Diversity and inclusion Gone Wild

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes, I see that in an application for a job I am interested in.

"Qualifications:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. An interest in working in a diverse workplace with a multicultural student body."


What's really going on: they've got a well paid diversity staff, and these folks have to find new things to do to show how important and busy they are...?

I see the validity of the argument for a space in culture in which all peoples are represented and valued, and there is validity in the argument that we should help underrepresented groups find representation in order to be a healthy democracy with a healthy bigotry free future (we hope!).  The educational sphere is great for these kinds of things.

As with everything human, however, keeping these ideas and arguments in perspective is a long-range problem.  My issues from personal experience is that "diversity"----a good and worthwhile thing----can sometimes derail commonsense, fairness, and good professional conduct.  We simply get too angry about it or too wrapped up in idealism.

When you have an office with a disproportionate amount of authority, particularly ethical authority, you have problems.

[Parasaurolophus]

When I was applying for jobs a few years ago, I really found the diversity statements to be pointless. It seemed like it was just asking me to write some pablum and it felt embarrassing to comply. Now that I actually have some teaching experience, I think I could write something I'd be actually willing to stand behind since I actually have taught a diverse student body and had to think about what that should mean for my approach. I feel similarly about teaching statements, actually.

Yeah, I've had the same experience. It's still hard and artificial, though, largely because I haven't had access to high-quality sample statements (just the crappy flounderings of everyone else!) or the criteria by which they're evaluated.

There's a bit of a kerfuffle brewing in the UC and CalState systems because their evaluation criteria for the diversity statements were leaked, and because they've been (or, at least, some departments have been) making the first cut based solely on the diversity statement.

I'm not at all opposed to the inclusion of diversity statements, but I have to confess that I'm annoyed that there are formal criteria by which they're evaluated, but which aren't disclosed to applicants. Especially when the first cut is made just on the basis of the statement. Looking over those criteria has been extremely informative, and will certainly shape future versions of my statement. I suppose the other annoying thing is that if the first cut is just going to be on the basis of a single document, then the initial application should just consist of that single document, rather than all the other crap we have to send.

There's a class-action lawsuit brewing over these matters, but there's no way I'd join in. I don't trust the lawyers or the participants and their intentions at all.

As a search committee member evaluating them, I realized that "diversity" as we mean it is a highly American concept. When we had foreign applicants, or even foreign students of US universities, their concept of "diversity" was quite different from ours.

How so?

[marshwiggle]

When I was applying for jobs a few years ago, I really found the diversity statements to be pointless. It seemed like it was just asking me to write some pablum and it felt embarrassing to comply. Now that I actually have some teaching experience, I think I could write something I'd be actually willing to stand behind since I actually have taught a diverse student body and had to think about what that should mean for my approach. I feel similarly about teaching statements, actually.

Yeah, I've had the same experience. It's still hard and artificial, though, largely because I haven't had access to high-quality sample statements (just the crappy flounderings of everyone else!) or the criteria by which they're evaluated.

There's a bit of a kerfuffle brewing in the UC and CalState systems because their evaluation criteria for the diversity statements were leaked, and because they've been (or, at least, some departments have been) making the first cut based solely on the diversity statement.

I'm not at all opposed to the inclusion of diversity statements, but I have to confess that I'm annoyed that there are formal criteria by which they're evaluated, but which aren't disclosed to applicants. Especially when the first cut is made just on the basis of the statement. Looking over those criteria has been extremely informative, and will certainly shape future versions of my statement. I suppose the other annoying thing is that if the first cut is just going to be on the basis of a single document, then the initial application should just consist of that single document, rather than all the other crap we have to send.

And of course, people can (and will) say whatever they think they're supposed to for the job. That doesn't prevent them from doing anything else once they're hired. Just like "vision statements", they're only as good as the commitment to actually putting them into practice.

I see a whole cottage industry of "diversity statement" writing in a few years.

[eigen]

I didn't find writing my diversity statements all that difficult, honestly.

I came from a poor rural background, and talked a lot about experiences working with first generation students, and identifying some of the struggles students from first gen families in rural areas face on college campuses.

I also talked a lot about working with international students, especially in the sciences, and pressures regarding major selection from family as well as cultural isolation.

I also talked about particular strategies I use in the classroom to feel out areas where students might be feeling isolated in ways that I couldn't easily predict, and about building a culture of inclusion in the classroom so students felt like they could belong, as well as breaking down barriers to encourage students to come to office hours.

It didn't follow any particular template I've seen, nor did I try to say it was a complete view of diversity and inclusion- just some of my experiences and strategies to indicate how I think through things and work with students. And I got a lot of good feedback on it when I was interviewing.

