The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Diversity Statements and the First Amendment
My new article on diversity statements in faculty hiring and the First Amendment
In 2024, I was honored to deliver the Roscoe Pound Lecture at the University of Nebraska College of Law. The article based on that lecture is now in print, and until the Nebraska Law Review updates its website with the contents of issue 4 of volume 103 you can find a PDF of the article here.
The article is called "Diversity Statements, Academic Freedom, and the First Amendment." From the abstract:
Diversity statements have become a common component of applications for faculty positions and student admission at universities across the country. They have also become politically controversial, with several states banning the use of such requirements at public universities. The use of diversity statements also raises difficult constitutional questions under the First Amendment at public universities and academic freedom questions at both public and private universities. Although there are versions of such statements that might pass constitutional muster, as commonly designed and implemented the use of diversity statements likely violates both First Amendment and academic freedom principles. Indeed, diversity statement requirements for faculty hiring are inconsistent with multiple lines of constitutional doctrine.
From the introduction:
This Article develops the constitutional case against the use of diversity statements across several parts. Part II describes what is known about how diversity statements are designed and used in universities. Part III outlines the academic freedom principles that are applicable to the use of diversity statements. Part IV reviews the history of the controversy of the use of loyalty oaths in universities in the mid-twentieth century and draws out some lessons from that experience. Part V applies government employee speech doctrine to the diversity statement requirements for faculty positions at state universities. Part VI applies the political patronage doctrine to diversity statement requirements for such positions. Part VII applies compelled speech doctrine to the use of such diversity statements. Part VIII summarizes the argument and concludes.
The thrust of over half a century of First Amendment doctrine is that state universities are to be the home of a wide diversity of thought and that the artificial imposition of intellectual uniformity on state university faculty runs contrary to First Amendment values. When state universities take adverse employment action against scholars, including by denying them employment, on the basis of their political and social ideas, the state bears a very high constitutional burden to justify such action. To sustain such action, the state must be able to demonstrate that it is taking measures that create the least interference with constitutionally protected expression that might be necessary to advance a compelling governmental interest. At the very least, this necessitates that the state be able to demonstrate that policies that burden disfavored political ideas are essential to advancing the genuine educational and scholarly mission of the university. Such speech restrictions should be professionally justifiable and not mere matters of political convenience or preference. Policies that merely serve to reinforce political orthodoxies on college campuses are constitutionally unjustifiable. Taking such principles seriously casts a substantial constitutional shadow over the practice of using diversity statements to exclude from state university faculties individuals with disfavored beliefs and opinions about matters of political and social controversy.
Read the whole thing here.
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
The best use of diversity statements is to help identify places you don't want to be.
Those institutions have probably made several other stupid mistakes.
Class warfare will not work in America, said Trotsky after living in the Bronx in the 1920's for a few months. The lower class has it too good. He had an indoor toilet in winter, for Pete's Sakes.
The Marxist enemy has replaced class warfare with crybaby minority warfare. Same problem. They have it too good here. It will not work. DEI must be crushed for what it really is. It is a movement, promoted by the Chinese Commie party and other enemies of our nation to take down the USA. This methodology was placed in the Congressial Record in 1963.
Zero tolerance for DEI. Cancel all advocates of DEI as agents of Communism. Thanks to the scumbag lawyer profession, 90% of them have achieved by legal cases. The Commies must be cancelled. Before the Commies can be cancelled, the lawyer profession must be cancelled. They are a threat to our nation.
From the book The Naked Communist by former FBI agent W. Cleon Skousen (1958). Congressman Herlong entered them into the Congressional Record — Appendix, pp. A34–A35 (1963).
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to
atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in
atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United
States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist
affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for
war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist
domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the
U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of
Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by
free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the
United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as
negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is
rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government
with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist
leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N.
as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each
other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United
States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic
American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for
socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the
curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party
line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs
or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments,
editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms
of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to
“eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute
shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to
promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them
“censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting
pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures,
radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as
“normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with
“social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for
intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the
schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation
of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate,
old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to
cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as
selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the
teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a
minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian
history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control
over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare
programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the
operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social
agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders
which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health
laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who
oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution.
Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative
influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and
retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are
legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and
special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to
solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations
are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot
prevent the World Court.
Communism is patter to suck in useful idiots so guys like the man who supposedly coined that term can live in palaces as firsts among equals.
You could print a million fancy copies of The Emperor's New Clothes and mail them to every college professor, and you'd probably get more papers about how it is an attack than any reflection.
Commie countries have the biggest wealth disparity of all. Maduro's sister has $5 billion. Venezuelans live in abject poverty. The same is true in Cuba, in North Korea. Ironic.
I support the short cut of decapitating the hierarchies of our enemies. Repeal all laws, regulations, and executive orders prohibiting that now. That includes the politicians, the financiers, the intellectual thought leaders, the religious leaders. Send in the drones. It is legal to kill millions of useful, productive working people, and to bomb $trillions in infrastructure. It is illegal to incapacitated a few toxic scumbags causing all our suffering. Cancel the scumbag lawyers that protect, enable, empower the enemy civilian elites.
The same approach is appropriate in the USA. All woke, all DEI is case. The lawyers are the Commie internal enemy. Arrest the lawyer hierarchy. Try them for treason. Incapacitate them on the spot.
Hey, David N. ChatGPT opposes this. It cites the experience after Saddam and Ghaddafi. The owners of ChatGPT are on the US arrest list. They support devastating but lawful wars. Cancel them.
A diversity statement doesn’t in principal appear to be much different from a loyalty oath.
The Republicans, in the inaccurate sense of home for religious values, have lost their way. Their opposition has integrated the "you are a good person for thinking this stuff" side memes, while the religious types' leaders have devolved into hateful statements that are punchy punchy instead of warm and welcoming.
Some of the very earliest writings on Christianity not in the Bible itself note how those early Christians cared for the sick and old and poor without concern for themselves, and how seductively powerful that was in attracting new converts voluntarily. People ran to it.
Government has completely taken over this land of Good Works. Sociologists noted the growth in big socialist government and the drop in religiosity in Europe are not mere coincidence.
And all religion is left with are angry statements and preaching to the choir. You guys are fucking morons, shocked, shocked you've been contracting for 50 years.
That was ... incoherent. And non-responsive to ReaderY's comment.
"Some of the very earliest writings on Christianity not in the Bible itself note how those early Christians cared for the sick and old and poor without concern for themselves, and how seductively powerful that was in attracting new converts voluntarily. People ran to it."
The Bible indicates that the Christian Church in the first century practiced socialism. Acts 2:44-45 (RSV) states, "And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need."
Acts 4:32-35 (RSV) recites, "Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need."
Today's religious right -- which has become a vassal of the Republican Party -- curiously doesn't talk about those passages of scripture.
This Bible passage supports charitable donations. It does not support expropriation of private property by armed agents of government to redistribute mostly to a 1% party elite. That is just stealing at the point of a gun.
I didn't say that the government in the first century CE practiced socialism. I said that the early Christian church practiced it among its members, including holding all property in common.
Did that actually happen? I don't claim to know. But the writer of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts said that it happened.
And Jesus the Christ did not have a problem with supporting the Roman government. Matthew 22:15-22 (RSV). The apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans:
Romans 13:1-7 (RSV).
It's not ignored - it's simply irrelevant. Everyone conceeds that socialism works fine for small communities where everyone can kee mental track of interpersonal relationships. The limit for such communities is Dunbar's Number (approx 150). So if you're a small, persecuted minority, yeah, sharing everything together is workable. What socialism can't do is scale past that number.
When you try to scale past that number, you get injustice, corruption and lower total production, standard of living, health, etc. Intentionally setting up a system that makes people worse off is evil.
So unless you intend to return society to the preconditions where socialism can work, those historical observations are irrelevant.
I think they're dumb institutional box-checking, and won't be sorry if they go away.
But it's not a pre-written thing like a loyalty oath.
You write how you plan to deal with people different than you in your classroom, and how your background will help with that.
I've helped fomer classmates now law profs write them. They don't raise viewpoint endorsement issues with me, but as I said they are dumb so if that's where the chips gonna fall I'm not going to die on that hill.
