Washington Post Criticizes Diversity Statements in Higher Education

An excerpt from yesterday's editorial:

[J]obseekers who disagree with the ideological premises of such inquiries have an overwhelming incentive to suppress their true beliefs, or pretend to have the "right" ones, lest they be eliminated from consideration. It's a dilemma, especially given the high stakes: As the University of California at Davis's vice chancellor for DEI explained, "In these searches, it is the candidate's diversity statement that is considered first; only those who submit persuasive and inspiring statements can advance for complete consideration." In one faculty search at University of California at Berkeley, around 75 percent of applicants were screened out of consideration — irrespective of criteria such as teaching ability and research skills. Small wonder that many applicants engage in what Daniel Sargent, a history professor at UC Berkeley, calls "performative dishonesty."

The last thing academia — or the country — needs is another incentive for people to be insincere or dishonest. The very purpose of the university is to encourage a free exchange of ideas, seek the truth wherever it may lead, and to elevate intellectual curiosity and openness among both faculty and students. Whatever their original intent, the use of DEI statements has too often resulted in self-censorship and ideological policing….

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

DEI is a lie in itself. Lying about a lie, is that really a lie? If DEI said the sun rose in the west, and you claimed to go along with that, do two lies make a truth?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is Justice Thomas' assertion that he avoids hiring candidates from better schools and strives to hire candidates from lesser schools, if not a perverse DEI program?

What is affirmative action for right-wingers (in faculty hiring, in clerk hiring, in admissions at certain schools) if not a bizarre DEI project?

Carry on, clingers.

[Don Nico]

A lie is not a lie when the truth is not expected

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't even intelligible. It's like saying 'Accounts receivable is a lie.'

Or, more closely, it's like spewing bile because you hate something more than you like making sense.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

But I finally got a response from you that's halfway sensible. You're learning.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll take it!

[Ed Grinberg]

the alphabet dude: "DEI is a lie in itself."
Sarcastr0: "This isn’t even intelligible. It’s like saying ‘Accounts receivable is a lie.’"

Not only is what he said intelligible, it's absolutely true.
"DEI connotes a set of highly contestable social and political views." (source)
"...the so-called diversity statements, where job applicants have to submit not only a statement of their research project, their teaching philosophy, but also their commitment to diversity, which in practice means endorsing a certain canon of beliefs, that there is systemic racism, that its only remedy is racial preferences, that racism is pervasive, that it is the only cause of any disparity in racial proportions." (source)

[Sarcastr0]

Your source is an opinion piece by John Sailer, who has made a business out of raging against DEI.

Diversity statements are silly, but 1) they do not necessarily require saying there's systemic racism (I know some profs who have had to write them), and 2) are not the same thing as DEI.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This piece attacking DEI comes from somebody who attacks DEI! That disqualifies it!"

Yeah, that remark was literally that silly.

[Sarcastr0]

"DEI is a lie in itself" is fact or maybe opinion.

If fact: you cannot bolster it with some Internet guy's opinion.
If opinion: you cannot bolster it with some Internet guy's opinion.

If you think the opinion provides good arguments, say so and provide those arguments. Ed does not excerpt any arguments at best ipse dixit, and at worst just a lie about what diversity statements must entail.
From what he's shared in this thread, it looks like Ed just likes it when people he reads on the Internet agree with him and wants to share.

[Purple Martin]

Ed, although VC quoted only a section of the WaPo editorial condemning mandatory DEI statements in the hiring process, it also contained the logic of why that's not condemning all of DEI. It's well worth reading in full but, since you disagree with it so there's no chance of you doing that, here's the relevant part:

...the Massachusetts Institute of Technology became the first top university to voluntarily end their use. The decision came after extensive consultations among all six of the school’s academic deans. MIT’s president, Sally Kornbluth, explained: “We can build an inclusive environment in many ways, but compelled statements impinge on freedom of expression, and they don’t work.”

