The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Diversity Statements Coming to an End at the University of California
Is the experiment over?
The University of California is the godfather of the use of so-called diversity statements in faculty hiring. I have a piece forthcoming at the Nebraska Law Review arguing that such diversity statement requirements for general faculty hiring at state universities violate the First Amendment and violate academic freedom principles everywhere. It seems quite likely that in practice such diversity statement requirements are also used to facilitate illegal racial discrimination in faculty hiring.
The University of California system's board of regents has now put an end to the use of such diversity statements at those schools. This is a truly remarkable development. Not unreasonably, this decision is being put in the context of the Trump administration's extraordinary attack on Columbia University, a move that I think is both lawless and itself a threat to academic freedom. But there's no question that it got the attention of university leaders across the country, and if it encourages some of them to rededicate themselves to their core institutional mission and its central values then at least some good will come of it. So silver linings and all that.
Surely diversity statements are on their last legs in higher ed -- at least until the next Democratic administration comes into power and demands that every university start using them.
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
"and if it encourages some of them to rededicate themselves to their core institutional mission and its central values"
The problem, in a nutshell, is that a rather large faction in the University managements think advancing left wing causes IS the core institutional mission.
What makes you suppose the federal government has either proper power, or competence, to compel university actions to modify "core institutional mission?"
Have you seen the pre-election video of Vance denouncing universities as enemies of America, and calling for systematic attacks on them by government? That seems to be what is happening now. You on board with that?
When you pay a whore, you get a service.
Shocking, I know.
You on board with government attacks intended to degrade the role of universities in American public life? That's what Vance was calling for, explicitly. That's what this is. Do you endorse that?
What "this" is, is the university system re-learning (again) that when you accept the king's coin, you play the king's song.
Fortunately for universities, especially the one's with ridiculous endowments, the remedy is very simple. You say "no, thank you, I don't believe the money is worth doing whatever it is that you're asking". And then they can bask in all that Academic Freedom that they hold so dear.
Didn't actually say they had either, you might note.
What they do have it the proper power to,
1. Respond appropriately when a university advances whatever the hell it thinks it's core mission is by violating federal law.
2. Decide that its not going to in any way support universities with core missions that run contrary to public policy.
IOW, both KKKU and it's photographic negative had better roe the line legally, and expect to get by without taxpayer subsidies.
LOL!
I'm sure this change came after much reflection and soul searching.
Or could it be something else? Maybe something that could impact their bottom line?
Nah, it was soul searching.
It took a century to enforce the 15th Amendment and it will take a century to enforce this -- I suspect we will see something like the "bubbles in a bar of soap" questions instead.
Anyway, they have not put an end to diversity statements. They have stopped mandating them, which is a very different thing.
In particular, it allows for them to draw adverse inferences whenever someone fails to 'volunteer' the no longer mandatory statement. Unofficially an in an undocumented manner, of course.
Yes. Universities will have to lose funding until they stop being so racist and anti-free-speech.
Run!
States' rights FTW!
I think these are silly. But I have enough belief in academic freedom that I don't care for top-down coercion.
Brett, predictably, is fully against academic freedom. Can't own the libs without breaking a few liberties, after all!
Sarcastr0 Libertarian thinks compelled speech is "silly."
It's part of an application packed, drama queen.
Is a personal statement compelled speech?
One of Biden's district court appointees in Washington State was requiring DEI statements from law clerk applicants when she was first appointed. It seems like that should be sufficient grounds for a motion for recusal whenever a party is or is not a member of a protected class.
If I recall correctly, the original listing I saw explicitly called it a DEI statement (I had to google it because I was unfamiliar with the term at the time). This one doesn't use the term, but still requires it: https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/22-WAW-01_Law_Clerks_LJK.pdf
It seems like that should be sufficient grounds for a motion for recusal whenever a party is or is not a member of a protected class.
More evidence when people yell about DEI it's more an undirected fear whites will be oppressed.
It’s wrong to oppress any people of any race because of their race.
Do you disagree?
I do.
Note that this is in response to someone saying a judge should be forced to recuse for requiring DEI statements.
I think that's dumb, but what is your definition of *oppression* that is relevant to that analysis?
"It’s wrong to oppress any people of any race because of their race."
Sarcastr0 Libertarian: "I disagree."
What is your definition of *oppression* that is relevant to that analysis?
My issue is that there is no meeting of the minds on that question.
Under my definition of oppression it's wrong, but you, who spends all of your time grinding your teeth about DEI this and DEI that have a very different definition of oppression.
Assertion: "It’s wrong to oppress any people of any race because of their race."
Sarc: "Under my definition of oppression it's wrong"
You now seem to be indicating that you *do* agree with that assertion, subject to your definition of "oppression." What is your definition of oppression?
