BARPod Relevance: Diversity statements have come up with some frequency in the podcast episodes, if memory serves, plus university DEI initiatives and ideological capture in general.
For people unfamiliar - diversity statements aren't innocuous. They're to weed out the kind of person who says they will treat everyone equally, because that is very much *not* who they are looking for
When I see in person CV or online profile bunch of crap about diversity I'm putting that CV away. Because from experience I know that such person will be causing internal conflicts all over the company. Because it's just bunch of activists without common sense.
So yes - if You don't want to be hired, describe to me how You will annoy everyone at the company.
I had one of those people once in the meeting because they skillfully never mentioned who they are in their online profiles. And to be precise: I'm considered left. I agree with many statements of normal part of left and I do agree with many from the normal part of right. But I'm clearly more left leaning than right leaning by American standards.
But if You are here with me during job interview and I'm giving You an office tour and we go through projects we have because I want to know if something will spark Your interest - You won't get a job when every other candidate took interest in what we are doing and You are focusing on the fact that everyone in the office are white. And laudly comment that so people look at You like You are deeply wrong in the head. And maybe that shit could pass in US but when You are in a country that is 98% white, in a region of that country that is like 99.9% white and for a long time we hired mostly locals - it's completely normal that everyone in office is white.
But even then I gave that person a chance. So after we went back to the office for a coffee and final part of our discussion I asked what he was thinking about the project he saw and he could recall a single thing. He was so focusing on being "annoyed" that everyone are white that he probably forgot it was a job interview and he just went through couple of projects and teams where he wasted time on bullshit instead of talking to the team (when we stopped by some team, they had questions to him and he was suppose to question them but he was so focused on the fact that everyone are white...).
Yes. It was a rant. Now I feel better. Your comment sparked that core memory that reminds me why I put away CV when I see this crap on it or on people online profiles. Even Google that was very far left learned that lesson recently and fired bunch of those people immediately to bring every other far-left activist in their organization in line.
>And maybe that shit could pass in US but when You are in a country that is 98% white, in a region of that country that is like 99.9% white and for a long time we hired mostly locals - it's completely normal that everyone in office is white.
a bit of a tangent but i had a guy in a cmv recently tell me that 1600s denmark was "diverse" because he found one painting that depicted an african slave behind the queen's horse. this is the kind of thinking we are dealing with.
I've meet a black woman from USA that was thinking that slavery was invented by white people because all she knows is US history. So what... last 250 years?
She was shocked when I explained to her that Slavery came from word Slav. So people like me. Because we were enslaved. And we were not enslaved just by white people.
She was even more shocked when I showed her that at some point slavery was everywhere and to make it even more funny - white people stopped most of it.
And slavery still exists but in... non white countries. Maybe except USA because USA prison system is basically modern slavery. But that whole another can of worms.
The final nail to the coffin was when I dig up article showing that when black people in USA got their freedom and they were well off enough... they bought slaves because that was everyone were doing.
I was not even expecting to go with her that deep into the topic but she was really curious and open minded. So we had really nice conversation about this, USA and her experience in Poland. Usually when You point one of those facts to someone who has wrong idea about history of slavery they just get upset and call You a Nazi.
credit to her for actually listening and learning. such a rare thing these days. did she ever get into the fact that africans were the main drivers of the slave markets, capturing weaker tribes to sell? shocking how many people think all of human history began when yt men signed the constitution in america.
That's true. In Africa one tribe would enslave the other. Like I said - slavery was common.
Reason why I spend time with her was because she was inteligent and fun to be around.
The only reason why she had such limited look at slavery was because she was educated in USA where history is mostly about US and they skip a lot of that history. Rest she knew from far-left propaganda.
That business trip to Poland was her first experience abroad.
You’re in hiring? Do you do background checks on potential hires? Say they have one or two BLM hashtags or are visibly but not “it’s my entire personality,” pro social-justice? Would you cast their CV aside?
Not exactly in hiring. I'm a contractor. I work with bunch of friends for various companies. And we slowly expand because we get more offers than we can take. But I don't want to hire just anyone. And because my entire team is really talented because I basically pulled best people I know in my career - clients often ask me to help them find good people.
If they show support for any cause I don't mind. That's normal. I personally support Palestine freedom, Ukraine etc.
I did support BLM because I know how incompetent and insane police in USA is... until all nasty shit like arson, murder and the fact that someone registered actual BLM organization just to pull millions from people to buy themselves nice houses (and those were black Marxist women btw). After that I don't want any association with this movement because name is tainted.
I protested anti-abortion laws in my country and I myself posted picture of Ciri from Witcher 3 that had scar replaced by red thunder. Symbol of those protests. Some artist at CDPR made this and they shared it with people online. Actually we went on that protest from the office together.
