in some champagne socialist community, and like most marxists, he resents the people who are of higher economic/social status than him while holding contempt for those of lower status. That's why when the left commits clear fuckups, such as the Iowa caucus debacle in 2020, he deflects by slagging the entire local community, rather than the morons who actually fucked up.
Think you nailed it-he’s probably still bitter that the local newspaper he worked at got bought out by one of those mega media corporations owned by his betters and they replaced him with someone more educated (not necessarily more intelligent- a cocker spaniel with half a brain would be more intelligent than the Rev), hence why he spews his rage here.
Working as a newspaper editor in central Pennsylvania, while an honest living, is hardly the stuff of adventure and great things. No wonder he is so angry about the world not recognizing his genius.
All of these people are the same.
Childish and uncivil. Just a generation ago, our academic community could destroy the career and reputation of anyone that did not exhibit enough patriotism or contempt for communism. I suspect you would have been a member of that same witless mob.
Commies have been ruling many a campus since at least the 30s, actually.
To be sure, this isn't a particularly desirable outcome. But, exactly which of the premises that led to this conclusion did the Reason staff object to? Sorry to break it to you, but this seemed to be the world you, or at least the progressives "liberaltarians" hitched their wagons to, wanted.
I don't follow your reasoning. In what sense did the Reason staff hitch itself to a "you must express this opinion and none others" wagon? Reason and libertarians in general are all about free minds: think what you want even if it offends people.
Liberal arts majors will probably not notice any difference. Staff have been PC for years before turning woke. It is difficult to see how journalism could sink any lower and the common unwashed do not care about CRT or multi-gender inclusion theory.
Are they applying this to the sciences? Not political science or psychology of course, but real science? If they limit chemists, physicists, or engineers by their social conscience rather than by their ability then some real damage will ensue.
Just to provide a little bit of positive news, MIT seems to be headed in the other direction, toward more freedom of speech:
https://news.mit.edu/2022/proposed-free-expression-statement-0901
Yes they are. Our recent geoscience tenure-track position search required applicants to submit a DEI statement (and we were required to use that in our candidate evaluations).
But feminist glaciers. (Google that)
It's for every position at Berkeley: physics, chemistry, engineering, the works.
I did my undergrad in the mid-80s and it was a steady diet of anti-Reagan diatribe every day. But honestly, even the most leftist students did not really care, and nobody felt indoctrinated. We all just rolled our eyes and did what was necessary for our grades.
Wait until this fledgling author learns about the statements of faith circulated and loyalty oaths collected by certain types of (downscale) schools.
And the overt flouting of academic freedom by similar (dogma-enforcing, nonsense-teaching) schools.
And the strenuous viewpoint-driven discrimination practiced by such (conservative, superstition-based) schools in everything from admissions and hiring (professors to security guards, administrators to landscapers, bus drivers to basketball coaches) to promotions and firing.
Carry on, clingers. So far as blindered, obsolete, right-wing culture war casualties can make it in modern America as our society continues to improve against their wishes and efforts.
Hey there, Art. I'm going to have to ask you about this embarrassingly failed prediction again. 🙁
"I wouldn't mind seeing Judge Barrett confirmed, if only because I believe it would precipitate the installation of four new, better justices during the first half of 2021." - Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland, October 2, 2020
As you're undoubtedly aware, it's now the second half of 2022 and Biden has only swapped one retiring liberal justice for a younger one. Where's the expansion you promised us? Did you sleep through Harvard Law's court expansion theory lectures?
#LibertariansForCourtExpansion
#(WhenDoneByADemocrat)
Yep, Rev is tacitly agreeing that a new religion is taking over our universities.
Duh. Which sect do you think sold him his divinity degree?
Our Lady of Anthropogenic Climate Change?
The fledgling author mentioned California Community Colleges, which is the bottom rung, admit anyone tier of California colleges. (And I say this as someone who spent time in said colleges.)
Oh, never mind. Misread your diatribe.
Totally not a religion.
Did the Khmer Rouge use this tactic to decide which academics they systematically murdered?
