The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance on Diversity Statements
Diversity statements have become common in university admissions and hiring, and that's a problem
Earlier this week, the Academic Freedom Alliance released a new public statement. It called for an end to mandatory diversity statements in university admissions and hiring.
In recent years, a growing number of colleges and universities have begun to require applicants for graduate school admission and for faculty jobs to write an essay explaining their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion goals and how they plan to advance those goals. In some institutions, those statements have been used as a filter for limiting the pool of applicants that would get substantive consideration for an opening. In practice, those statements become political litmus tests, requiring that scholars pledge themselves to believe and advance a set of contested political values.
The University of California at Davis mathematician Abigail Thompson was an early critic of how those statements were being used in the California system, and sparked an intense controversy by comparing them to the now-reviled loyalty oaths of the McCarthy era. The University of Chicago law professor Brian Leiter has argued that they are illegal at state universities, though UC Davis law professor Brian Soucek disagrees, at least when the statements are "done the right way" (which they often aren't). The Fort Lewis College philosopher Justin McBrayer compares them to the faith statements required by some religious institutions. An interesting extended analysis of the legal issues by the Pacific Legal Foundation's Daniel Ortner can be found here. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression recently released a statement on using DEI criteria in faculty hiring and promotion as well.
The Academic Freedom Alliance statement was authored by a committee that included Harvard law school professor Randall Kennedy, former Harvard medical school dean Jeffrey Flier, and University of Southern California chemistry professor Anna Krylov. As AFA co-chair and Harvard law professor Janet Halley observes, "Academics seeking employment or promotion will almost inescapably feel pressured to say things that accommodate the perceived ideological preferences of an institution demanding a diversity statement, notwithstanding the actual beliefs or commitments of those forced to speak."
From the statement:
The Academic Freedom Alliance supports efforts to ensure that colleges and universities offer to all members of their communities – staff, students, and faculty – environments free of bigotry. We also support efforts by institutions of higher learning to do all that they can, consistent with their academic mission, to ensure that faculty members offer their services on an equitable basis. It is, however, our firm conviction that compelled diversity statements undermine the best of the intentions that propel DEI initiatives. It is one thing for schools to take action against wrongful discriminatory conduct; institutions are under a legal as well as moral and pedagogical obligation to do that. A very different and disturbing thing is monitoring beliefs by demanding pledges of allegiance to an array of policies that are often vague, frequently ambiguous, and invariably controversial.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A statement. That will sure scare them!
Hey, lawyer dipshit, you do not get to define me. I identify as an African American and as rich. Not only do I expect to get diversity preferences. I expect to get money to fulfill my identity as rich.
When I first had to write a diversity statement, it sucked and was stupid (basically how important is diversity to you). But more recently when I was putting together another packet and saw the new requirements (what active measures will you take to denigrate white people) I decided it was time for a career change.
Fuck DEI or JEDI or any of those other moronic programs and the Hitlerian Democrats who fill those offices and departments.
I did more to promote diversity by interracially marrying and having a mixed race son, than most of these diversity departments combined. That's how race is really going to stop mattering: When interracial marriage is so widespread that we're all mixed race, and race is reduced to something as unimportant as hair color.
At the current rate of growth of interracial marriage, the general population is well on its way to rendering the whole controversy moot within another couple generations.
As I am identifying as African American, as rich, I also identify as having a BBC, to use the great term Queenie taught me. That means I expect to have a chesty, blonde girlfriend. I don't yet, but I identify as having one.
I'm pretty sure diversity (across a lot of modes - race, gender, disability) on campuses and in the education and research workforces is increasing, so I'm not sure you can say these diversity departments are doing nothing.
My "lion stay away rock" must be working. No lions have been spotted here.
Burden is on Brett, as the one who made the unsupported statement.
But I would be interested in what effect you think is causing increased diversity on campus, if not these offices.
Note that I'm not talking about diversity statements, but about diversity departments, which is what Brett brought up.
The population is getting more "diverse". Institutions therefore follow.
Looking at gender alone, that's bullshit.
57% of college students are female.
"that's bullshit."
Unlike your original "correlation is causation" argument?
That's actually college students getting less diverse, at this point: Maximum sex diversity was reached at 50-50, it's been declining since then.
If you don't care about anything but the stark college enrollment numbers, you are correct.
But most people are not that myopic.
Oh, right: Women are so super-diverse that academia continues gaining sexual diversity even as a larger and larger percentage of the students are of the same sex, so long as they're women. [/sarc]
This whole diversity thing has been a scam for some time now; They don't really want more diversity, by any sensible definition, they just want fewer white males.
Women are so super-diverse that academia continues gaining sexual diversity even as a larger and larger percentage of the students are of the same sex, so long as they're women.