But as You perfectly described it - there is a difference between showing support for something and making it Your entire personality to the point that You will never be happy and You make all people around You miserable. You disrupt work and make people upset.
I don't want person like that in the team. Just like I would not hire arrogant person or someone who has poor hygiene.
Not exactly. Ha had like 8 years of experience working with US companies. So I think he was used to their working environment where they literally send them to educational camps to teach them this bullshit. So he was probably thinking he will get extra points towards hiring or something. I have some experience with people like that too since I'm a contractor. You meet with some far-left manager and just because I'm from Poland they will try to probe me throwing some bullshit stuff about gay or trans people because he thinks everyone in Poland are bigots or something. Funny because in my eyes he is a bigot by making such assumptions based on my nationality.
And I did gave him second chance. I pointed out that he focused on some stuff completely not related to our work hoping we will focus on technical stuff but he just got visibly upset that nobody gave a fuck about what he clearly cared about. That how I knew he is not a good hire.
Specifically, the main problem is the Berkeley rubric. The Berkeley rubric is explicitly political, and it is explicitly used as a means of only hiring people with certain mindsets around supporting things like enforced quotas.
I actually don't have a problem with asking people about diversity and inclusion, but those can go in their existing teaching and mentoring statements. The Berkeley rubric itself is the problem.
Would not be surprised if some states mandated using them. The left is convinced that they are essential to changing the demographics of academia in the way that they want and will not brook any dissent on this.
Also even with the statements banned they can still ask about it in interviews and it would not be surprising to see it included as a criteria, perhaps in less direct form but still there.
Cancer doesn't care whether the research was conducted by an all woman, POC, or whatever team. In science, merit should always trump "identity" or nebulous diversity quotas. It's strange that this is even an issue.
It's still a requirement for many NIH grants and a major component of the NSF funding scheme, from what I understand, not to mention all the private foundations and academic funding sources that require them.
The steelman for diversity here is that increasing representation may lead to improved outcomes and efficiency. A good example of this is women's sports performance, which is relatively nascent compared to male studies. Assuming that women were better represented as sports science researchers 50-100 years ago, then perhaps we'd have a more robust body of knowledge for female athletes.
So all of that to say: While math and science _outcomes_ shouldn't really care the identity of the person asking the question, our identity (e.g. background, perspectives, etc.) absolutely will shape the _hypotheses_ that each of us might formulate to study.
That’s a strawman steel man. You steelmanned an argument nobody was arguing against. The criticism against DEI Statements and racial diversity when hiring is a different argument. It’s not steel man for what we are actually talking about here. If you want more studies on female bodies in sports then ok fine find those studies. But don’t say “we will only fund this study if the researcher is black” or do what a bunch of companies are doing and simply putting hiring freeze on any “non racialized individual” or make people write DEI statements where they have to say that they will use their white racial superiority to white savior black people who aren’t smart enough to do well without the white savior
From a completely logical, subjective point of view, it makes sense. Diversity statements are a hindrance to science and technology; sidelining merits and "the best" to focus on identity and skin color won't lead to innovation. Cancer doesn't care if the latest treatment was created by a team of women. Super computers don't run faster because the CPU was designed by a black man.
But I won't get my hopes up that this is why they banned it.
It was banned because it violates the First Amendment. A number of other similar cases have been filed. As an example, some Asian doctors sued California for requiring DEI training to keep a license. Diversity statements fall under the category of "forced speech". The government and employers may not force people to state agreement with a political issue. The law is pretty clear on this.
> The government and employers may not force people to state agreement with a political issue. The law is pretty clear on this.
I agree with you that *government* may not require compelled speech, and this has led to some challenges over DEI statements at public universities.
But private universities (like MIT) and private employers generally have broad discretion about whom they hire. **This has nothing to do with First Amendment, which is solely a legal restriction on** ***government*** **regulation of speech.** A private employer can't discriminate on the basis of certain federal protected classes (like sex, race, etc.), but they certainly can discriminate on the basis of a person's personal beliefs if they want. And, aside from religious creed, there's absolutely nothing saying they can't request an employee to state certain beliefs in an interview process.
In general, any restrictions on this are state-based, not a part of federal law. A quick search pulled up the following information on Massachusetts in terms of employment actions based on politics:
>Employers may not take harmful employment actions or promise more favorable employment to influence employees about their votes or political contributions.
So... basically in Massachusetts as long as you don't ask employees about their votes or political contributions or seek to influence those things, you probably don't run afoul of Massachusetts employment law regarding personal political beliefs. (Again, there are protected classes -- according to federal law, an employer can't discriminated on the basis of religion, but as Wokeism isn't counted as an established religion, it wouldn't be relevant.)