I don’t think who controlled a massive, world-class, well-established higher education system was a big consideration in Cambodia.
You say an awful lot of stupid things, but this ranks as one of the most asinine and ignorant. Higher education is far too late in the process to embed the kind of propaganda that allows for complete submission to a totalitarian state.
See Mike's comment about his "academic" training above.
Yes, I have set foot in a community college. I also have a Computer Science and Electrical Engineering degree from UCLA.
Then what Khmer Rouge "academics" was Eric Owens referring to? Academics working in what other institution in Cambodia? The garment industry?
One of the groups the Khmer Rouge rounded up and shot was anyone with a high school degree or better. I don't know how many there were but not zero by a long shot.
You don't want any o' them ejucated types disagreeing with the government.
Are we now redefining “academic” to mean anyone with a high school education?
"So suddenly academic freedom is under threat and expertise is under threat."
Just all of a sudden and out of nowhere. I'm just as sure that this will also be how people learn that CRT is taught in schools and that children are being transitioned. It just happened suddenly with no warning! I also appreciate how this cultural Marxism is only a threat to academic freedom, and not the actual principles of liberty discovered during the enlightenment. As long as it's just education centers doing it of their own free will, then what's the issue? It's really reminiscent of how tech companies censoring speech is *suddenly* a threat to freedom. Reason editors and authors desperately need to study the actual philosophical principles of liberty so that these things don't occur so "suddenly" in their perception. That institutions of "higher learning" have been antagonistic to individual liberty has been an obvious fact my entire life, but only if you actually value liberty in a philosophical sense, and not a culture war sense.
That institutions of "higher learning" have been antagonistic to individual liberty has been an obvious fact my entire life
Should we assume it is a complete coincidence that the 'counterculture' took root on college campuses at the exact same time that post-war professors gained tenure? That it was not part of a Soviet long strategy to subvert American academia and corrupt future generations to bring about an end to capitalism?
If not, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that Marx was correct and that capitalism always fails to make way for the socialist state.
1944: The GI Bill passes, helping World War II veterans get money to go to college for free or for very cheap. In subsequent years, veterans would account for nearly half of those attending college.
Was it a Soviet (I prefer to just call the ideological adherents to belief structures similar to the soviets collectivists) plan or did the Soviet (collectivist) belief that centralized planning (as represented by federal student loans first offered to veterans then expanded to the rest of society) lead to the same outcomes? Did capitalism lead the federal government to offer this, or did American society buy hook, line and sinker a series of progressive arguments about how the government can improve society by offering goods and services as planned centrally rather than letting institutions and individuals autonomously create markets for them? The fact that a free society by definition must allow the arguments of socialist and communist and progressives be heard does not necessarily mean that that society must adopt those arguments over time, but the history of the US is not one that shows a free society successfully pushing back against those arguments. It isn't a plan it's simply a cycle of human history, hard men bring good times, good times bring soft men, soft men bring bad times, bad times bring hard men. Hopefully after the civilization of the USA crumbles freedom is erected successfuly elsewhere, but a society and culture that does not zealously guard liberty is bound to lose it, and Americans gave up believing in liberty generations ago in so many subtle ways that from a modern perspective it is akin to a gordian knot. Hence why arguments such as "we reduced the deficit because we didn't take on as much debt as we could have." (A current argument from both parties which is why the deficit always grows larger) and "we saved your liberty because we didn't reduce it as much as we could have." (Currently used by both major parties which is why the collectivization of power only goes up to the oligarchs and not towards the individual) have become the major culture war turning points without wisdom tempering either sides arguments.
So let's say a governor tries to redress the problem by banning DEI statements. I have no doubt that Reason.com would speak out against that. So I'm curious just what the remedy should be?
There is a legal remedy available already, if anyone decides to use it. I think the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment should render any university ineligible to receive federal funding if they require these statements. At least the ones that mandate treating one race differently than another.