And like bad teaching statements, or bad cover letters, or bad anything, it's about showing what you do with respect to diversity, rather than telling something that you may or may not do. Empty platitudes that re-tread current issues are a lot less useful than concrete examples of things you've done and changes you've made, because they indicate that you are likely to continue on that path.

[mahagonny]

Yes, I see that in an application for a job I am interested in.

"Qualifications:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. An interest in working in a diverse workplace with a multicultural student body."


What's really going on: they've got a well paid diversity staff, and these folks have to find new things to do to show how important and busy they are...?

I see the validity of the argument for a space in culture in which all peoples are represented and valued, and there is validity in the argument that we should help underrepresented groups find representation in order to be a healthy democracy with a healthy bigotry free future (we hope!).  The educational sphere is great for these kinds of things.

As with everything human, however, keeping these ideas and arguments in perspective is a long-range problem.  My issues from personal experience is that "diversity"----a good and worthwhile thing----can sometimes derail commonsense, fairness, and good professional conduct.  We simply get too angry about it or too wrapped up in idealism.

When you have an office with a disproportionate amount of authority, particularly ethical authority, you have problems.

Priorities, anyone?
"Our school prides itself on maintaining, full time, thoroughly professional diversity staff with up to date training and credentials. We are cutting edge in diversity preparedness. Thus, students of every race creed gender national origin physical or neurological health or condition can expect sporadic attention from an underpaid part time professor."

Full time faculty, I find, play down the insanity of diversity and inclusion departments getting their licks and their influence in nearly everything. They probably think if they start talking about people or departments being overstaffed or over paid, they'll be the next ones who are scrutinized. Part time faculty, as usual, tend to very little other than yes, sir. Diversity departments are probably good, steady consumers of academic research, so that would be win-win.

[Aster]

I believe that most university diversity offices are staffed by just a single individual.

So it's not exactly a high employment field.

I don't believe that Big Urban College even has a diversity officer.

[Wahoo Redux]

A Google search indicates that most campuses have one diversity officer folded into some other office.  Some, like UC Berkeley, have a "Vice Chancellor" of "Division of Equity and Inclusion" and then a whole tree of employees and services under him, some serving multiple departments.  U-Wisconsin-Madison has a "Chief Diversity Officer" with two "Assistant Vice Provosts" listed under him, which I guess means the AVPs have other responsibilities and work with the CDO.  University of Idaho has a "Chief Diversity Officer," a "Program Coordinator," and a "Management Assistant"; they also have a "Bias Response Team" staffed by somebody (not clear).  Some, like U of Nebraska-Lincoln, seem to have a "Diversity Office" without any specific employees listed---perhaps it is enfolded in the VC's office (I didn't look that hard, so maybe I'm wrong).  Swathmore has a " Assistant Vice President and Dean of Inclusive Excellence and Community Development" listed.  Just out of curiosity, I put in my uni and found that, yeah, we do have an office of equity and diversity which I have never heard anything about. 

[eigen]

My guess is that many people in those positions are also not doing them full time, but are doing them with a (small to non-existent buyout) on top of another regular academic or administrative job.

Bias Response Team, especially, is usually a selection of individuals from across campus (dean of students, residence life, faculty, students, legal counsel) rather than a full time job.

[mahagonny]

I believe that most university diversity offices are staffed by just a single individual.

So it's not exactly a high employment field.

I don't believe that Big Urban College even has a diversity officer.

My guess is that many people in those positions are also not doing them full time, but are doing them with a (small to non-existent buyout) on top of another regular academic or administrative job.

Bias Response Team, especially, is usually a selection of individuals from across campus (dean of students, residence life, faculty, students, legal counsel) rather than a full time job.

Guess away, forumites. The pickings are certainly good in Michigan:

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/84-million-per-year-for-u-m-diversity-employees

[Hibush]

I believe that most university diversity offices are staffed by just a single individual.

So it's not exactly a high employment field.

I don't believe that Big Urban College even has a diversity officer.

My guess is that many people in those positions are also not doing them full time, but are doing them with a (small to non-existent buyout) on top of another regular academic or administrative job.

Bias Response Team, especially, is usually a selection of individuals from across campus (dean of students, residence life, faculty, students, legal counsel) rather than a full time job.

Guess away, forumites. The pickings are certainly good in Michigan:

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/84-million-per-year-for-u-m-diversity-employees

The url suggests a commitment quite a bit larger than the real one. At UM there are full-time employees who have diversity as some part of their role, and their total compensation comes to $8.4 million. The investigator, from the American Enterprise Institute, did not check how much of their jobs as D&I and how much was other stuff. Some have professorial titles, so I suspect they do a lot of professoring.

[tuxthepenguin]

I believe that most university diversity offices are staffed by just a single individual.

So it's not exactly a high employment field.

I don't believe that Big Urban College even has a diversity officer.