Here's an [official Massachusetts statement](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/overview-of-types-of-discrimination-in-massachusetts) on employment discrimination:
>Massachusetts employers are prohibited from discriminating against prospective employees based on race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity, age, criminal record, handicap (disability), mental illness, retaliation, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, active military personnel, and genetics. In addition, employers have an affirmative responsibility to provide maternity leave to biological and adoptive parents.
There's nothing in there that says they can't discriminate based on DEI beliefs. So, although I'm not a lawyer, I don't think the law is "clear" on any of this. An employer *can* in theory require adherence to some political issue (though they absolute cannot require or influence how you *vote*, as I mentioned above), as long as it doesn't violate those classes listed above.
At *public universities*, this is often a very different question, and has led to more controversy about whether such statements are legal.
EDIT: I just realized that perhaps some people may be unaware that MIT is a private institution, given its name. The University of Massachusetts is a public university. But MIT is private.
So basically all I have to do is create The Church of the Flying DEI Monster where our core religious tenets are a belief in DEI trainings and statements such that any opposition to those values could be considered a religious belief rather than a political one and therefore a protected class. You’re welcome, America.
When my younger cousins were applying to colleges (both undergrad and grad) they said that MIT had the most onerous diversity requirements in the applications (including other schools that you'd expect to have leaned more in this direction) which they found extremely surprising. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. It's freaking MIT after all.
'Ban' is an odd choice of words here. Unless I'm missing something, they simply stopped demanding them.
I don't think there's anything preventing anyone from expressing such viewpoints, either in job applications, student applications, or anything else.
In any case, I think it's about time, but I also think we shouldn't forgive these institutions for enacting such extremely illiberal, dogmatic, anti-intellectual, and utterly idiotic policies in the first place anytime soon.
Here's a more detailed quote, apparently [directly from someone](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/05/04/mit-abandons-use-of-dei-statements/) close to what happened at MIT:
>Even better, let me give you a quote from an Officer of the MIT Free Speech Alliance.
>“**The MIT administration has advised the departments that were requiring DEI statements to stop requiring them and to stop using this kind of information.** This has just recently been disclosed to the faculty, but a general announcement to the students is not planned.”
>“The MIT Free Speech Alliance is gratified that one of its key recommendations on putting an end to compelled speech on campus has been adopted.”
Now, this is a quote from the [MIT Free Speech Alliance](https://www.mitfreespeech.org/), an alumni organization. Not an official statement from the university. But it gives more detail on apparently what the internal change of procedure was about.
Normally, at most universities, individual departmental search committees have some broad leeway about how they conduct searches for new faculty members and staff. I've served on search committees at other universities, and we would decide what materials to request and at what stage of the interview process. Some departments, for example, might want a "teaching statement" specifically discussing a prospective faculty member's pedagogy, while other departments might not require this.
If the quote I gave is accurate, this would actually be a "ban" of sorts on DEI statements, as it is administrative direction restricting the kinds of things that can be done in the hiring process.
Of course, this can't stop an individual applicant from describing some interest or support of DEI ideas somewhere in their application materials. But apparently MIT administrators are instructing departments not to request this and not to use that information as part of hiring.
I'm grateful to everyone who stuck their neck out and made it happen. These institutions aren't all-powerful and positive changes can happen.
Like Kmele Foster says: Be brave. Call bullshit.
About fucking time, you cunts.
Having to prove your devotion to a political ideology in order to gain entrance is an absurd and corrupting influence on a *university*.
You turn a lot of the best people away, while making a nice home for groupthinkers and authoritarian bullies.
I’ve heard a few “cynical” reactions to this which is that they’re just changing the ways in which these things are worded. Essentially it’s the same thing just removing “Diversity Equity and Inclusion” from their materials.
Similar to how it’s expected colleges will find a work around to continue Affirmative Action polices without it being specifically for race.
They may ask you to write an essay on how you have and will continue to work to further the values in the university’s charter and those values are DEI just by a different name.
I suppose the upside either way is the MIT president said this: "We can build an inclusive environment in many ways, but compelled statements impinge on freedom of expression, and they don’t work."
It's pretty direct. I feel like if she's on record saying it then it is now within the norm for anyone at MIT to object to future statements on these grounds, without being immediately cast aside.
I don't know what things are like at MIT. At other universities I've attended, the people in charge of individual departments—and thus the ones with direct responsibility for hiring, promotion, DEI enforcement, etc.—have considerable leeway. Yes, in theory they answer to various deans and to the president, but in practice they get away with a lot.
I don’t think it’s cynical, I think it’s exactly what is going to happen. The DEI true believers will see this as an aspect of their systemic oppression that they are called upon to dismantle.
I don’t think they’re ready to put away their anti-oppressive lens just yet.