I agree a legal remedy exists and the one you named seems viable to me. What happens when half the population is culturally Marxist and views the definition of words as a valid path of attack? Equal isn't meaning the same thing to more and more Americans that I believe you have in mind when you reference the equal protection clause. Then when these kids come out of their law schools with a complete misunderstanding of equality before the law and interpret the equal protection clause into meaning the federal government has the ability to force what is now called "equity" onto us all it will be the opposite of what you intend and what I would agree with. Instead of analyzing what the correct way to have government progress culture in, can you please come up with some arguments for how to shift the culture more towards individualism and liberty for everyone without the government getting involved? My point is that this seems to be a much deeper cultural issue and not one that can be fixed through government intervention without leading into a never ending spiral of interventions ending in *at least* more authoritarianism than we are currently experiencing. Most libertarians will assume it leads to killing fields or some such. I think modernity is a hugely moderating force where people pull back from such extremism, but I do see it leading to what large parts of Europe look like, where individual liberty and autonomy are mostly under the control of the collective. Which works out kind of ok when you have a small homogeneous culture, but doesn't strike me as feasible for the USA.
Well, the hypothetical governor can't ban the statements themselves - that would violate the First Amendment. And he can't do anything at all about private institutions. But he could ban any state institution from requiring such a statement as a condition of employment (probably under the state constitution's equivalent to the federal First Amendment but maybe also on other grounds). And the legislature could probably ban the consideration of such statements in employment decisions under the state's general police powers.
It seems to me that any number of these universities are state actors; thus, the 1A enters the equation and, if nothing else, these apposite DEI’s get into the realm of viewpoint discrimination.
Public universities most definitely are state actors. And despite that, they can still engage in viewpoint "discrimination" in their own speech and (to a slightly lesser extent) their employees' on-the-job speech.
Zeroing in on the writer’s words, “ these schools are requiring applicants to state their allegiance to a specific political perspective,“
I don’t see how this requirement is distinct from state-mandated loyalty oaths.
Those were long ago exorcised.
The requirement as drafted might appear less draconian than a statute. But to steal from Scalia, it ( still) comes as a wolf in wolf’s clothing.
For a private college such as Harvard, not sure there's much of a libertarian argument. It's their school, they can do what they want. You could make a weak argument about accepting public funds. You might make a stronger (non-libertarian) argument about discrimination based on political beliefs.
For a public university like Berkeley, one can argue this is illegal on first amendment grounds. It's compelled speech and bordering on compulsion to join the Church of Deo...er...DEI.
Is it? SCOTUS recently required Yeshiva, a Jewish University, to accept LGBT groups as long as they take public money.
The benighted will believe, and the enlightened will deceive.
I don't think I've ever had a conversation where what I think matches what I say.
Want A Job at Reason? Start Preparing Your DEI Statement.
Want A Job at PBS ?
Try editing this website out of your browsing history .
"Academic freedom" is a promise European aristocrats used to make to famous academics they hired in order to get them to move to their domains. The idea that it is some kind of fundamental right that everybody in a teaching profession has is ridiculous.
It is perfectly reasonable for the people who pay someone's salary to demand that they comply with academic, educational, and social requirements set by the institution. If those requirements are stupid (e.g., DEI) it just harms the institution, it doesn't violate the employee's rights.
It doesn't harm the institution when the majority of society embraces the same streak of cultural Marxism and the continued subsidizing of student education is not only something to encourage in their own children and local communities but to push across all the states through the US government and federal reserve. Then these institutions become more powerful, as people who want nothing to do with them are forced into paying them.
Well, if the majority of society actually embraces cultural Marxism, then it's pretty hard to fault public sector educational institutions to teach it and make it a requirement for hiring.
But it still "harms" them, in the sense that it makes such institutions bad educational institutions.