In doing away with DEI statements, MIT was not abandoning the goals of greater diversity, equity and inclusion, which remain not only valid but also vital. DEI programs can have an important place. They should not be abolished or undermined — as red states such as Florida and Texas have done, by forbidding the use of state funds for DEI in public universities. Reshaping universities via such a heavy-handed use of state power could set a dangerous precedent for academic freedom more generally.

And yet as a specific policy, DEI statements advance their declared objectives at too high a cost...

[Lee Moore]

Accounts receivable often is a lie.

[Purple Martin]

OK, that's funny. Voice of experience?

(I was the Infosec advisor on a lot of Merger & Acquisition due-diligence project teams, and learned both the accounts receivable and Infosec maturity descriptions of acquisition targets were not always, ummm, entirely truthful.)

[Bored Lawyer]

DEI is a lie the same way "Arbeit Macht Frei" or "Democratic Republic of _____" were lies. They are feel-good labels meant to distract from a sinister reality.

[John F. Carr]

The link in this sentence doesn't work for me (browser hangs trying to load the page). "In one faculty search at University of California at Berkeley, around 75 percent of applicants were screened out of consideration". The question I have is, what fraction of the candidates with bad diversity statements would have been hired otherwise and what fraction of the candidates with good diversity statements were hired?

[kkoshkin]

Those are fair questions, but the better questions would be:

1. What fraction of candidates who felt free to write candid DEI statements (which could be "good" or "bad" in the eyes of the application reviewer) would have been rejected despite otherwise favorable professional qualifications?

2. What fraction of candidates who felt free to write candid DEI statements (which could be "good" or "bad" in the eyes of the application reviewer) would have been offered positions despite otherwise negative professional qualifications?

My guess is that the answers would be, respectively, many and few. Which shows DEI statements to be at odds with (or at the very least, irrelevant to) staffing academic positions with qualified academics.

[Don Nico]

John,
Since DEi was a screen, other job qualifications were not looked at. Therefore your question cannot be answered in any objective manner.

[Longtobefree]

What higher education needs is a system where the student gets credit for a course when he passes the test for that course.
Teachers charge by the session to provide instruction, but have nothing to do with administering the test. After the first semester, the good teachers will be known, and the diverse idiots will have starved.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Also, legitimate, reason- and reality-based mainstream schools should reject students and especially faculty members (1) so gullible and ignorant they believe fairy tales are true and (2) so lacking in character that they are bigoted toward gays, women, Blacks, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, etc.

[Krayt]

College is famous for leading people away from that stuff.

[Kleppe]

In #1 you attack religious people and in #2 you bemoan people who are "bigoted" towards Muslims and Jews. It must be so difficult being you.

[Ed Grinberg]

From the movie Annie Hall (source):
"I'm a bigot, I know, but for the left."
(Which, of course, makes it OK.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When right-wing judges indicate they will engage in a version of diversity, equity, and inclusion (by deliberately seeking candidates from lesser schools, or by boycotting candidates from certain schools, or by choosing clerks for publicly funded positions based by viewpoint discrimination), they are lauded by conservatives.

When conservative-controlled schools engage in viewpoint-driven discrimination in everything from hiring and firing to admissions and discipline, conservative fight strenuously to preserve safe spaces and special privileges for bigots and for those who favor certain ideology (including nonsense).

When schools indicate they wish to pursue similar endeavors (perhaps by seeking candidates who will be open to minority perspectives, or maybe even by disfavoring bigots), though, conservatives rant and whine relentlessly.

Carry on, clingers.

So far as better Americans permit.

[mike petrik]

Did you enjoy DEI in the Young Pioneers?

[Currentsitguy]

We run an executive recruiting agency specializing mostly in Director to Board level positions for medium to large corporations. I can tell you the last thing when searching for a client is the name of the school on their diploma. We are interesting in concrete achievements and facts. Very little of that has to do with the alma mater.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That sounds like pure bullshit. Law firms, for example, do not regard Ohio Northern, South Texas, or Cooley resumes as indistinguishable from Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, or Penn degrees. Except maybe in the uneducated, desolate backwaters in which you reside.

[Currentsitguy]

We are in electrical generation, transmission, and distribution as well as mid market manufacturing.