Not what I said Brett - I said the push for diversity is not just about looking at college enrollment numbers.
This whole diversity thing has been a scam for some time now; They don't really want more diversity, by any sensible definition, they just want fewer white males.
And you proof of this is...more telepathy, I think!
No, my proof is that I pointed out that once women hit 50% of college students, any increase in women was reducing diversity, and you denied that was true.
Thus establishing that, by "diversity", you just mean "fewer men", not actual diversity diversity.
I said looking only at college enrollment was myopic. Do you think society is dominated by women or something?
You argued that campuses are more diverse because the population is becoming more diverse.
Women have been the same amount of the population for quite some time.
And, as been pointed out, gender diversity has been decreasing.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
"I'm not sure what you're trying to say here."
I'm saying that your claim, "I'm pretty sure diversity (across a lot of modes - race, gender, disability) on campuses and in the education and research workforces is increasing..." is incorrect with respect to gender on campus. So you can't use the fact that gender in the population is stable to refute the claim.
Except undergraduate degrees is hardly the only metric I mentioned - it's a whole ecosystem, and focusing only on campus is myopic and naive.
However, you have no methodologically sound way to know whether they do anything or not.
As they rise far above a micro-aggression to many people, they have no place in institutions espousing freedom of thought.
Note that I'm not talking about diversity statements, but about diversity departments, which is what Brett brought up.
Diversity statements seem to me a way to deal with the insoluble dilemmas of how to deal with intersectionality by doing a useless thing and pretending it's useful. I wouldn't call it harmful, just annoying.
Ah, but what is annoying to you may be a micro-aggression to me
As for diversity departments, there have to be some institutional reasons why overheads increase.
I’m not sure you are using micro aggressions right. I don’t know that de overheads are going up.
The ends do not justify the means. Especially these blatantly discriminatory means.
You calling something invidious discrimination does not make it so.
You might keep this principle in mind each and every time you write anything.
I do - this is why whenever zi point out someone’s bigotry I explain what was bigoted.
That's not going to work. Remember the Sad Puppies? One of the people involved has a black wife and mixed-race children. He pointed it out when accused of racism, and just became a bigger target.
Caterwauling that white men are being neglected, based on your own take on what the best books should be, does indeed indicate being an entitled asshat with some race issues, if nothing else.
Yeah, I get accused in some circles of being a racist for being interracially married, since it's a catch 22, there isn't actually any way for a white guy to NOT be racist in their eyes, the best we can do is confess it and engage in some flagellation.
But it remains that I'm doing my part for ACTUALLY reducing the importance of race.
there isn't actually any way for a white guy to NOT be racist in their eyes, the best we can do is confess it and engage in some flagellation.
I'm a white guy, work with plenty of black folks, many of whom are explicitly in diversity and inclusion offices, and managed to avoid this.
Amazing!
This is a variation of the above point. You claiming to have not been called a racist while working in w/ people in your in-group does not prove that you are not a bigot.
Brett said there is no way for a white guy to not be racist in the eyes of some circles. I pointed to counter evidence.
Of course Brett is into The Bell Curve and thinks The Camp of Saints of prophetic so….he may have some challenges I do not.
Your personal group, where your you don't know what they say outside your hearing, is the only example of all "some groups"?
Tell me, can you imagine any way that your personal group may not match another group? Or do you think that no difference of opinion between your acquaintances and any other similar group is possible?
Gaslightro, even for you, this is a particularly stupid claim.
If you curate some circles to mean 'the people Brett knows' then you have a nice closed system. But it's not actually very insightful about the world in general - I give him more credit than that, and so should you.
Diversity is more than race.
That's basically my take, Brett. I had a long-time friend dump me after Trump--using the excuse that I once mentioned the n-word (it was mention, not use, and in the context of how my BLACK son uses it). I laughed at her calling me racist--and reminded her that of the two of us, only one had .... done certain things with a black man. Including marrying him.
These statements are simply means of elite signalling: "I am one of the elect." They don't mean what they say and are often appalled when diversity actually meets them at their front door. The friend I mentioned above is irate that high-density housing is being built right across from her quaint little bungalow, and a mass transit line will run down her street. Hoi polloi alert!
"It is, however, our firm conviction that compelled diversity statements undermine the best of the intentions that propel DEI initiatives."
Assuming that DEI initiatives actually ARE pushed for defensible reasons in the real world, which seems unlikely when you look at the details of implementation, which seem to be a better fit to discriminatory aims.
FYI: Don't know if you've seen this with regard to your position on magistrate judges. Seems to support your position.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/26/can-magistrate-judges-constitutionally-issue-search-warrants-against-trump-or-anyone-else/
Brett, something tells me you have not looked very hard at the details of implementation of many DEI initiatives. Just going with your gut again, eh?
