The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Randall Kennedy (Harvard): "Mandatory DEI Statements Are Ideological Pledges of Allegiance. Time to Abandon Them."
An excellent opinion piece in the Harvard Crimson, by one of the nation's leading scholars of race and the law. An excerpt:
On a posting for a position as an assistant professor in international and comparative education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, applicants are required to submit a CV, a cover letter, a research statement, three letters of reference, three or more writing samples, and a statement of teaching philosophy that includes a description of their "orientation toward diversity, equity, and inclusion practices."
At Harvard and elsewhere, hiring for academic jobs increasingly requires these so-called diversity statements, which Harvard's Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning describes as being "about your commitment to furthering EDIB within the context of institutions of higher education."
By requiring academics to profess — and flaunt — faith in DEI, the proliferation of diversity statements poses a profound challenge to academic freedom.
A closer look at the Bok Center's page on diversity statements illustrates how….
I am a scholar on the left committed to struggles for social justice. The realities surrounding mandatory DEI statements, however, make me wince. The practice of demanding them ought to be abandoned, both at Harvard and beyond.
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
Uh oh ..... somebody's gonna get canceled....
I love how accurate the Didn't Earn It meme is.
These statements are absurd.
In response to the "Didn't Earn It" backronym, departments are being renamed now to Diversity, Worth, Equity, Inclusion, Belonging and Safety.
CNN reports:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/09/us/what-is-dei-and-why-its-dividing-america/index.html
See? Admitting students will lower test-scores / high-school grades (but the right skin-color!) isn’t “divisive,” but objecting to this practice is!
Inquisitor
Mullah
Commissar
DEI Officer
The more things change...
You are completely out of your tree.
What does Harvard think it is, a conservative-controlled campus?
Next along this slippery slope are loyalty oaths, statements of faith, litmus tests for bigotry, old-timey speech and conduct codes, flouting of academic freedom, dogma enforcement, the teaching of nonsense, suppression of science to flatter superstition, and the other things one finds at every campus conservatives get their hands on.
LOOK! A SQUIRREL!
I don’t see a squirrel. I see an obsolete, worthless, right-wing culture war casualty.
At this blog, I see plenty of them.
Keep whining, clingers. It is welcome evidence that the culture war’s trajectory is sound and its pace heartening.
Which group of schools do you clingers think is the stronger group:
Berkeley, Michigan, Wellesley, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, Swarthmore, Yale, Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Pittsburgh, Vassar
or
Hillsdale, Grove City, Franciscan, Wheaton, Liberty, Regent, Dallas, Biola, Cedarville, Ouachita Baptist, Brigham Young, Notre Dame
(if any clingers can think of a dozen better right-wing schools, feel free to identify them)
?
Auburn (of course), Purdue (Was Neil Armstrong a “Klinger”?) NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Penn State, Univ of Kentucky, Univ of Alabama, Georgia Tech
And Gleichschaltung.
a statement of teaching philosophy that includes a description of their "orientation toward diversity, equity, and inclusion practices."
So what would happen if an applicant included the following:
Nothing. Nothing at all.
That’s not quite true. The applicant would get a letter to the effect of “don’t call us” (implied: and we won’t call you).
They'd probably politely inquire about other statements made by Dr King, and why they selected this one and excluded the others.
Like where he joked about Jackie giving JFK's corpse head? You never heard that one? Robert Kennedy sure did (HT J. E. Hoover)
It would depend on how the statement interpreted the quote. If it interpreted it the way MLK intended it, which is very much in line with DEI, then: hire.
If it interpreted it as an excuse to pretend race doesn't exist, then: no hire. For two independently justified reasons.
1) Intentional misapplication of a pretty well-known quote. A bit of a red flag for an academic.
2) Advocating for pretending that race doesn't exist is sort of like advocating for pretending that climate change doesn't exist or the Holocaust doesn't exist or the curvature of the earth doesn't exist. Another red flag.
Since race, unlike climate or historical events or geometry, is a social construct, that's a pretty poor set of analogies. If we all pretend race doesn't exist, then it actually doesn't.
Only if there are no systems tilted to favor one race or another.
Because pretending you're not black doesn't mean where you live and what your schools are like and what kind of background and expectations you have aren't still things, even if not driven by skin color.
Those are the more complicated problems that just lowering entry barriers or throwing money at (or requiring statements) will address, to be fair.