Our clients care about what you have successfully built, not where you went.

Out here in the real world what you achieve matters.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Dr. Raymond Stantz : Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've WORKED in the private sector. They expect *results*. "

[Drewski]

If you don't screen for diploma mills, you're incompetent.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they're hiring for director and board level positions, they're not hiring people directly out of college. So it's perfectly sensible for them to totally ignore institutional credentials and only examine work history.

If somebody's got a good work history, why would you CARE if they got their degree from a diploma mill?

[Currentsitguy]

Exactly. I want to know how that electrical transmission line you built or designed went. How is the track record on the ASME Certified pressure vessels you engineered in regard to weld integrity? How do you calculate line sag per mile into your materials estimate?

No one gives a damn where you went or what fraternity ring you wear. We leave that to the unreal, unserious world of government and law.

[Randal]

DEI statements seem to be being abused... which isn't so surprising, anything in the form of a mandatory statement isn't starting out on a good track record.

Still, competence with the principles of DEI is part of being a good educator... just like other soft skills. I'm sure they can figure out how to interrogate and account for that competence in the hiring process in more of a normal way.

[Don Nico]

"competence with the principles"
Randal,
I don't know what you mean by that.
If you mean, that a person with a well-developed sense of fairness and equity, I have no argument. However, I suspect that many DEI bureaucrats mean a lot more than that.

[Randal]

That and being able to realize the value in having diverse viewpoints. Not someone who only calls on the white boys out of fear.

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of DEI is just meeting people where they are.

[Michael P]

So you think schools should work to involve more people with minority opinions? How far does that go: KKK members? Nazis?

[Randal]

KKK members and Nazis aren't protected classes nor immutable characteristics, imbecile.

[Sarcastr0]

However, I suspect that many DEI bureaucrats mean a lot more than that.

You shouldn't make up what you suspect many of those in group you're already hostile to actually think.

It's basically an invitation deceive yourself.

[Don Nico]

You know, you are full of crap.
You know nothing of what I know about DEI bureaucrats or my work with them.
You assume I am hostile to a group based on what? Your baseless assumptions?
You are quite the mind reader. You just make up lies and spew out nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

You know nothing of what I know about DEI bureaucrats or my work with them.

I don't. But I do know that if you generalize based on your personal experience, you're wallowing in fallacy.

Why do I assume you're hostile to DEI? Because I've read your comments on this blog!

[Don Nico]

“wallowing in fallacy.”
speak for yourself.

I don't buy your mind reading. What I am hostile to is mandatory “loyalty oath” of all kinds.
I was doing, while you were still in diapers. As an example I'll share with you my comments to my employees in the organization that I managed in 2001:
–Raise awareness of the many topics concerning diversity in the workplace
–Improve recruitment of female & under-represented minorities in technical staff
–Increase the pool of qualified scientific applicants
–Improve the work environment for administrative & clerical staff
–Insist on civility & respect toward all

[Sarcastr0]

You did not limit your comment about DEI bureaucrats to diversity statements; you made a general statement about their character.

I'm glad you were so woke in 2001, or whatever. I'm talking about your comments right now.

[Don Nico]

I was not woke in 2001. I demanded equitable treatment for all employees and potential employees. No one complained. Do you see the difference?

I did not make a general statement about their character; that is typical of your distortion to the point of dishonesty.
I did say by their actions (required loyalty oaths and the like) that they asked more than people been fair and equitable towards all.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "If you mean, that a person with a well-developed sense of fairness and equity, I have no argument. However, I suspect that many DEI bureaucrats mean a lot more than that."

This is a general statement about the character of 'DEI bureaucrats.' Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

You sure sound woke to me with your diversity awareness raising and targeted recruitment of minorities and women. So no, I see no difference from what a lot of DEI offices do. It's almost like woke and even DEI don't mean anything except 'bad' to a certain set nowadays.

[Purple Martin]

Those are not comments. They're HR goals, undoubtedly incorporated in the objectives section of your performance appraisal, as you were required to include them in your appraisals of others.

