Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[jimbogumbo]

How exactly would an economist with a Texas right wing think tank know how a faculty search at Berkely was conducted?

Can't get at the argument, go for the person!

I wasn't-just don't understand how he would know. He in fact is at a right wing think tank in Texas, so I'll ask again- where would he get the info?

[dismalist]

How exactly would an economist with a Texas right wing think tank know how a faculty search at Berkeley was conducted?

Can't get at the argument, go for the person!

I wasn't-just don't understand how he would know. He in fact is at a right wing think tank in Texas, so I'll ask again- where would he get the info?

Where and how do reporters or investigators or scientists get information? Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

[jimbogumbo]

I looked at the AEI article. For anyone who cares here is where Gillen looked to obtain the statement (pretty sure he added the "Stalinist purge" language, lol):

https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf

[mleok]

I wasn't thinking of stuff such as downer wrote, certainly nothing as specific. Though it could definitely be a repelling force.

I was thinking of faculty up for tenure who fail on DEI grounds. I believe in California the DEI is evaluated first and the rest of the package is evaluated only after DEI is accepted. Those rejected on DEI grounds and who like academia enough -- discussion upthread confirms there are benefits aside from tenure -- would be good candidates for migrating to a non-tenure Texas public.

I would like to see you quote an example of a professor at a California public university who was denied tenure on the basis of DEI issues. I assure you that it is precisely because tenure and shared governance is strong at the University of California that such nonsense would never pass unnoticed and unanswered.

Now, a biology professor who doesn't publish anything but on creation science or irreducible complexity would be rightfully denied tenure, but that's not because of "woke science," just science.

Edit: perhaps you're referring to what we call "excellence positions," which were created to improve the diversity of our faculty, where it is true that the lack of DEI activity would be a bar to appointment to such positions. Such a bar does not exist for promotion and tenure.

Seems you are incorrect.

DEI statements are enforced with the express goal of hiring underrepresented faculty members. And applicants can score points for discussing their awareness of and experience with diversity. The DEI requirement, therefore, allows hiring committees to impose racial preferences. And faculty members are strongly incentivized to do so as searches may be canceled or postponed if diversity bureaucrats do not like the racial composition of the finalists.

For instance, a written assessment of a prospective hire's contributions to diversity will become a requirement. And within the next two years, these statements will be required not just of future hires but of all current faculty when they are evaluated for potential promotion, tenure, or pay increase. The new guidelines also emphasize that "[l]ife experiences may be an important aspect of candidate statements," which continues to leave the door open for racial discrimination.

https://pacificlegal.org/california-globe-university-of-california-retreats-from-unlawful-diversity-statement-mandates/

You need to read my point about "excellence positions," which are essentially diversity hires. That has nothing to do with promotion and tenure once you're hired. Please don't presume to explain to me how the system where I work functions.

I assume the article is referring to the following UC Academic Senate recommendations,

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/rh-division-chairs-recommendations-dei-statements.pdf

Such senate recommendations are not enforceable, only regulations encoded in the APM and PPM are enforceable.

[marshwiggle]

Do you know what Butler actually says, Marshy?

Big-D got it absolutely wrong. And it is not clear that downer understands her either.

A cursory reading of this module on Butler does suggest that she pushes back on the distinction between sex and gender,

https://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/genderandsex/modules/butlergendersex.html

which suggests that the statement that sex is a social construct is not an entirely unfair characterization of her point of view. To me however, her premise seems to be more based on redefining what "sex" means as opposed to a scientifically based argument. I think that is at the heart of much of the confusion and controversy surrounding such work, because they attempt to co-opt words that have well-established meanings in order to advance a specific social/political worldview. At the end of the day, words have meaning.

Butler differentiates between "sex" (the chromosomes and the organs one is born with) and "gender" (how you construct your identity in the world) through "speech" (in all its manifestations, including, gesture, walk, stance, attitude, etc.) over a long period of time.  The internal vs. the external.  She lays all this out in her work.  The words she uses are the words we use.  One just has to know what one is talking about. 

My father was a sensitive, highly educated, worldly man, but he had absorbed all the 'I-am-man-don't-take-to-no-hornswoggle-but-gimme-common-sense-in-my-gut' ideology of the Eisenhower era.    One day we decided to stop at a Starbucks and my intelligent dad said, "Would John Wayne have drunk a late"---and he said it like "laa-teeee" as if it were a nonsense word.  That is performativity at its finest.

No amount of "performance" can enable a biological male to have a baby.