"But it's not a pre-written thing like a loyalty oath."
That actually makes it a bit worse, you know. You can't just check the dumb institutional box and then go on as normal, you are forced to actually engage with the dumb institutional requirement, waste substantial time and energy, with your output being examined for the slightest hint that it's insincere.
A check box can be just pro-forma, an essay actually is probing you for agreement.
"You write how you plan to deal with people different than you in your classroom, and how your background will help with that."
As you do with things you don't like, you've created your own version to get mad at.
You write how you plan to deal with people different than you in your classroom, and how your background will help with that.
No, that's the evil leftist version from your weird brain. In real life, institutional box-checking doesn't go anywhere special.
Second quote from Brett should be: "your output being examined for the slightest hint that it's insincere."
That's not how it goes in real life.
"I plan to deal with people different than me in the classroom by treating them exactly the same as I would treat people just like me: By teaching the subject matter. My background in the subject matter will help with that."
Works, you think? Gets you a passing score?
Here's an example diversity statement Amherst provides. The very first words out of the gate are asserting your devotion to DEI; As hints go, that's pretty heavy handed.
I would not hire a professor who had so little inclination to engage creatively with his students.
You wouldn't hire a professor who had no inclination to recite the DEI articles of faith, and fervently.
Take a look at that example diversity statement, and imagine you're faced with it as an example of what you must write, when you're actually an ordinary white guy from an ordinary middle class background, who intends to treat his students without regard to immutable characteristics, just teach the damned subject as best he can.
He would be lying if he affirmed his devotion to DEI. He has no 'diverse background' to recite. He's puzzled about how his students' individual characteristics alter teaching about atomic orbitals.
There's an old joke about the black guy handed a literacy test in the old South, and asked to explain what the paragraph means, he says, "I reckon this means I'm not going to be allowed to vote."
That example diversity statement says to the white guy, "I reckon I'm not going to be promoted."
Yeah. Those are legitimate knocks against you. Your hypothetical white guy has seemingly lived a sheltered, homogenous life. That limited experience / perspective will make him less competent to engage meaningfully with students. It is what it is.
Why not talk about how you married a Filipina or whatever, and how you had to learn to respect cultural differences, but she makes amazing food, blah blah blah, and examples of how you've taken those lessons into your classroom interactions, etc etc etc. It's not that hard.
Really what comes thru here Brett is that you think ordinary middle-class white guys have an inherent right to be hired for jobs even when there are better-qualified applicants.
Randal thinks that not being an ordinary middle-class white guy somehow makes you better qualified. He's pretty transparently treating immutable characteristics as job qualifications.
And that is what we're dealing with here, what motivates the demand for diversity statements: The belief that it's actually a qualification for pretty much any position you might be hiring for, that somebody NOT be a middle class white guy.
Middle-class white guys are fully capable of curiosity and respect regarding different people.
Middle-class white guys who have no curiosity nor respect for different people's perspectives are less qualified to be professors than people who do.
Makes sense?
You seem to think middle-class white guys should get some sort of exception to the job requirements, as if they have a disability. Sorry dude, you have to put in the work, even if you're white.
No, I just don't think swearing fealty to DEI is a valid job requirement.
No, you think engaging with students isn't a job requirement. You said it yourself, embracing
the professor who doesn't give a damn about his students' life stories, he just means to teach them the subject matter
That's all a DEI statement is. A way to evaluate how effectively you'll interact with different students.
DEI statements will go away in their current form, which is a good thing. But the job requirement won't. You would be unhirable.
No, it doesn't work.
Incredible you think that sounds like a professor that anyone would want to hire.
As I said, it's a box checking exercise. That's a low bar to clear; congrats on managing not to clear it.
Note that even if diversity statements have the utility of weeding out self-oriented applicants like Brett who seem too into their own deal to teach anything but a room of their clones, it's still enough makework I don't like them as a policy.
And I'm sure anyone who was truly thought "meeting students where they are is stupid and I hate it" would pretty quickly reveal themselves.
Are you really so wrapped up in the left wing perspective, that you can't imagine anybody wanting to hire the professor who doesn't give a damn about his students' life stories, he just means to teach them the subject matter, and really well, and doesn't figure that the time he skinned his knee in 5th grade has any relevance to anything?