Were there success metrics? C'mon, how'd you really do?

btw, I'd give you some of the performance report comments I did for organizations I managed in the 1980's, 1990's, 2000's and 2010's but they're among the files I got rid of when I retired in 2017 and we moved to a much smaller house.

[Scooter]

There's nothing 'diverse' about DEI, the adherents almost universally fall along the same side of the political spectrum. There's nothing 'inclusive' about it either; otherwise they wouldn't require statements of support. Equity is an ignorant concept for anyone who's gotten past second grade.

[Ed Grinberg]

“I have nothing against diversity, equity, and inclusion. But as Voltaire said about the Holy Roman Empire: it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Diversity, equity, and inclusion imposes an intellectual monoculture. It favors certain groups over others. It has a long list of offenses that mean you can be excluded.” (source)

[Sarcastr0]

Do you just think because someone said it on the Internet it's true?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he just went for a pithy expression of what anyone can see is true.

[Absaroka]

It seems like an accurate quote from Steven Pinker. Is there some reason I should believe his opinions on the nature of DEI in academia are less accurate than yours?

[Sarcastr0]

A priori, the same accuracy.

But I do think my argument has some force, however, in that it’s an argument from variation and not generalization.

DEI is a broad concept being executed tons of different ways in tons of different institutions. I think I’m on pretty firm footing when I say that DEI will be executed well or badly or in between depending on all sorts of things.
So absolutely take on diversity statements or trainings or a particular concrete practice, that's something you can criticize. But just 'DEI bad' is not a coherent statement.

Just in general as a way to be, it's a pretty good baseline that you should not generalize about based on anecdotes, especially from partisan anecdote-farms.

The anti-DEI folks have ipse dixits or at best a single example.

[Absaroka]

"A priori, the same accuracy."

That seems unlikely. He is on the faculty at Harvard, and so seems better positioned than you to know the inside baseball of DEI in academia than someone not inside academia.

Also, he isn't some internet rando. You and I are.

[Sarcastr0]

Argument from authority is a fallacy for a reason.

If he's got inside baseball, he should share it as part of how he supports his position.

[Absaroka]

Seattle resident: "It rains a lot in Seattle"

Sarcastro: "Invalid appeal to authority. If you have inside knowledge of Seattle's weather, post it"

[Purple Martin]

Depends on the individual Seattle resident's knowledge of how much it rains in other places...

While folks in the Pacific Northwest often brag about the wetness of their cities, New York—which averaged just under 50 inches a year in the 1981-2010 period tracked by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—easily bests Seattle (37.7 inches per year) and Portland (36 inches per year)

...and what you're looking for with "rains."

On average, Seattle only gets 37 inches of rain over 165 days... For comparison, Houston gets 54" in 99 days and New York, 50" over 122 days.

Same caveats apply when attempting any appeal to authority. Steven Pinker is one of those public intellectuals, described most often as a cognitive scientist at Harvard University. The referenced quote is a snippet from a lengthy podcast interview and was in reply to a specific question about the Harvard president controversy (how quickly we forget), not as a condemnation of all DEI.

Here's one that seems more representative of his broader views. It could be easily used in support of broader DEI goals and practices, but per the topic of this VC post, against compulsory DEI statements in academic hiring:

No one is infallible or omniscient. Mortal humans begin in ignorance of everything and are saddled with cognitive biases that make the search for knowledge arduous. These include overconfidence in their own rectitude, a preference for confirmatory over disconfirmatory evidence, and a drive to prove that their own alliance is smarter and nobler than their rivals.

The only way that our species has managed to learn and progress, is by a process of conjecture and refutation: Some people venture ideas, others probe whether they are sound, and in the long run the better ideas prevail.

[From Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.]

[Absaroka]

"Depends on the individual Seattle resident’s knowledge of how much it rains in other places…"

Ever spent a winter in Seattle?

I've lived in South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington, and Germany for periods of a couple of years or longer (and several other states for shorter periods).