My guess is that many people in those positions are also not doing them full time, but are doing them with a (small to non-existent buyout) on top of another regular academic or administrative job.

Bias Response Team, especially, is usually a selection of individuals from across campus (dean of students, residence life, faculty, students, legal counsel) rather than a full time job.

Guess away, forumites. The pickings are certainly good in Michigan:

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/84-million-per-year-for-u-m-diversity-employees

The url suggests a commitment quite a bit larger than the real one. At UM there are full-time employees who have diversity as some part of their role, and their total compensation comes to $8.4 million. The investigator, from the American Enterprise Institute, did not check how much of their jobs as D&I and how much was other stuff. Some have professorial titles, so I suspect they do a lot of professoring.

Even if it was accurate (it's not) Michigan is hardly representative of higher education as a whole.

[Caracal]

I didn't find writing my diversity statements all that difficult, honestly.

I came from a poor rural background, and talked a lot about experiences working with first generation students, and identifying some of the struggles students from first gen families in rural areas face on college campuses.

I also talked a lot about working with international students, especially in the sciences, and pressures regarding major selection from family as well as cultural isolation.

I also talked about particular strategies I use in the classroom to feel out areas where students might be feeling isolated in ways that I couldn't easily predict, and about building a culture of inclusion in the classroom so students felt like they could belong, as well as breaking down barriers to encourage students to come to office hours.

It didn't follow any particular template I've seen, nor did I try to say it was a complete view of diversity and inclusion- just some of my experiences and strategies to indicate how I think through things and work with students. And I got a lot of good feedback on it when I was interviewing.

And like bad teaching statements, or bad cover letters, or bad anything, it's about showing what you do with respect to diversity, rather than telling something that you may or may not do. Empty platitudes that re-tread current issues are a lot less useful than concrete examples of things you've done and changes you've made, because they indicate that you are likely to continue on that path.

Yeah, but it sounds like what helped you avoid platitudes was that you had plenty of experience teaching, in a variety of contexts. The last time I wrote one I think I'd taught 4 classes over three semesters or something. Frankly, I'd spent most of my time just trying to survive as a classroom teacher. Of course, it would be perfectly reasonable to prefer a candidate with more classroom experience in general, or more experience teaching diverse groups of students. It isn't necessarily clear to me that a diversity statement is really the best way to evaluate those things though.

Using diversity statements as a way to make a first cut seems misguided. Among other problems, I can actually imagine it leading to a less diverse pool if committees aren't thinking about issues of nationality and language. It also just seems like as an attempted shortcut to actually thinking about what what should be valued in hiring. I can't see how you're going to consistently have more diverse short lists without considering who you're advertising for in the first place and then making sure to take a longer look at qualified candidates who might not have two published articles and a book under contract, but might bring more interesting and diverse perspectives.

[mahagonny]

Even if it was accurate (it's not) Michigan is hardly representative of higher education as a whole.

I didn't assume it was. There could easily be states that are spending more on diversity and inclusion staff.

[eigen]

I believe that most university diversity offices are staffed by just a single individual.

So it's not exactly a high employment field.

I don't believe that Big Urban College even has a diversity officer.

My guess is that many people in those positions are also not doing them full time, but are doing them with a (small to non-existent buyout) on top of another regular academic or administrative job.

Bias Response Team, especially, is usually a selection of individuals from across campus (dean of students, residence life, faculty, students, legal counsel) rather than a full time job.

Guess away, forumites. The pickings are certainly good in Michigan:

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/84-million-per-year-for-u-m-diversity-employees

The url suggests a commitment quite a bit larger than the real one. At UM there are full-time employees who have diversity as some part of their role, and their total compensation comes to $8.4 million. The investigator, from the American Enterprise Institute, did not check how much of their jobs as D&I and how much was other stuff. Some have professorial titles, so I suspect they do a lot of professoring.

It also appears that it's for the entire University of Michigan system (not just one campus), and includes employees at the medical center who focus much more on the patient care side of diversity and inclusion. The link also suggests that much of the dollar value of employees is at the medical center, and comes from patient fees rather than university expenditures.

So in other words, it's a really misleading summary.

[Wahoo Redux]

I wouldn't trust CapCon particularly: they are a publication of the "free market" Mackinac Center, which like all "education and policy" "think tanks" seem to produce nothing but agitprops.

However, it should be fairly easy, if one was so inclined, to check up on the salary ($396,550) of Robert Sellers who is mentioned in the article.  It seems unlikely that this is a falsification, even if the article itself cooks the books. 

There have been many debates on these boards about the need to chop programs and the necessity of contingent labor to the balance the budget.  And sure, diversity is important.

But that is a lot of money to pay one person who appears to teach on the side of administrative duties in this age of academic austerity.