But color blind does not mean equal.
If we all pretend that race doesn’t exist, my wife is still a lot more likely to avoid a sunburn on a sunny day than I am. There’s a biological reality there, even if it doesn’t align well with the stupid categories on government forms, that shows up as statistical clusters of biological traits.
But they’ll genuinely be gone in a few more generations, at the rate things are going. I’m proud to have done my part in that. 😉
But, it’s not so much a matter of pretending race doesn’t exist, as it is of treating it as the cosmetic triviality it actually is.
It's a cosmetic triviality that has left deep gouges and scars all through US history.
"It’s a cosmetic triviality that has left deep gouges and scars all through US history."
Of course. All through human history.
I take Brett's point to be that racial identification will be subject to a sort of de-evolution, due to everyone marrying anyone they chose, and given time, racial identity will become so blurred that it ceases to have any meaningful real world (commercial or technological) application.
In other words, "trivial".
I wouldn't label such a bad outcome.
Apologies if I misunderstood.
If we all pretend race doesn’t exist, then it actually doesn’t.
No, race really exists. Probably more so than the history of the Holocaust. If we all pretend the Holocaust doesn't exist in the context of recorded history, then it actually doesn't.
Race actually exists in the biological context as Brett pointed out and in the socioeconomic context as Sarcastr0 mentioned. But it also exists in the relationship between race and ethnicity, that is, culture. Some people don't want to pretend their race doesn't exist any more than you want to pretend that Jews don't exist. MLK was one of those people!
Except the biological traits associated with what we call race don't naturally divide on hard lines. They exist in a continuum of small variations as you move north to south.
So?
Before roughly the mid-20th century, the Teutonic and Nordic and Slavonic and Hibernian 'races' and many others existed. They no longer do in any meaningful sense, at least not in the United States. That doesn’t mean that some people don't celebrate St. Patrick's Day, but it means nobody cares.
Exactly. They really don't exist. It's not just people pretending. In fact if anything they're pretending they do exist.
I agree that race is a "construct" whatever that means. As such it can shift and change over time. But those changes happen through actual dilution and intermingling as Brett said, not through some sort of force of will.
Actually, I find the DEI statements and requirements a clear guide of what institutions to avoid.
Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Toady, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson are all diversity, equity, and inclusion hires. Three of them had experience and credentials commensurate with their appointments; two did not.
I suppose that when it comes to DEI, IOKIYAR.
Not sure about the childish insult at Clarence Thomas, smacks a little bit of racism. And Sotomayor is a special kind of stupid, in a class by herself, and her race and gender have nothing to do with that.
sotomayor
Ricci
Schuette v bamn
covid vax mandate
"We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”
That’s when Sotomayor interrupted him to assert “those numbers show that omicron is as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did.”
Scalia was a DEI hire.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/supreme-court-breyer-scalia.html
Reagan was already sold on Scalia based on his qualifications, before he knew Scalia was Italian.
Yes, I am quite certain that he said, "Scalia. Hmm. Irish? Jewish? Chinese? I just can't tell with a generic name like that."
The two who did not? Sonia "One foot in the diabetes grave" Sotomayor and Ketanji "I don't know what a woman is, but the government should regulate how you define it, P.S. I hate White people except the one I'm married to" Jackson?
Sandra Day O’Connor served less than two years on a state intermediate appellate court, nearly five years as a state trial judge before that. Clarence
ToadyThomas served a mere 19 months on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Before that he had been a state assistant attorney general.At the time of his appointment Thurgood Marshall had served as United States Solicitor General and on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. As a litigator he argued 32 civil rights cases before SCOTUS, winning 29. In that capacity as field general of the civil rights movement, he probably transformed America more than anyone else in the 20th century during peacetime.
Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson each served many years as District Court judges, and Sotomayor served more than ten years on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. (Jackson served one year on the D.C. Circuit.)
The contrast is striking.
Yes the contrast is striking
Sotomayor demonstrated she was unfit for the high court with her stunt in Ricci. She further confirmed her disregard for the constitution, specifically 14A in her Shuette dissent.
Translation: Sotomayor didn't agree with me so she's unfit.
Great. Now let's talk about all Elena Kagan's previous experience as a judge.
“A cottage industry of diversity statement “counseling” has already emerged to offer candidates prefabricated, boilerplate rhetoric.”