In most of those (including Eastern Washington!), 'rain' means a relatively short period - maybe an hour or two - of relatively high intensity rain, like a quarter inch or more. None of them are even in the same league as a Seattle winter where you go for weeks or months of constant drizzle/fog/rain (by contrast, Seattle has glorious cool dry sunny summers while Texas and Maryland are getting lots of inches of rain in relatively brief thunderstorms).

Saying 'it doesn't really rain much in Seattle' is not something you'll hear from anyone who has spent a winter there.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd trust Pinker if he had an opinion about Harvard DEI. If he said it happened to him. That is an actual factual statement.

But no, he is not an expert on DEI nationwide and any opinion he presents without support is just his opinion, man.

[Purple Martin]

Absaroka, ask me how much rain we get in Seattle and I’d say substantially less than most Southeast, Northeast, and Midwest cities. And I’d be right, because I work on facts, not unvalidated anecdote.

Ask me how often it rains in Seattle and, for the same reason, I’d say, rarely in the summer (blue skies and highs in the 70s are most common), but most of the fall, winter and spring.

We retired from Langley AFB, VA in 1996 and returned to Colorado. On final retirement in 2017, chose to return to the South Puget Sound area, our favorite of the meteorological & societal climates anywhere we’ve lived (Air Force, late 80’s/early 90s).

Credibility around judging climate trade-offs stems from both:

•Permanent residence (longer than a year) in Northern & Southern Idaho (huge climate difference btw); Phoenix AZ; Colorado Springs, CO (twice); Minot ND; Washington DC; Northwest WA (twice); Hampton, VA; Brindisi, Italy; Okinawa, Japan.
• At least two instances (typically more) in different seasons, of month-or-longer business residence in SF Bay area CA; Biloxi MS; Boston MA; Montgomery AL; Heidelberg Germany; Frankfurt, Germany; King Faud Air Base, Saudi Arabia; Brussels, Belgium; Osaka, Japan; Tokyo, Japan (many more single instances or under a month in many other States and several countries).

So, best climate for:

• Sun: Colorado Springs. Averages fewer than 50 cloudy days per year. High elevation but south of the Northern-tier states—helps moderate summer and winter extremes.
• Balance year-round: Puget Sound. Four distinct seasons but moderate temps: average low/high mid-30s/50s winter; 50s/70s summer.

What we refer to as The Long Dark—most days cloudy with off-and-on light rain/drizzle (and fog less often)—goes from October through April (the occasional sunny winter day is extra-valued as an unexpected treat).

I like my South Sound climate better than anywhere else I’ve lived, plus can get a quick climate change with little more than an hour’s drive West to the coast or East to the mountains (two hours to the Yakima Valley wine country). Summers are delightful and winters are fine and winters don’t stop anything (I play near-daily intermittent-drizzle disc golf all winter).

Back to the point…if it’s important to be right, don’t just believe me. Without further validation, don’t just accept anecdotal climate accounts of either weather or DEI just because you assume (Seattle rain) or really want them (DEI) to be true.

[Absaroka]

"because you assume (Seattle rain)"

I'm not assuming, I lived there for 30 years.

This is a place that attracts quibblers, I get that. But that someone would disagree with 'it rains a lot in Seattle' ... that's not one I would have guessed.

[Purple Martin]

…yet you either didn’t know or can’t seem to acknowledge that much of the United States gets substantially more rain than Seattle, an example making your utterly confident, Dunning-Kruger influenced, anecdotal testimony unreliable. And not in just this of course, but in everything (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus) of which you claim vast knowledge.

Like, say…What is sex? and What is DEI and )everyone who doesn’t acknowledge my superiority is an idiot.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's not argument from authority, you nitwit. It's argument from personal experience. A professor at a university has direct experience of what goes on there.

[Purple Martin]

It's still an argument from authority. "Direct experience" can be a justified part the authority's 'credentials,' or irrelevant anecdote not applicable to the issue in question.

Either way, it doesn't change the nature of the appeal.

[Sarcastr0]

I expect I could find a Harvard faculty member all in on DEI. Could I just say their opinion is legit because of their lived experience?