(Remember giving advantage to Group A directly results in disadvantage to Not Group A.)
We likely share the dictionary definition. But applying it to facts...well, you're the poster boy for white grievance and I'm a lot more chill so we are not the same.
I mean, I don't think a diversity statement is oppression.
You are all up in arms about compelled speech.
I don't think white people are much oppressed.
You have posted that you disagree.
I don't think race-based admissions preferences are good policy. But I don't think they're oppression.
You would, and I'm guessing here, disagree.
Telling me what I think isn't a substitute for you being clear about what you think, what you mean, what you say.
Again: What is your definition of oppression?
(Not: What isn't your definition of oppression?)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/oppression
A situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom.
Now you can quibble about your next thing.
So we agree: It’s wrong to oppress any people of any race because of their race.
See how easy that should have been?
Somehow I don't think that anodyne statement is what KevinP was getting at, based on the top of the thread.
And also, I'd like you to do something for me. I believe you are a government employee. I'd like you to write a statement about the importance of our nation's laws, and about your personal commitment to the faithful execution of *all* of those laws, regardless of your personal preferences, in everything you do as a government employee. As various factions try to discourage cooperation with the government in enforcing some of its laws, I'm particularly interested in you addressing your personal feelings about that.
In upcoming performance reviews, we want to emphasize fidelity to law and promotion of people who share that commitment.
(There are rumors that ICE officials will be visiting your office next week to meet with managers and discuss some of their enforcement initiatives. EEOC will be coming in too.)
Any problems? Will you do that? Satisfactorily? Honestly?
Is that a "silly" request? Is it sillier than requesting that you write an email each week of your accomplishments? Did you consider that request to be "silly"? Did you consider that to be an innocuous demand?
Do you really find compelled speech silly? I don't believe you do. I think when you use the term "silly," you just mean it's fun to make people say things *you* believe, without regard to what *they* believe. That which you call "silly" is a joke at somebody else's expense. You may think that's funny. I don't.
Seems well within what someone would need to write or talk to when applying for a job.
In our out of the government.
Did you think that would offend me or something?
No. I didn't think it would offend you. I asked you how you would feel about being forced to write that. Is that a good idea? Can you speak from the heart on that, or does deceit flow easily where it gets you around "problematic" facts?
I put a lot of stuff in job application packets I wouldn't care about if I were doing the hiring.
You got real mad when I posted I think the statements are silly, so you know my position.
Sarc: "You got real mad."
I don't think I've ever had feelings of being mad when posting to VC. These emotions you allege are your inflated fantasies of how you affect others.
Seriously...even if I were a person who ever cried over DEI, why would I be crying about it now? Assuming you're still working, that stuff is real in your world (especially in government). In mine, it's just annoying stuff that people I know have to put up with. Do you imagine that I really work up a head of steam over DEI? Over cultural drivel? Seriously, Sarc. It's drivel. Stupid bothers me little. I'm accustomed to stupid.
Try to bring it down to the trivial part of reality that it is. People are taking it all in every day, and learning the scale of B.S. DEI is just one flavor of that B.S. But they're increasingly grasping it as we speak. You, understandably, cling to it. You call it silly. They call it stupid, Sarc. More and more people call it stupid.
DEI is a you thing, Sarc. Not a me thing. You're losing something I never valued.
Writing 4 paragraphs about how you're not mad...
And since you once again say that I'm "the poster boy for white grievance," as I've requested before, please copy and paste what I've written that leads you to believe that.
Let me help you. You have nothing that supports that statement. For me merely pointing out how you like to give preferences to some people over others on the basis of race, that earns me the title of "Poster Boy for White Grievance."
I could call you the "Poster Child for Neo-racist Policies," but there's nothing so distinguished about your race-based preferences.
"Equal treatment without regard to race" is so silly, isn't it? I know that it *really is* to you. It's stupid, actually, isn't it?
You are mad about DEI all day every day.
About minorities getting stuff they didn't earn because of DEI.
This is all your imagination, Sarc. I address your DEI thing and your fantasies about me above.
The anger that you sense is my non-essential contempt for your low-life douchebaggery. But seriously...I got no head of steam over you or your bullshit take on things. You are gnatly.
Apart from First Amendment issues, DEI statements required for employment at public institutions arguably run afoul of Clause 3 of Article VI:
"... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
If required as dogma, contentious political points in DEI statements become a matter of faith, ie religion.
The 14th Amendment, of course, extends restrictions on Federal authority to State governments.
Not everything a person might believe in or be dogmatic about is a religion. Many fans ardently believe their team is going to win the NCAA championship but that doesn’t make them religions.
Basketball fans do not force others to comply with their beliefs.