Heck with that, just use an AI.
ME: write a dei statement on how a candidate for professor intends to teach his subject
ChatGPT:
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement:
As a candidate for the position of professor, I am committed to fostering an inclusive learning environment where diversity is celebrated, equity is upheld, and every student feels valued and empowered to succeed. My approach to teaching is rooted in the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and I strive to incorporate these values into every aspect of my pedagogy.
Diversity enriches the educational experience by bringing together individuals with unique perspectives, backgrounds, and life experiences. In my classroom, I will actively seek to create a welcoming and inclusive environment that embraces diversity in all its forms, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, ability, and nationality. I will incorporate diverse perspectives and voices into my curriculum, ensuring that all students see themselves reflected in the material and have the opportunity to engage with perspectives different from their own.
Equity is essential for ensuring that every student has equal access to educational opportunities and resources. I am committed to promoting equity in my teaching by recognizing and addressing systemic barriers that may prevent certain students from fully participating and succeeding in the classroom. I will strive to create a level playing field where all students feel supported and empowered to reach their full potential. This may involve implementing inclusive teaching practices, providing accommodations for students with disabilities, and actively challenging biases and stereotypes that may impact student learning.
Inclusion is the cornerstone of effective teaching and learning. I believe that every student should feel valued, respected, and included in the learning process. I will work to create a classroom environment where students feel comfortable expressing themselves, sharing their ideas, and engaging in meaningful dialogue with their peers. I will actively listen to the voices of all students and create opportunities for them to contribute to the learning community. By fostering a sense of belonging and community in the classroom, I will empower students to take ownership of their learning and cultivate a supportive and collaborative learning environment.
In summary, my teaching philosophy is grounded in the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I am committed to creating a learning environment where every student feels valued, respected, and empowered to succeed. I will strive to incorporate diverse perspectives into my curriculum, promote equity through inclusive teaching practices, and foster a sense of belonging and community in the classroom. Together, we can create a learning environment where all students can thrive and reach their full potential.
At last, a good use case for AI. I especially like the pseudo-academic writing style, and the multiple repetitions of the mantra words and magical incantations. Well done!
{comment cast into the outer darkness}
It (anti-racism movement in general) inhaled a lot of things from religion, but they are the powerful things that made religion rotten, like “if you are not with us, you are against us” and confessions and original sin you inherit and standing around on the corner praying where people can see what a good-o person you are.
Quite genius, actually, because it's proven to work.
Well in that case you'd better denounce DEI good and loud, quick! Hurry or they'll accuse you of wokeness! Brainwashed by CRT!
Is any movement so righteous they can bypass persuasion and properly use tricks like these?
Seems to be working for them. Which means righteousness is not a necessary factor.
'I'ma compare the ideologies I don't like to a cult' remains a pet peeve of mine.
It's not engagement, it's just a really long way to say 'my telepathy says you're unreasonable.'
I believe this also applies to MAGA, because cults of personality are not cults.
"I am a scholar on the left committed to struggles for social justice. The realities surrounding mandatory DEI statements, however, make me wince."
He literally included a DEI statement in his op-ed about DEI statements being bad.
"If you aren't with us, you are against us."
'Anyone with a DEI statement is against us.'
That's not what that is - that is establishing context so he can lean on making a declaration against interest.
It's a pretty common rhetorical device, surprised you missed it.
That's not a DEI statement. Of course you didn't know that.
It declares that "I am not a conservative (who can be safely disregarded)." In that sense, it is analogous to a DEI statement.
Also, like a DEI statement, it is patently offensive.
Abolishing the pledge of allegiance seems like an excellent idea. It's wildly creepy and (at least borderline) unconstitutional.
I believe we fought and won a war in order to not have to care about what Europeans think.
Everyone is already aware of your ignorance regarding history.
I don’t think the celebration of simple generic virtues at a basic level like allegiance to the country you are living in is that bad because the nationstate is an inescapable fact of life and accepting that people in the same nation have to work together as a team makes things run more smoothly.
But we don’t have to and shouldn’t accept woke racism, mutilation of children, and, other things sjws champion.
I like some tribalism!
Making children recite a specific formula every day as if they were living in Maoist China is a lot more than "the celebration of simple generic virtues".