No, - Pinker's personal experience cannot cash this check: "Diversity, equity, and inclusion imposes an intellectual monoculture. It favors certain groups over others. It has a long list of offenses that mean you can be excluded."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"How will you work to promote the 39 Articles of the Anglican faith?"

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/193368/the-false-religion-of-wokeness/

[Armchair]

The race and gender characteristics of the applicant pool in the UC Berkeley search changed substantially after qualified candidates were initially evaluated on the basis of their diversity statements. The representation of women increased from 42 percent of applicants to 64 percent of the finalists.,The representation of Blacksincreased from 3 percent of applicants to 9 percent of the finalists; and the representation of Hispanics increased from 13 percent of applicants to 59 percent of the finalists. By contrast, the representation of Asian Americans dropped from 26 percent of applicants to 18 percent of the finalists, and the representation of Whites decreased from 54 percent of applicants to 14 percent of the finalists(ibid.)

"The representation of Whites decreased from 54% of applicants to 14% of the finalists"

If that isn't a racially disparate impact, I don't know what is*.
*Technically racially disparate means "unintentional." This may have been intentional racial discrimination.

[Absaroka]

Those are some pretty stark numbers!

For others: the numbers are from the article linked as 'around 75 percent'.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

"The last thing academia — or the country — needs is another incentive for people to be insincere or dishonest". It's basic game theory that anything you can put in an application packet is "cheap talk". Both "pro-"diversity and "anti-"diversity applicants infer that departments want a diversity statement that says XYZ, and so they write it. The alternative is that you try to evaluate a substantive commitment to diversity, e.g. by requiring that profs have an established record of ABCD in grad school. And that just makes it a costly signalling game instead. Harder to fake, but still possible as long as the payoff for faking your type exceeds the cost of doing so. Again, none of this has anything to do with diversity statements and is just basic game theory and can apply to anything you ask of hiring candidates.

Here's a non-political example. Tech companies want to hire programmers who have experience with algorithms and data structures, because this is useful as a programmer. So they implement a test to test algorithms and data structures. So every applicant, even those who have no grounding in algorithms and data structures, knows they need to fake grounding in algorithms and data structures. So there are websites like "leet code" that are designed for programmers to be able to "hack the test" enough to pass a job interview. So every programmer uses those websites. But being able to pass the test under these conditions has no bearing on your subsequent employment performance, so it's basically just a nuisance tax that you pay to go on the programming job market (and paradoxically it rewards the leetcoders more than people with actual grounding in data structures in algorithms)

If the argument is "departments shouldn't prize DEI" then fine, whatever. If the argument is "diversity statements don't achieve DEI" then I agree but getting rid of them doesn't help either because of the broader cheap talk problem in applications and evaluations.

[Brett Bellmore]

My employer literally had me write a test to screen job applicants for CAD positions. Honestly, anybody could pass it after a five day class in CAD. Same thing I suppose, all it screened for was people who couldn't be bothered. But to be fair we did once hire somebody who was only good at bullshitting, and getting rid of him was a pain, and it would have eliminated him.

[Bored Lawyer]

The very purpose of the university is to encourage a free exchange of ideas, seek the truth wherever it may lead, and to elevate intellectual curiosity and openness among both faculty and students.

LOL. That's NOT what the proponents of DEI think.

[Sarcastr0]

Before you denigrate the whole safe space idea, I would point you to what people are saying about the anti-Israel protests and Jewish students.

Is your idea of elevating openness and seeking the truth still at the forefront, or is some DEI creeping in?

[Don Nico]

Whataboutism at its finest.

[Randal]

It's not whataboutism when Bored Lawyer himself is on both sides.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying BL's argument is wrong Don, that'd be whattaboutism. I actually agree with his thesis.

I'm saying he's inconsistent.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "the whole safe space idea"
It's "safe space" for some, unpunished calls for genocide (and, occasionally, physical assaults!) for others.
Judge Solomson spells it out:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/20/title-an-interview-with-judge-matthew-solomson-about-the-columbia-boycott/

[Bored Lawyer]

My comment has nothing to do with safe spaces. It has to do with the view of academia exemplified by DEI -- its purpose is not to promote critical thinking, but indoctrination into a certain worldview. This is not new -- in the 1980s, when I attended a certain Ivy League school, one professor required students to write papers only according to his view. But DEI and other leftist ideologies have made it pervasive in many places.