I guess, yes? You don't even really need to hire a person to do the job you're describing. A video can do that job. And an AI can do it while meaningfully engaging with students better than you apparently can.
How has the right-wing viewpoint devolved into "let's just ignore each other as much as possible?"
Yes, your resentment-based pedagogy is not a viewpoint, it's just being a bad prof.
It's okay; that job isn't for everyone. Ducksalad notes you're motivated, but I'm not sure you can keep it professional if someone learns differently from you.
Works, you think? Gets you a passing score?
I understand you were making a point rather than actually applying, and would probably write it differently. However, if you want the literal answer if we got this as your "Statement of Teaching Interests and Philosophy":
- There's actually no problem with the basic sentiment. Like most places we aren't Amherst, and there is no requirement to be "woke". Most of us think the best professors are ones who stick to the subject matter and avoid the whole woke issue in either direction.
- There are some tells in the choice of words. For example: your use of the word "exactly". If it was a real application we'd might think it's a hint of inexperience or a rigid personality: In actual teaching it's neither possible nor reasonable to treat people "exactly" the same. You literally can't give "exactly" as much attention to someone who visits your office as someone who doesn't, and we don't want someone who would treat a student asking to for their cancer treatment to be accommodated "exactly" like someone who's perfectly healthy and just likes skipping exams.
- In the interview perhaps your reply would be "that's not what I meant". OK, we'd ask, what you did mean? Give some examples. And why didn't you give some of those examples in your statement? We asked for a page and you gave us two sentences.
- The brevity and tone of the answer might reveal a person who thinks questions and answers are always simple, and that giving more explanation is weak or unnecessary. That's not a good trait when your job is explaining things to people who don't get it.
- Having said all that, your other comments in here indicate you'd probably be a good engineering professor. You actually enjoy trying to convince people of stuff using analogies and leveraging off their own preconceptions. If you said that in your statement, with a few examples, it would go over well.
"If you said that in your statement, with a few examples, it would go over well."
Except that, again, the very first words of the example diversity statement are, "My commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion..." The whole example just screams, "We want you swearing fealty to DEI, and not in a pro-forma way, and once you have that out of the way, making it clear that you're not a straight white male would be a smart move."
This is, after all, an institution which was openly discriminating against white men just a few years ago, and proudly so. No sensible person thinks they don't still believe such discrimination is the right thing to do, they just were forced to accept that they couldn't openly discriminate.
There it is. The old "everyone else is operating in bad faith" excuse. A very common ailment of the modern right. You might even say they're operating in bad faith!
Well, I don't work at Amherst. If you want to insist they would refuse to hire any straight white males I guess I can't disprove it, although a quick glance at their faculty pages shows some people who at least present as white and male. Perhaps 100% of them are gay.
My answer was for "we" - a state engineering school in TX. Of course DEI statements are illegal here but people who share your mistaken belief in what we're looking for sometimes sneak it into another document, thinking we're secretly wanting to see it.
As for that recommended opener, if you stated "My commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion means treating every student the same regardless of background" it would raise no eyebrows here. Maybe in one of the so-called "studies" programs but contrary to popular belief the "studies" programs don't have veto power over the whole university.
Seriously and sincerely - if you do ever want to go into engineering teaching please don't let fear of the wokies stop you. Coming in and teaching your way is a much better way to fight it than lobbing insults from outside. And there's a severe shortage of applicants who went through the US school system and undergraduate school, and yes, I think that piece of background is something at least some of the faculty in a department should have.
Maybe it's too literal but explaining how you will do something sounds a bit more than a "box checking" exercise to me.
The overall concept seems okay to me.
One website says this:
A diversity statement is a personal writing sample that is an illustration of your past experiences and explains how these experiences have contributed to your personal and professional growth.
https://mankato.mnsu.edu/university-life/career-development-center/student-and-alumni-career-resources/jobs-and-internships/creating-application-materials/writing-a-diversity-statement/
Another one:
Diversity statements usually are no more than two pages and speak to your experience, capabilities, and commitment to working with people from different backgrounds and to advancing a more inclusive, diverse and/or equitable academic environment. You can demonstrate these values through your teaching, research, and service.
https://career.ucla.edu/resources/diversity-statements/
I bow to those who have more experience with this sort of thing but that doesn't sound scary to me. Or stupid. It seems like a mildly helpful exercise. It also is a reasonable qualification for a teacher that they can handle something like that.