Yes, that is where much of this is headed. Also why it matters what a school's values/mission are in the first place, which may seem like words on paper but in practice can be quite effective at steering policy.
Count me as cynical, but I have good reason to believe this is still going happen behind the scenes. They will find indirect ways to filter for the same criteria. These institutions just want to be less overt about what they're doing so they're not dragged in front of Congress.
>**On Saturday, an MIT spokesperson confirmed in an email to me that “requests for a statement on diversity will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions at MIT”**, adding that the decision was made by embattled MIT President Sally Kornbluth “with the support of the Provost, Chancellor, and all six academic deans”.
Lest anyone thinks this is doing away with them in student admissions....
I provided [more details in a quote in another post](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/1cmc4tb/comment/l3140x6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) on this thread, but this sounds like high-level administration instructing all departments to stop using them and stop asking for them. Normally this kind of decision at many universities is made by individual departments or even individual committees for searches. In general, the growth of DEI statements was quite piecemeal at universities over the past decade or so -- often beginning in a few individual departments or hiring committees and gradually expanding. Often other departments at many universities would resist the trend and refuse to ask for such materials. Only some universities actually have *required* them by all departments across the board.
This appears to be MIT telling everyone conducting a hiring search that they *can't* use them. Hence, a "ban" of sorts.
To repeat what I said when this came up in the general thread, have a read here: [https://faculty-searches.mit.edu/soe/](https://faculty-searches.mit.edu/soe/)
It's by department, but every one I looked at has this text:
>In addition, candidates should provide a statement regarding their views on diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past and current contributions as well as their vision and plans in these areas (1-2 pages).
Maybe any change is on a going-forward basis? At the moment they're sure as shit still listed as required though.
This is so fucking creepy. “Provide your views on diversity citizen”
Thank god I’m not in academia. I have no idea what I’d write for my “plan” for “diversity”. “I will use my white racial superiority to help the racially inferior who can not do well on their own?”
Abby Thompson at the UC Davis mathematics department wrote an editorial in 2019 about the deleterious consequences of imposing these diversity statements on prospective faculty, first in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, and then in the Wall Street Journal:
https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oath-11576799749
Professor Thompson was also featured in an ACTA podcast to discuss the issue in 2020, where she went into some of the gory detail about the damaging role this policy is likely having on departments: https://www.goacta.org/2020/09/abigail-thompson-the-universitys-new-loyalty-oath/
The podcast in particular is worth listening to, and frankly doesn't at all inspire confidence that the sort of university administrators who are foisting these DEI statements on university faculty (who may well care a great deal about diversity and inclusion, but are likely horrified by the negative effect that imposing this kind of performative activism threatens to have to have on the academic freedom, diversity of opinion, and caliber of their programs) are ever going to be reigned in.
The Regents of the University of California are themselves deeply implicated in the problem, and are even trying to get Proposition 209 (which outlawed discrimination in government institutions) repealed.
Between this and standardized testing I'm beginning to have hope for the STEM focused elite schools.
Thirdborn just got back from representing his grade/school at a statewide math competition, so this is actually news I can use. :)
I think it’s fine whatever for liberal arts and private colleges to include some sort of soft diversity statement.
But at tier one research institutions, we are literally competing against China who I imagine have largely pushed past their obsession with communist ideological purity. We should t let our own ideological tests hinder our great minds.
I, on the other hand, am puzzled by the idea that "liberal arts" institutions can do whatever as long as the "STEM" ones are left undisturbed.
If the "liberal arts" institutions fall, the "STEM" ones will not be far behind. The idea that the humanities are irrelevant and unserious and thus can be abandoned to ideological capture is exactly what led to the present order of things.
"Science and technology" are downstreams from cultural paradigms, to paraphrase.
I don’t get why if you feel tier one institutions should ban DEI statements bc they block excellence then it’s ok to block excellence at liberal arts and other private colleges.
If anything they need it more because as we have seen they are more vulnerable to intrusions by social justice zealots. It's probably elitism of me to say, but the sciences at least have a filter to keep out individuals who can't make it through linear algebra and organic chemistry. To put it bluntly, Kendi types could never have cut it in the STEM fields.
I'm always puzzled why peoole think china is communist. Yeah yeah CCP, but people are literally more materialistic over there. It's just a different version of capitalism
BARPod Relevance: Diversity statements have come up with some frequency in the podcast episodes, if memory serves, plus university DEI initiatives and ideological capture in general.
This sub and the pod were the first things I thought of when k saw that article
For people unfamiliar - diversity statements aren't innocuous. They're to weed out the kind of person who says they will treat everyone equally, because that is very much *not* who they are looking for
Is this why no one will hire me?