That's nice, but doesn't challenge my argument, which was what defines a religion.
In my experience, professional sports teams absolutely are religions.
"If required as dogma, contentious political points in DEI statements become a matter of faith, ie religion."
That is simply ridiculous.
How about the feds demanding that part of the curriculum go into years-long receivership—whatever that means? You endorse that?
There should never have been DEI statements in the first place.
I agree.
But I don't like top-down threats to be driving decisions, even those I agree with.
I agree 🙂
moved
I agree.
One of the links is to a NYT article that says:
Diversity statements typically ask job applicants to describe in a page or so how they would contribute to campus diversity. The move away from them, by one of the biggest higher education systems in the United States, comes as the Trump administration escalates an attack on higher education over diversity programming.
I think diversity statements as a general principle are fine & can be useful. DEI is in principle fine & can be useful. Sometimes, it is done in a silly way or even a bad way. What else is new about policies in general? Trump and others, like with "woke," is using it as some general buzzword & it's asinine or worse in various cases.
No, DEI statements promote racial hatred and division.
How do they do that, other than the fact that they remind you how much you hate black people?
They normalize racial hatred by using a history of the wrongdoings of others, described [in part] as race-based, as justification for unequal treatment of people today on the basis of their race.
I don't dispute there's a lot of hate in the world. But if you look at a lot of that right-wing hate, few of them articulate it as hate for black people. Rather, it is contempt for behaviors of people that are often simplistically associated with race: joblessness, criminality, lack of commitment to family, inattention to scholastics.
Take some time to get together and speak to a diversity of black people, and you'll see that contempt for white people is not uncommon. That contempt comes with a litany of stories of history, which if you pay attention, are often warped, conspiratorial, and only slightly peppered with facts (as is common to see from the right these days). But make no mistake about it: it doesn't matter who you are or what you did for many of those people; if you're white, that's the mark of a devil.
And so it is. "White people did evil things. And it is their time to pay Black people back for that." This is a common belief particularly among people who have fed off tripe cast by the CRT intelligentsia. DEI aficionados capitalize on that tripe and people who feed on it, and attempt institutionalize action plans with that belief in front and center. And the Democratic party endorses that belief, in less combative words, but quite in spirit as stated.
"White people did evil things. And it is their time to pay Black people back for that."
Retribution. Not from the ones who did the deeds. A lot of people nurturing that vice, these days.
Promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity is a general thing.
It isn't about a specific type. It can be about any number of things.
The nation has promoted diversity from the beginning. For instance, West Point promoted national diversity, by bringing people from all over the country, not merely trying to find the best and the brightest which might be from limited areas.
Respecting that we are a diverse people is not some horrible thing. It is who we are. The First Amendment honors diversity of views and religions. Why is it a problem to honor that?
Universities welcome diversity. As do other institutions. History and so on involves understanding the various diverse experiences of the population. Everyone isn't the same in all respects. That doesn't erase equal protection.
Equity is also a basic American value. Fairness and equality are basic constitutional values. Furthering inclusion and access is also not a bad thing. Institutions do that in a variety of ways.
Specific methods can be a problem but what else is new?
If the universities really welcomed diversity, then they would have a lot more Trump supporters on the faculty. They hardly have any.
DEI mainly means being anti-white.
Trump: "I love the poorly educated!"
Not at all, Roger S.
Racists promote racial hatred and division.
DEI statements promote racial harmony and unity.
See, we disagree. And learning about that kind of disagreement, and how to handle it, would be a useful piece of college curriculum. Too bad your federal government wants to suppress that kind of learning opportunity, right?
In theory, the phrase "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" could refer to something innocuous or even admirable. In theory, separate but equal could have been equal, too.
Practice has been anything but.
Too true. Way too true.
No. Separate but equal as a government imposition could never have been equal, because mandatory impositions are inherently unequalizing. Unequalizing both for those they get imposed upon, and for their arbitrarily empowered superiors.
Surprised you could not figure that out, with all these years to reflect on it. Had you been the one imposed upon, it would have taken you about ten seconds to get it. Admittedly, people advantaged in that way cherish a tradition never to figure it out. Maybe that's you.
'Separate but equal' could never be equal because nobody who was demanding separate actually wanted equal. Achieving unequal was the whole point of separate.
The problem with DEI is analogous. How do I know this? Because advocates of DEI treat mandated non-discrimination as an attack on DEI. Ergo, in the advocates' own opinion, DEI is discriminatory.
Not one to take anecdotes and do a vibes-based massive generalization, no doubt Brett's done an exhaustive survey of DEI as studied and practiced across US institutions, it's just too voluminous for him to share.
Is it not merely enoigh to affirm compliance with applicable anti-discrimination lawa and internal anti-discrimination policies?