Shouldn't it be easy to fault collectivism of any sort (cultural, economic, name any other sector you want healthcare, information, etc) as a individualist and libertarian? Collectivism being distinct from voluntary association with the most often seen example being government interventions. If the government was not intervening in these institutions then they would not be forming these culturally Marxist departments because they don't provide a good or service that other freely interacting individuals find valuable. Who finds their HR department at work valuable (almost no one, *except* it saves a bunch of hassle of government intervention aka lawsuits in the form of workplace laws better left up to individual association). They produce no other goods or services in most instances. I happen to like most HR people as individuals, but despise their economic niche in our current society. Who finds these degrees valuable? We can't know because the government intervenes and provides the funding for the students. I think it's easy to fault them, and if you value individual liberty I think you should find it easy to fault them as well.
I am "faulting" them: I am literally stating that they are harming the institution.
But I'm also pointing out that if the majority of your population consists of collectivists, then self-determination means they can choose to institute a public education system and they can choose to teach neo-Marxism in it.
A certain Indigenous American professor (now senator) was onto this 30 years ago.
Like to see how that applies to teaching Mathematics or Engineering.
By the way, the minds of college students are not clay to be molded by intellectuals. That's a progressive mentality. They believe they can shape human nature through social "science."
Don't fall into that mindset or make that argument.
From what I've seen and been told, conservatives who go to college are still conservatives when they leave. Were you that easily persuaded when you weren't on acid? Me neither.
Seriously though, screw academic college. Get a trade.
Like to see how that applies to teaching Mathematics or Engineering.
It applies by making it impossible to give members of protected classes failing grades regardless of their actual ability. It is real easy to see how this applies. Math and objective truth are racist and tools of white supremacy. This is what these people actually believe.
Get back to me when universities apply those standards when grading midterms for Physics majors.
They do it all over now. See below. DEI has totally infested the math and science departments of all of the major universities. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
I'd need an example. My point is that some things are subjective and some things are not. Math is not. Science has become politicized, but the application of it is not subjective. Physics is not subjective.
I can definitely how DEI can infect most other fields of study. Heck, when I was taking a writing class the teacher was getting her masters in wemenz studiz. So I got to do paper a on Thelma and Louise, and another on the political impact of Madonna.
However I don't see someone putting a gender theme into a lecture about integral calculus.
I'd need an example. My point is that some things are subjective and some things are not. Math is not. Science has become politicized, but the application of it is not subjective. Physics is not subjective.
Won't really matter because it's being made so regardless:
"Observing whiteness in introductory physics: A case study" by Amy D. Robertson and W. Tali Hairston, Department of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, Washington, PHYSICAL REVIEW PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH 18, 010119 (2022)
That's great. People do dissertations on some really stupid shit. I can see that study being an integral part in some liberal arts education, but I don't see it making its way into Physics 101.
This is true. I have witnessed it. My university is destroying the value of my degree. Anyone who graduates from there is suspect.
Give me an example. I'm genuinely curious into how Linear Algebra can be perverted by DEI.
https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-teacher-says-2-2-4-is-white-supremacy?utm_campaign=64487
Here is how it applies Sarcasmic
Canadian math teacher says 2+2=4 is white supremacy.
Seeing the picture, I have to ask: "Do Canadians have two sexes, like we do?"
They have flapping heads and beady little eyes.
I expect to hear about the new Reason University anytime now then. After all, the current industry participants going "woke" just means more opportunities for others, yes? Great time to get into the market and get your product --a conservative education-- out there.
Hillsdale, dude.
Cool beans, don't care.
My point was and is not that conservative schools don't exist (They do, not that you'd know that by listening to Reason or Republicans).
My point was that the stated beliefs don't align with the actual behavior.
Why aren't you doing it?
If Reason is stupid for not capitalizing on this, why don't you?
Ohhhhh. You mean their argument is wrong because they aren't sinking money into something that you think is foolish, otherwise you'd have invested in it.
That's some really profound logic.
Because unlike Reason, I don't accept (and promote) the premise.
Because unlike Reason, I don't accept (and promote) the premise.
Actually, I'm not saying their argument is "wrong".
I'm saying that their actions are not inline with their stated beliefs, and thus call into question the sincerity of said beliefs.
That I don't act like I believe their (stated) beliefs makes perfect sense, seeing as I don't share their beliefs and have never claimed to.