And what is the rationale behind discriminatory aims? More telepathy, sounds like.
“And what is the rationale behind discriminatory aims?”
To prevent Harvard from becoming too
JewishAsian?Neato telepathy.
You teach well, I guess.
Got any refutation, though? Considering he pointed out an actual historical example.
You don't prove a general claim with a single example.
I have difficulty in resisting the notion that we are entering a new "dark ages." This stuff is extreme, but still limited in scope. University professors are a tiny fraction of the population.
It is not yet time to exercise the our right to overthrow government (as we assert in The Declaration), but the signs are scary
The scary thing is that they've almost completely taken over the education schools. So the teachers going to the K-12 schools now are already indoctrinated.
Archie. All woke is case. Just arrest try and execute the 25000 traitors in the lawyer hierarchy. A more peaceful alternative is to end their lawless, self dealt immunities. Sue them.
So... universities are trying to make sure they're a welcoming space for all kinds of humans and your first thought is whether we've reached the point of armed rebellion?
Should I be more alarmed by this or relieved that you decided it wasn't yet time to take up arms against your fellow Americans?
universities are trying to make sure they're a welcoming space for all kinds of humans
Certainly that is one way to spin it.
Literally what the people who work in these offices talk about.
One might argue the real spin is the right's speculation as to their real agenda!
Is that what Yaseen Eldik and Ellen Cosgrove at Yale talk about? Does threatening the job prospects of soon to graduate students create a welcoming atmosphere?
I know what I have heard. pivoting from general statement to anecdote is not a sign you are being an honest broker here.
How many dozens of times does it have to happen before you’ve convinced of anything. Polls show that huge majorities of certain types of students are so afraid to speak their opinions that they shut up. Same with professors. It’s everywhere.
Tens, hell, hundreds of thousands are being made scared by this stuff. Intentionally.
A glib accusation of bad faith when I point out an example doesn’t change that. You wanna be in denial that ain’t on me.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying this is largely the intent: 'universities are trying to make sure they're a welcoming space for all kinds of humans.'
You coming back with an anecdote of some bad people in a field doesn't make the field bad. You know statistics better than that. You should know the good-faith of humanity better than that.
Tens, hell, hundreds of thousands are being made scared by this stuff. Intentionally.
Now you sound like Brett. Congrats on the tin foil.
That’s your most aggravating habit. I cite published surveys that contradict your point and you dismiss not with coherent argument, but with name calling.
Is saying that polls indicate Biden’s approval is historically low tin foil hat stuff too? Only polls that fit your preconceived ideas are legit?
I don’t look at right wing sites so I don’t get tin foil crap. Do better.
I don't see you citing any published surveys.
I made it up because my overwhelming Biden hate rendered me temporarily insane.
It was a survey done across several campuses by FIRE. Do your own fucking research. Or better yet, don’t, because if the clouds parted and God told you about it you’d call Him a Crackpot. So don’t waste your time b
This is lame as fuck, dude. You said you cited and then you didn’t, and now you are mad at me about it.
You called me tin foil hatted regarding something I know and wonder why I’m mad. You’re ridiculous. Don’t want people to get mad? Don’t ack like a jackass.
The intentionally. That’s the tin foil.
Diversity departments are secretly scaring conservatives so they keep quiet.
That’s telepathy into a nationwide conspiracy.
If that’s what they’re trying to do they’re failing miserably, because there are large groups of humans toward which open hostility is allowed.
I'm not so sure - I hear the same thing about minorities still not feeling welcome - especially Asians.
There are people on both sides of the diversity ledger who are basically victimization wishers, and are basically eggshells.
So don't just take uncritically that this or that group is experiencing hostility based on anecdotes. Especially when curated towards confirmation bias by interested media.
The Asians are one of my groups of humans.
Every human could be in your group of humans - no group is immune. Though certain groups are in the local majority.
My wife and I built up a business in California over 30 years. Our peak employment was about 100 people, and I ended up with the task of tallying our diversity for the HR requirements that tend to appear when you grow that size.
At that time we had mostly Hispanic, Vietnamese, Arab, Persian, Polynesian, Asian-Indian, Chinese, Japanese and a few whites here and there including me and spouse. The countries they came from included Germany, Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia, Viet Nam, the UK, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Romania, Afghanistan (I think).
Oddly enough no native American, or Korean. Can't explain that, except we didn't have a diversity program. We just hired the best we could that would work for what we could pay.
HR is a tiresome game these days.
Hr is the game of rent seeking by the Mafia.
HR tiresome or not, that sounds badass.
Kind of like the old Soviet system. Everybody pretends to believe in the party catechism, but nobody actually does.