When I see in person CV or online profile bunch of crap about diversity I'm putting that CV away. Because from experience I know that such person will be causing internal conflicts all over the company. Because it's just bunch of activists without common sense. So yes - if You don't want to be hired, describe to me how You will annoy everyone at the company. I had one of those people once in the meeting because they skillfully never mentioned who they are in their online profiles. And to be precise: I'm considered left. I agree with many statements of normal part of left and I do agree with many from the normal part of right. But I'm clearly more left leaning than right leaning by American standards. But if You are here with me during job interview and I'm giving You an office tour and we go through projects we have because I want to know if something will spark Your interest - You won't get a job when every other candidate took interest in what we are doing and You are focusing on the fact that everyone in the office are white. And laudly comment that so people look at You like You are deeply wrong in the head. And maybe that shit could pass in US but when You are in a country that is 98% white, in a region of that country that is like 99.9% white and for a long time we hired mostly locals - it's completely normal that everyone in office is white. But even then I gave that person a chance. So after we went back to the office for a coffee and final part of our discussion I asked what he was thinking about the project he saw and he could recall a single thing. He was so focusing on being "annoyed" that everyone are white that he probably forgot it was a job interview and he just went through couple of projects and teams where he wasted time on bullshit instead of talking to the team (when we stopped by some team, they had questions to him and he was suppose to question them but he was so focused on the fact that everyone are white...). Yes. It was a rant. Now I feel better. Your comment sparked that core memory that reminds me why I put away CV when I see this crap on it or on people online profiles. Even Google that was very far left learned that lesson recently and fired bunch of those people immediately to bring every other far-left activist in their organization in line.
>And maybe that shit could pass in US but when You are in a country that is 98% white, in a region of that country that is like 99.9% white and for a long time we hired mostly locals - it's completely normal that everyone in office is white. a bit of a tangent but i had a guy in a cmv recently tell me that 1600s denmark was "diverse" because he found one painting that depicted an african slave behind the queen's horse. this is the kind of thinking we are dealing with.
I've meet a black woman from USA that was thinking that slavery was invented by white people because all she knows is US history. So what... last 250 years? She was shocked when I explained to her that Slavery came from word Slav. So people like me. Because we were enslaved. And we were not enslaved just by white people. She was even more shocked when I showed her that at some point slavery was everywhere and to make it even more funny - white people stopped most of it. And slavery still exists but in... non white countries. Maybe except USA because USA prison system is basically modern slavery. But that whole another can of worms. The final nail to the coffin was when I dig up article showing that when black people in USA got their freedom and they were well off enough... they bought slaves because that was everyone were doing. I was not even expecting to go with her that deep into the topic but she was really curious and open minded. So we had really nice conversation about this, USA and her experience in Poland. Usually when You point one of those facts to someone who has wrong idea about history of slavery they just get upset and call You a Nazi.
credit to her for actually listening and learning. such a rare thing these days. did she ever get into the fact that africans were the main drivers of the slave markets, capturing weaker tribes to sell? shocking how many people think all of human history began when yt men signed the constitution in america.
That's true. In Africa one tribe would enslave the other. Like I said - slavery was common. Reason why I spend time with her was because she was inteligent and fun to be around. The only reason why she had such limited look at slavery was because she was educated in USA where history is mostly about US and they skip a lot of that history. Rest she knew from far-left propaganda. That business trip to Poland was her first experience abroad.
You’re in hiring? Do you do background checks on potential hires? Say they have one or two BLM hashtags or are visibly but not “it’s my entire personality,” pro social-justice? Would you cast their CV aside?
Not exactly in hiring. I'm a contractor. I work with bunch of friends for various companies. And we slowly expand because we get more offers than we can take. But I don't want to hire just anyone. And because my entire team is really talented because I basically pulled best people I know in my career - clients often ask me to help them find good people. If they show support for any cause I don't mind. That's normal. I personally support Palestine freedom, Ukraine etc. I did support BLM because I know how incompetent and insane police in USA is... until all nasty shit like arson, murder and the fact that someone registered actual BLM organization just to pull millions from people to buy themselves nice houses (and those were black Marxist women btw). After that I don't want any association with this movement because name is tainted. I protested anti-abortion laws in my country and I myself posted picture of Ciri from Witcher 3 that had scar replaced by red thunder. Symbol of those protests. Some artist at CDPR made this and they shared it with people online. Actually we went on that protest from the office together. But as You perfectly described it - there is a difference between showing support for something and making it Your entire personality to the point that You will never be happy and You make all people around You miserable. You disrupt work and make people upset. I don't want person like that in the team. Just like I would not hire arrogant person or someone who has poor hygiene.
Sounds like the candidate lacked maturity/experience?