Since you mentioned safe spaces, I agree that SOME of the complaints by Jewish students amounts to being offended by views they don't like. Which is to be blamed on the academic climate they are in. As EG points out below, it's the double standard that rankles -- if a professor reads Huckleberry Finn, there are protests, but if students celebrate the Hamas actions of October 7 or call for genocide of the Jews, that's free speech.

And, in many cases, the complaints are about things way beyond free speech. In Michigan, six-point stars were carved on the dorm rooms of Jewish students. That's harassment. Or how about the Stanford professor who singled out Jewish students and told them to stand in a corner? (Stanford suspended him, but he appears to still be employed at UC Berkeley. https://africam.berkeley.edu/people/ameer-hasan-loggins/)

And, of course, the selective enforcement by many university administrators is also a scandal. Harvard told the campus Jewish group to take down the menorah at night because it would be vandalized. Do you think they would have the same reaction to an LGBT or civil rights display?

[Bored Lawyer]

Oh, and this just in:
Drexel University anti-Israel campus occupiers demanded that administrators "terminate" its chapters of both Hillel and Chabad, two Jewish student organizations.
https://www.campusreform.org/article/drexel-students-demand-administrators-remove-jewish-student-groups-campus/25491

Do you think Jews on that campus are right to feel uncomfortable? Two Jewish groups are to be banned -- that's what a group of students are demanding. Sounds like the Nazis circa 1930s.

Now the question is what the administration of the university will do in reaction. A strong negative response is warranted, but I am not holding my breath.

[Randal]

Accusations of hypothetical hypocricy are just so lame, I really wish you guys would stop. It’s pathetic.

As far as the claims of actual hypocricy go, there’s a clear distinguishing factor: a nation that uncontroversially claims to represent Jews is being credibly accused of war crimes at the UN relative to an ongoing conflict. That is relevant context. If there were protests against a nation that represented Black people and it was engaged in a nasty war, then you’d have a valid point of comparison.

You may be frustrated that I’m taking away all your hypocricy arguments. Yup. Try making a substantive case on principle. You can’t, because fundamentally you agree that minority groups have generally been overprotected under DEI.

[Don Nico]

"what people are saying about the anti-Israel protests and Jewish students. "
what they are saying is that direct, physical harassment has to stop. That has little to do with "safe spaces, DEI or anything else

[Sarcastr0]

Selective memory Don? People have been invoking hostile environment, and the anxiety of Jewish students, and the unacceptability of antisemetic signs and chants.

I agree with these people! I'm sure campus sucks for plenty of Jews right now, regardless of their views on Israel. And not due to the small number of physical altercations you can highlight nationwide over the past months.

I think it's obvious that kind of environmental effect matters. For learning, for living, or the school's responsibility to it's students.

But then don't turn around and argue a university should care only about ideas and not about an inclusive environment.

And YOU don't pretend people aren't doing exactly that; that this whole thing on the VC has only been about physical harassment. That's false and you know it.
I could link to those linking chants and signs. Or nutpicking shitty quotes.

See also Texas. Of course, "Abbott pointed to a popular pro-Palestinian chant — “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — as an example of antisemitic speech that incites violence."
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/civil-rights/protests/2024/05/20/487942/student-groups-sue-texas-governor-universities-over-executive-order-on-campus-free-speech/

[Nige]

You think that because the worse, descredited, stupid, internally incoherent and often dishonest ideas that currently drive the right aren't being treated as Serious, it means that statement is wrong. Now you want affirmative action for shitty conservative arguments that can't withstand the mildest scrutiny, what you DON'T want is a movement built on these shitty ideas being studied and examined.

[Ed Grinberg]

"[M]odern academia has become a fundamentally ideological and coercive exercise masquerading as a scholarly and collegial one..." (source)

[Nige]

Openly targeting diversity. Subtext becoming text.