Vote for Trump in 2024 to stick it to the vile scumbags. That is what Trumpism is about, no matter his flaws.
Good move back towards the centre.
I agree with AFA's criticism, for lots of reasons.
"The Academic Freedom Alliance statement was authored by a committee that included Harvard law school professor Randall Kennedy"
clinger
"former Harvard medical school dean Jeffrey Flier"
professor at fundamentalist cow college
"and University of Southern California chemistry professor Anna Krylov."
can't-keep-up uneducated rural white male
Why should I believe anything these soon-to-be-replaced losers have to say?
I encourage all applicants offended by diversity statements to act according to their principles. Explain to the offending institution that you for one will not kowtow, or permit yourself to be tyrannized out of your color blind ideals.
Make it clear that your refusal to apply is their loss, not yours. Tell them that their misguided demand for pro-diversity ideology works to the detriment of the various groups who teach and learn at that institution, and that none of them will be truly free until they think and act as you do.
Confront these benighted would-be tyrants with the contrary ideal of a society free to disregard history, start anew, and rebuild society from scratch, based on a color blind ideology which is the only one which can work fairly for everyone.
I looked at the policy examples provided in the AFA statement, and they seem like they could indeed be "done the right way" as Prof. Soucek put it.
But what if an applicant comes up against an administration which believes, like you, that complying with the Civil Rights Act and not discriminating based on race represents a "color blind ideology" which "disregard[s] history, start[s] anew, and rebuild[s] society from scratch"?
What do you say to such an administration in order to be considered while still keeping a commitment to the Civil Rights Act?
Did David French write this?
If they find these statements so offensive, may I suggest "foot voting", as Somin puts it?
After all, if it's reasonable to expect minorities to just leave when the going gets tough, surely it's reasonable to expect conservatives to do the same?
"if it's reasonable to expect minorities to just leave when the going gets tough"
Wouldn't that depend on the meaning of "going" and "tough."
Foot voting is not a remedy for the government violating the Constitution, and Somin hasn't suggested that it is.
Yes he has. His examples include Mormons leaving the South for Utah, Blacks leaving the South, gays leaving conservative shit-holes, Russians leaving Russia and, most recently, women leaving states that ban abortion.
He is absolutely 100% on-board with people using "foot voting" to flee oppressive governments.
Right-Wing Separatist Organization Dislikes Current State
Of Modern America And Strong, Mainstream Academia
--------------------------------------------------
"Damn All Of This Progress Straight To Hell"
-- Robert George, Spiritual Leader Of Group
You stole my joke -
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/26/academic-freedom-alliance-on-diversity-statements/?comments=true#comment-9671069
Catch-22, Chapter 11: Captain Black
chapter summary (source):
Captain Black is pleased to hear that Colonel Cathcart has volunteered the men for the lethal mission of bombing Bologna. Captain Black hates the men and gloats about their terrifying, violent task. He is extremely ambitious and had hoped to be promoted to squadron commander, but when Major Major is picked over him, he lapses into a deep depression, out of which the Bologna mission lifts him. Captain Black tries to get revenge on Major Major by initiating the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade, during which he forces all the men to swear elaborate oaths of loyalty before doing basic things like eating meals. He then refuses to let Major Major sign a loyalty oath and hopes, thereby, to make him appear disloyal. The Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade is a major event in the camp until the fearsome Major —— de Coverley puts an end to it by hollering “Gimme eat!” in the mess hall without signing an oath.
"...invariably controversial..."
The whole current tenor of the "liberal" establishment is that nothing is controversial. There's only ONE way to see things. Anyone who disagrees is a "deplorable" (who must be deplored, ostracized, excluded, eliminated).
How very liberal!
Is it too much to ask to simply not discriminate?
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1562117812122013697
That appears to be the conservative ideal for education (based on observation of conservative-controlled campuses): fourth-tier (or unranked), censorship-shackled, nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, academic freedom-flouting, science-disdaining hayseed factories.
Great comment, bruh. See you next Tuesday.
If an ambitious student wants to be somewhere which practices censorship, denies science, and teaches nonsense, he shouldn't go to some right-wing fundamentalist diploma mill. He should polish his resumes and grades, work on his diversity statements, and attend an elite institution, and all his needs will be met.
Subpar, clinging, ankle-biters like Jeffrey Flier and Randall Kennedy should go back to whatever cow college they came from and leave their betters alone.
This sounds perfectly reasonable, and I'm quite confident that that's how it will actually be carried out in practice.
All the applicant has to do is tell the inspiring story of how (s)he has taught students of all backgrounds, without race discrimination, about how the world actually *is,* and there should be no problem at all.
Queenie, can you say that in Ebonics?