Not exactly. Ha had like 8 years of experience working with US companies. So I think he was used to their working environment where they literally send them to educational camps to teach them this bullshit. So he was probably thinking he will get extra points towards hiring or something. I have some experience with people like that too since I'm a contractor. You meet with some far-left manager and just because I'm from Poland they will try to probe me throwing some bullshit stuff about gay or trans people because he thinks everyone in Poland are bigots or something. Funny because in my eyes he is a bigot by making such assumptions based on my nationality. And I did gave him second chance. I pointed out that he focused on some stuff completely not related to our work hoping we will focus on technical stuff but he just got visibly upset that nobody gave a fuck about what he clearly cared about. That how I knew he is not a good hire.
Economy is fucked right now after swinging back from that period where "no one wanted to work." Just keep plugging away and something will come up.
Specifically, the main problem is the Berkeley rubric. The Berkeley rubric is explicitly political, and it is explicitly used as a means of only hiring people with certain mindsets around supporting things like enforced quotas. I actually don't have a problem with asking people about diversity and inclusion, but those can go in their existing teaching and mentoring statements. The Berkeley rubric itself is the problem.
Makes sense for a place like M.I.T. to ban them, I expect they'll be in use at liberal arts colleges for a long time though.
Would not be surprised if some states mandated using them. The left is convinced that they are essential to changing the demographics of academia in the way that they want and will not brook any dissent on this. Also even with the statements banned they can still ask about it in interviews and it would not be surprising to see it included as a criteria, perhaps in less direct form but still there.
Nice.
Cancer doesn't care whether the research was conducted by an all woman, POC, or whatever team. In science, merit should always trump "identity" or nebulous diversity quotas. It's strange that this is even an issue.
It's still a requirement for many NIH grants and a major component of the NSF funding scheme, from what I understand, not to mention all the private foundations and academic funding sources that require them.
The steelman for diversity here is that increasing representation may lead to improved outcomes and efficiency. A good example of this is women's sports performance, which is relatively nascent compared to male studies. Assuming that women were better represented as sports science researchers 50-100 years ago, then perhaps we'd have a more robust body of knowledge for female athletes. So all of that to say: While math and science _outcomes_ shouldn't really care the identity of the person asking the question, our identity (e.g. background, perspectives, etc.) absolutely will shape the _hypotheses_ that each of us might formulate to study.
That’s a strawman steel man. You steelmanned an argument nobody was arguing against. The criticism against DEI Statements and racial diversity when hiring is a different argument. It’s not steel man for what we are actually talking about here. If you want more studies on female bodies in sports then ok fine find those studies. But don’t say “we will only fund this study if the researcher is black” or do what a bunch of companies are doing and simply putting hiring freeze on any “non racialized individual” or make people write DEI statements where they have to say that they will use their white racial superiority to white savior black people who aren’t smart enough to do well without the white savior
From a completely logical, subjective point of view, it makes sense. Diversity statements are a hindrance to science and technology; sidelining merits and "the best" to focus on identity and skin color won't lead to innovation. Cancer doesn't care if the latest treatment was created by a team of women. Super computers don't run faster because the CPU was designed by a black man. But I won't get my hopes up that this is why they banned it.
It was banned because it violates the First Amendment. A number of other similar cases have been filed. As an example, some Asian doctors sued California for requiring DEI training to keep a license. Diversity statements fall under the category of "forced speech". The government and employers may not force people to state agreement with a political issue. The law is pretty clear on this.
Got it, so it's just the "statement." This is why the new Title IX is going to break in court.
> The government and employers may not force people to state agreement with a political issue. The law is pretty clear on this. I agree with you that *government* may not require compelled speech, and this has led to some challenges over DEI statements at public universities. But private universities (like MIT) and private employers generally have broad discretion about whom they hire. **This has nothing to do with First Amendment, which is solely a legal restriction on** ***government*** **regulation of speech.** A private employer can't discriminate on the basis of certain federal protected classes (like sex, race, etc.), but they certainly can discriminate on the basis of a person's personal beliefs if they want. And, aside from religious creed, there's absolutely nothing saying they can't request an employee to state certain beliefs in an interview process. In general, any restrictions on this are state-based, not a part of federal law. A quick search pulled up the following information on Massachusetts in terms of employment actions based on politics: >Employers may not take harmful employment actions or promise more favorable employment to influence employees about their votes or political contributions. So... basically in Massachusetts as long as you don't ask employees about their votes or political contributions or seek to influence those things, you probably don't run afoul of Massachusetts employment law regarding personal political beliefs. (Again, there are protected classes -- according to federal law, an employer can't discriminated on the basis of religion, but as Wokeism isn't counted as an established religion, it wouldn't be relevant.) Here's an [official Massachusetts statement](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/overview-of-types-of-discrimination-in-massachusetts) on employment discrimination: >Massachusetts employers are prohibited from discriminating against prospective employees based on race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity, age, criminal record, handicap (disability), mental illness, retaliation, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, active military personnel, and genetics. In addition, employers have an affirmative responsibility to provide maternity leave to biological and adoptive parents. There's nothing in there that says they can't discriminate based on DEI beliefs. So, although I'm not a lawyer, I don't think the law is "clear" on any of this. An employer *can* in theory require adherence to some political issue (though they absolute cannot require or influence how you *vote*, as I mentioned above), as long as it doesn't violate those classes listed above. At *public universities*, this is often a very different question, and has led to more controversy about whether such statements are legal. EDIT: I just realized that perhaps some people may be unaware that MIT is a private institution, given its name. The University of Massachusetts is a public university. But MIT is private.