Kids recite the pledge. (Or opt out) and go on with their lives. Thats a lot less intrusive then the constant brainwashing they are subjected to in school and through media for the SJW cult.
Your apparent willingness to tolerate absolute fucking nonsense in our Pledge of Allegiance, coupled with your objection to anything that might threaten conservative bigots, positions you as a worthless culture war casualty awaiting replacement by your betters.
Do you think our national pledge should have been revised to include childish superstition and silly nonsense?
Would you remove that ridiculous nonsense from our Pledge of Allegiance?
And I won't even get you started with the "indivisible" part.
Oh no, corporate-style ass-covering HR statements, the new threat to western civilisation. Planes are falling out of the sky! Bridges are collapsing! Trains filled with deadly chemicals are exploding! Because of DEI!
Yeah - no one in my pretty liberal set of law school friends who has made it to academia will cry much if those go away.
It's not quite a strawman, since administrators seem to like them. If folks want to hit the drama button, I mean, I won't stand in their way.
If DEI is the wrong thing to do, people shouldn’t do or encourage it, not pat themselves on the back because "at least we're leaving the bridges and planes alone!"
If DEI were a good thing, you wouldn’t accept a mocking “argument” that since it doesn’t cure cancer, it should be abolished.
If DEI were this, if DEI were that, anything besides what DEI actually is versus how it is being monstered by the right.
This post is about Randall Kennedy’s criticism of DEI.
Looking over Randall Kennedy’s Wikipedia page, he seems more of a maverick leftist than a rightist.
But maybe any leftist who flunks purity tests is automatically on the right?
(and this is assuming there’s a rigid binary so that you’re either right or left)
I'm guessing Gunnery Sergeant Hartman wouldn't make it
"There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless."
Frank
Anyone still on the fence concerning whether Mr. Drackman is Prof. Volokh's favorite commenter?
Semi-related news: There are four major studies claiming that DIE enhances corporate profitability. None of the four could be replicated. It's a 'quasi-replication' because McKinisey refused to provide their data sets, or even identify the firms studied. Possibly for legitimate reasons, the study author says.
Brett, this isn't the smoking gun you think it is.
It seems to be a couple of clingers writing in a conservative journal that they don't think diversity is as beneficial as McKinsey has reported . . . without giving McKinsey an opportunity to respond, according to the right-wing journal.
Where does this source say there are "four major studies claiming that DIE enhances corporate profitability?"
Read the abstract, maybe?
Can you point to where in the abstract that is said?
The first sentence, just after the comma.
Stanford's Founding Grant says the institution's objective is to "promote the public welfare." Sounds ideological to me. If Stanford asked faculty to show how they met the institution's objective here, how is that different?
Fair enough point.
For example, one might think that a political speech calling for a ban on Japanese immigrants would not be in the public interest. Stanford's widow certainly didn't think it was. Yet when the university got the professor who made the speech fired, it spurred the modern academic-freedom movement.
https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05/01/origin-story-academic-freedom/
Bottom line: Even out-and-out racism is covered by academic freedom. And if racism of the *real* variety is covered, then presumably academic freedom also protects lack-of-diverse-thought.
Or at least the professor was induced to resign, maybe not fired.
What a very lame article. It acknowledges the goals of DEI statements as being "laudable," criticizes them as being problematic, and then... that's it. Are we supposed to go back to racism and prejudice? What's your better solution, Randall with two Ls? Can we fix the flaws you identified with DEI statements? Do we have to abandon DEI entirely just because the statements have problems (a scenario that he gestures towards)? And replace it with what?
No solutions means you're just a grievance peddler. We have enough of those already.
We can support the basic goals without requiring a loyalty oath. There is nothing inconsistent about that.
I didn't say it was inconsistent. I said it was incomplete. By what means can we support the basic goals? Apparently loyalty oaths -- and DEI as a whole? -- are out. What's in?
Again, if you have no answer to that then you're either a racist who doesn't actually agree with the basic goals or a grievance peddler whose goals are more about stoking anger than they are about solving problems.
By being a decent human beings and not discriminating on the basis of race, sex, etc. That includes "positive discrimination" against white people or Asian students too. We don't need loyalty oaths to do that.
It's not complicated - we also don't need expensive programs or diversity administrators with $200k salaries. Simply enforce non-discrimination policies, that's it.
"Anti-racism just repeats the racism, it doesn't remove it."