Praxis university. If you are seeking institutions to look to outside the mainstream that support liberty listen to the Tom Woods show. Strive asset management is a hedge fund designed to push back against the ESG crap most are buying into now that he also covers. It won't do much good when the majority of the culture enables Zimbabwe style decolonization efforts, (in America I see this more as CRT) but if you want to be a moral individual that's my first suggestion.
One of my good friends is an admin at a small community college in Oregon. She says that the #1 goal of the college is to 'increase diversity', specifically among the Spanish population. Her boss admits that this is a difficult task, because generally speaking people from that culture tend to dive right into working and helping the family -- not accruing 'useless debt'.
I told her that it sounds pretty racist that a bunch of old white people want to tell poor Spanish-speakers the 'right' way to live life.......
Yeah, there's a lot of angst in the white liberal bourgeoisie that minorities aren't flocking to all become white collar bureaucrats. The ones that do almost inevitably become some kind of political activist, which is the whole point of trying to cram everyone in to college these days. Because it sure as hell isn't to teach them how to think clearly and objectively.
This tracks with what she told me after I sent her this article today!
"OMG this is exactly what I'm seeing. If you aren't some kind of activist, you're just trash to them. Treating everyone the same is "sooo last century." Now you have to make a grand show of how moral you are by committing yourself to a life of the correct type of activism. It also helps if you are in a bi-racial relationship and "call out" racism on a daily basis. Also, you must shop at Whole Foods."
Yup, we need to insure the Right has to influence on the culture because they might institute idiotic ideas, eh Reason?
"This poses a clear threat to academic freedom."
Fuck academic freedom. Academic freedom is the least of our problems. The CLEAR THREAT is to morality, fairness, reason, and just being decent human beings.
If I set up a university - a real one, not some scam - I would want something like the following "DEI" statements - and include a requirement that students too sign DEI statements. I am sure these can be improved upon.
Faculty: I will treat all students based purely on academic performance and contribution. My right to free speech does not include deliberately offending students but does include expressing opinions based on my relevant academic knowledge that some students may find offensive.
Students: I understand and accept that other students and faculty have opinions that may be offensive to me, and may express those opinions publicly, exerting their free speech rights in so doing. I will use my right of free speech to challenge those opinions in ways which do not restrict the free speech expressions of others.
I think this is the only difficult part of your statements: "deliberately offending students." Could be read very, very broadly.
Your "right to free speech" is a legal, constitutional right and it factually includes the right to deliberately offend anybody you want; you can't redefine what that right means. Perhaps you want to say something like "If I deliberately offend students through speech, I understand that I am subject to immediate termination."
However, I don't see why faculty shouldn't be able to deliberately offend students. Deliberately offending students is part of teaching; it's part of making them think and challenging them.
Which is why I said that these statements can be improved upon. I should have clarified that it meant offending for the sake of offending - which no teacher at any level should do. But if offence will be taken inevitably, e.g., when a biology teacher teaches the basics of evolution to a group he knows includes a Christian fundamentalist or two, then yes, it's part of teaching.
"Berkeley's rubric, for example, gives a low score to any applicant who "states the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and 'treat everyone the same.'""
Downgrading applicants who promise to follow the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I'm trying to figure out how this could be legal...
I don't see why it would be illegal. Violations of the civil rights act have legal consequences for the institution. There are no legal consequences for hiring people who contemplate violating the civil rights act. Pre-crime is not illegal in the US.
At the very least, universities applying for federal aid have to give assurances that they'll comply with the Civil Rights Act:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/100.4
Can they give these assurances out of one side of their mouth and have policies discouraging compliance out of the other side of their mouth?
And we wonder why education in this country keeps getting worse and worse.
Multiple choice testing.
I'm in the process of applying to medical school, and nearly every application requires a DEI statement or a similar evaluation.
It feels futile to fight back against the new bureaucracy. DEI has infiltrated all parts of society, and you have to conform to get into the system.
Want An Academic Job? Start licking liberal's boots.