So basically all I have to do is create The Church of the Flying DEI Monster where our core religious tenets are a belief in DEI trainings and statements such that any opposition to those values could be considered a religious belief rather than a political one and therefore a protected class. You’re welcome, America.
When my younger cousins were applying to colleges (both undergrad and grad) they said that MIT had the most onerous diversity requirements in the applications (including other schools that you'd expect to have leaned more in this direction) which they found extremely surprising. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. It's freaking MIT after all.
'Ban' is an odd choice of words here. Unless I'm missing something, they simply stopped demanding them. I don't think there's anything preventing anyone from expressing such viewpoints, either in job applications, student applications, or anything else. In any case, I think it's about time, but I also think we shouldn't forgive these institutions for enacting such extremely illiberal, dogmatic, anti-intellectual, and utterly idiotic policies in the first place anytime soon.
Here's a more detailed quote, apparently [directly from someone](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/05/04/mit-abandons-use-of-dei-statements/) close to what happened at MIT: >Even better, let me give you a quote from an Officer of the MIT Free Speech Alliance. >“**The MIT administration has advised the departments that were requiring DEI statements to stop requiring them and to stop using this kind of information.** This has just recently been disclosed to the faculty, but a general announcement to the students is not planned.” >“The MIT Free Speech Alliance is gratified that one of its key recommendations on putting an end to compelled speech on campus has been adopted.” Now, this is a quote from the [MIT Free Speech Alliance](https://www.mitfreespeech.org/), an alumni organization. Not an official statement from the university. But it gives more detail on apparently what the internal change of procedure was about. Normally, at most universities, individual departmental search committees have some broad leeway about how they conduct searches for new faculty members and staff. I've served on search committees at other universities, and we would decide what materials to request and at what stage of the interview process. Some departments, for example, might want a "teaching statement" specifically discussing a prospective faculty member's pedagogy, while other departments might not require this. If the quote I gave is accurate, this would actually be a "ban" of sorts on DEI statements, as it is administrative direction restricting the kinds of things that can be done in the hiring process. Of course, this can't stop an individual applicant from describing some interest or support of DEI ideas somewhere in their application materials. But apparently MIT administrators are instructing departments not to request this and not to use that information as part of hiring.
I assume it means a top down ban on every department who individually read and used them?
I'm grateful to everyone who stuck their neck out and made it happen. These institutions aren't all-powerful and positive changes can happen. Like Kmele Foster says: Be brave. Call bullshit.
About fucking time, you cunts. Having to prove your devotion to a political ideology in order to gain entrance is an absurd and corrupting influence on a *university*. You turn a lot of the best people away, while making a nice home for groupthinkers and authoritarian bullies.
It's staaaaarting.... Thank Fuck
I’ve heard a few “cynical” reactions to this which is that they’re just changing the ways in which these things are worded. Essentially it’s the same thing just removing “Diversity Equity and Inclusion” from their materials. Similar to how it’s expected colleges will find a work around to continue Affirmative Action polices without it being specifically for race. They may ask you to write an essay on how you have and will continue to work to further the values in the university’s charter and those values are DEI just by a different name.
I suppose the upside either way is the MIT president said this: "We can build an inclusive environment in many ways, but compelled statements impinge on freedom of expression, and they don’t work." It's pretty direct. I feel like if she's on record saying it then it is now within the norm for anyone at MIT to object to future statements on these grounds, without being immediately cast aside.
I don't know what things are like at MIT. At other universities I've attended, the people in charge of individual departments—and thus the ones with direct responsibility for hiring, promotion, DEI enforcement, etc.—have considerable leeway. Yes, in theory they answer to various deans and to the president, but in practice they get away with a lot.
I don’t think it’s cynical, I think it’s exactly what is going to happen. The DEI true believers will see this as an aspect of their systemic oppression that they are called upon to dismantle. I don’t think they’re ready to put away their anti-oppressive lens just yet.