Plus, I think it's something a teacher should think about generally.
Opponents find some nefarious aspect to them but on a basic level it sounds rather vanilla. Maybe, that means it is a waste of time, though again, as a concept, it doesn't seem so.
I didn't specify *who* was checking the box - it's the institution, not the applicant. Applicants can and do put work into it.
That's part of why it's dumb - it's makework. That doesn't make it unconstitutional.
I think the question is too easy to game; I don't think it actually tells you anything about the person.
I think the question is too easy to game; I don't think it actually tells you anything about the person.
Okay. I disagree.
The information can provide some insights into the abilities of the person to think things through, including their strategies in teaching diverse student bodies.
There is nothing profound about it. I can see the average company asking a potential employee how they would handle comparable things, including serving the needs of customers.
It's a helpful exercise, if nothing earth-shattering.
The "box checking" depends on how it is handled. It's like when George W. Bush Jr. was warned about something and said, "Okay, you CYA, very good, move along now" or whatever.
Sexual harassment training can be "box checking" if done half-heartedly, too.
Even if the hiring institution does take the review of these statements seriously, I question what content will actually correlate to being better at handling students with different styles of interaction/learning/identity. I give you the threshold question - some winnowing is doable here. But beyond that, I don't think there's a strong enough correlation between this exercise and classroom behavior to rank everyone over the threshold in any useful way.
I've helped people write them. To be fair, they were all pretty liberal. But don't mistake - completing this task was a mercenary endeavor, not a thoughtful or sincere one.
It was pretty different from writing a personal statement, where sincerity is part of the biz.
You seem to think it's useful gatekeeping. I do allow that it gatekeeps a certain kind of unsuited character away. But that kind will out in other areas of the application process. And if they do not, they will out during their probationary period.
Plus, this is not costless - even if the hiring review is, as I suspect, largely ministerial, the writing is also a burden. On every applicant.
I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.
---
I do think reasonable minds can differ - I'm not going to be unable to work with someone into diversity statements. But in my opinion they're not very useful except in saying you did them.
Much closer to loyalty oaths would be the Statements of Faith many conservative Christian colleges require faculty and students to sign.
You don't say.
I don't think the OP here -- which deals with a potential First Amendment issue -- was much concerned with private colleges and universities.
How stupid. Do you think Universities have to hire Nazis?
That depends if Nazism can be considered a religion.
What about diversity graduation requirements at public universities?
How are they different?
Whats the issue here?
If a university has anti-discrimination rules even going beyond what the law requires, what is supposed to be wrong with requiring professors and other employees to say they'll uphold these rules?
The problem is, they're not so much "anti-" as "non-" discrimination rules. There isn't any "going beyond what the law requires", because what the law requires is that you not discriminate.
Once you've pushed discrimination down to zero, there is no "going beyond", because what we're aiming for here is ZERO. And pushing beyond zero discrimination is resuming discrimination.
And that's what we've seen in one "anti-discrimination" policy after another: They're not non-discrimination, (Which is what the law requires.) they're discrimination in the opposite direction, which is just as contrary to the law.
Yeah, it is clear that as they cannot directly discriminate based on race anymore, they've devised a test that it just so happens that more white people will fail and those of color will pass.
How can you bring diversity to the university? Well, I'm a middle aged white guy so I can bring no diversity to the university. The person of color can talk about their experiences growing up with racism and the standard fare and will get a better score.
It would be like if the Little Rock school in 1957 pretended to hire black teachers but gave points to the "correct" answer to the question of what you as a teacher could do to preserve the dominance of the white race.
It is clear!
Man, you and Brett gonna get along super well with this kind of confident vibes-farming.
Look at faculties. Straight white guys doing fine, despite your story here.
These statements are just a shibboleth, used to identify outsiders or enemies.
Diversity statements ? 1A ? WTF ?
Does one need a pass to cross the street ?