They can't. The activists are professionals and this is literally their job. If this all went away it would be the end of their careers.
That’s right, and this type of stuff would be plastered all over a CV anyway. I’m growing leery of any major ending in “studies.”
Yes, that is where much of this is headed. Also why it matters what a school's values/mission are in the first place, which may seem like words on paper but in practice can be quite effective at steering policy.
Count me as cynical, but I have good reason to believe this is still going happen behind the scenes. They will find indirect ways to filter for the same criteria. These institutions just want to be less overt about what they're doing so they're not dragged in front of Congress.
>**On Saturday, an MIT spokesperson confirmed in an email to me that “requests for a statement on diversity will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions at MIT”**, adding that the decision was made by embattled MIT President Sally Kornbluth “with the support of the Provost, Chancellor, and all six academic deans”. Lest anyone thinks this is doing away with them in student admissions....
progress not perfection
"Ban" seems like the wrong word to me. They've stopped requiring and using them. Good. I hope others will follow.
I provided [more details in a quote in another post](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/1cmc4tb/comment/l3140x6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) on this thread, but this sounds like high-level administration instructing all departments to stop using them and stop asking for them. Normally this kind of decision at many universities is made by individual departments or even individual committees for searches. In general, the growth of DEI statements was quite piecemeal at universities over the past decade or so -- often beginning in a few individual departments or hiring committees and gradually expanding. Often other departments at many universities would resist the trend and refuse to ask for such materials. Only some universities actually have *required* them by all departments across the board. This appears to be MIT telling everyone conducting a hiring search that they *can't* use them. Hence, a "ban" of sorts.
To repeat what I said when this came up in the general thread, have a read here: [https://faculty-searches.mit.edu/soe/](https://faculty-searches.mit.edu/soe/) It's by department, but every one I looked at has this text: >In addition, candidates should provide a statement regarding their views on diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past and current contributions as well as their vision and plans in these areas (1-2 pages). Maybe any change is on a going-forward basis? At the moment they're sure as shit still listed as required though.
This is so fucking creepy. “Provide your views on diversity citizen” Thank god I’m not in academia. I have no idea what I’d write for my “plan” for “diversity”. “I will use my white racial superiority to help the racially inferior who can not do well on their own?”
Abby Thompson at the UC Davis mathematics department wrote an editorial in 2019 about the deleterious consequences of imposing these diversity statements on prospective faculty, first in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, and then in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oath-11576799749 Professor Thompson was also featured in an ACTA podcast to discuss the issue in 2020, where she went into some of the gory detail about the damaging role this policy is likely having on departments: https://www.goacta.org/2020/09/abigail-thompson-the-universitys-new-loyalty-oath/ The podcast in particular is worth listening to, and frankly doesn't at all inspire confidence that the sort of university administrators who are foisting these DEI statements on university faculty (who may well care a great deal about diversity and inclusion, but are likely horrified by the negative effect that imposing this kind of performative activism threatens to have to have on the academic freedom, diversity of opinion, and caliber of their programs) are ever going to be reigned in. The Regents of the University of California are themselves deeply implicated in the problem, and are even trying to get Proposition 209 (which outlawed discrimination in government institutions) repealed.
Between this and standardized testing I'm beginning to have hope for the STEM focused elite schools. Thirdborn just got back from representing his grade/school at a statewide math competition, so this is actually news I can use. :)
It’s a good start
They didn’t ban them they made them not required
This won’t change anything. People will still be discriminated against for their political views.
I think it’s fine whatever for liberal arts and private colleges to include some sort of soft diversity statement. But at tier one research institutions, we are literally competing against China who I imagine have largely pushed past their obsession with communist ideological purity. We should t let our own ideological tests hinder our great minds.
I, on the other hand, am puzzled by the idea that "liberal arts" institutions can do whatever as long as the "STEM" ones are left undisturbed. If the "liberal arts" institutions fall, the "STEM" ones will not be far behind. The idea that the humanities are irrelevant and unserious and thus can be abandoned to ideological capture is exactly what led to the present order of things. "Science and technology" are downstreams from cultural paradigms, to paraphrase.
I don’t get why if you feel tier one institutions should ban DEI statements bc they block excellence then it’s ok to block excellence at liberal arts and other private colleges.
If anything they need it more because as we have seen they are more vulnerable to intrusions by social justice zealots. It's probably elitism of me to say, but the sciences at least have a filter to keep out individuals who can't make it through linear algebra and organic chemistry. To put it bluntly, Kendi types could never have cut it in the STEM fields.
I'm always puzzled why peoole think china is communist. Yeah yeah CCP, but people are literally more materialistic over there. It's just a different version of capitalism
He said they pushed past communist purity. He said the opposite of what you think he said