[dismalist]

I wasn't thinking of stuff such as downer wrote, certainly nothing as specific. Though it could definitely be a repelling force.

I was thinking of faculty up for tenure who fail on DEI grounds. I believe in California the DEI is evaluated first and the rest of the package is evaluated only after DEI is accepted. Those rejected on DEI grounds and who like academia enough -- discussion upthread confirms there are benefits aside from tenure -- would be good candidates for migrating to a non-tenure Texas public.

I would like to see you quote an example of a professor at a California public university who was denied tenure on the basis of DEI issues. I assure you that it is precisely because tenure and shared governance is strong at the University of California that such nonsense would never pass unnoticed and unanswered.

Now, a biology professor who doesn't publish anything but on creation science or irreducible complexity would be rightfully denied tenure, but that's not because of "woke science," just science.

Edit: perhaps you're referring to what we call "excellence positions," which were created to improve the diversity of our faculty, where it is true that the lack of DEI activity would be a bar to appointment to such positions. Such a bar does not exist for promotion and tenure.

Seems you are incorrect.

DEI statements are enforced with the express goal of hiring underrepresented faculty members. And applicants can score points for discussing their awareness of and experience with diversity. The DEI requirement, therefore, allows hiring committees to impose racial preferences. And faculty members are strongly incentivized to do so as searches may be canceled or postponed if diversity bureaucrats do not like the racial composition of the finalists.

For instance, a written assessment of a prospective hire's contributions to diversity will become a requirement. And within the next two years, these statements will be required not just of future hires but of all current faculty when they are evaluated for potential promotion, tenure, or pay increase. The new guidelines also emphasize that "[l]ife experiences may be an important aspect of candidate statements," which continues to leave the door open for racial discrimination.

https://pacificlegal.org/california-globe-university-of-california-retreats-from-unlawful-diversity-statement-mandates/

You need to read my point about "excellence positions," which are essentially diversity hires. That has nothing to do with promotion and tenure once you're hired. Please don't presume to explain to me how the system where I work functions.

I assume the article is referring to the following UC Academic Senate recommendations,

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/rh-division-chairs-recommendations-dei-statements.pdf

Such senate recommendations are not enforceable, only regulations encoded in the APM and PPM are enforceable.

That's not what the source I cited claims. Take it or leave it.

[mleok]

That's not what the source I cited claims. Take it or leave it.

I'm referring to the UC regulation PPM 230-28, that governs academic reviews. You need sources that can read and actually understands the system.

[jimbogumbo]

So far the sources are AEI and the Pacific Legal Foundation, so I'll leave it.

[dismalist]

That's not what the source I cited claims. Take it or leave it.

I'm referring to the specific UC system-wide regulation, PPM 230-28, that governs academic reviews. You need sources that can read and actually understands the system.

PPM 230-28: Rescinded: 07/01/2017

Gotta stay up-to-date.

[mleok]

That's not what the source I cited claims. Take it or leave it.

I'm referring to the specific UC system-wide regulation, PPM 230-28, that governs academic reviews. You need sources that can read and actually understands the system.

PPM 230-28: Rescinded: 07/01/2017

Gotta stay up-to-date.

You're right on that, they reorganized the documents in order to make clearer which regulations are UC-wide, and which are campus specific. The relevant regulation is APM 220, which is the systemwide one,

https://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-220.pdf

and PPM 230, which is campus dependent,

https://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/docs/toc230.HTML

For appointments to the professor series, PPM 230-220 is relevant,

https://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/docs/230-220.html

In both instances, the criteria is outlined in APM 220-10, and a candidate is judged on:

a. Teaching
b. Research and creative work
c. Professional competence and activity
d. University and public service

and this is elaborated in the following document,

https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-210.pdf

These statements about contributions to diversity are consistent with the rescinded document I cited before. Simply put, contributions to diversity are not a requirement for promotion or tenure, but they can be recognized as part of the review process.

[mleok]

I think you'll find that there will not be widespread support for requiring DEI statements for all promotion and tenure actions, but as I said, the reason why faculty are able to speak out against such issues is precisely because of the protections of tenure and shared governance. Put another way, the way to prevent "woke science" is tenure, not the abolishment of tenure.

[dismalist]

I think you'll find that there will not be widespread support for requiring DEI statements for all promotion and tenure actions, but as I said, the reason why faculty are able to speak out against such issues is precisely because of the protections of tenure and shared governance. Put another way, the way to prevent "woke science" is tenure, not the abolishment of tenure.

Not widespread support? Protections of tenure? We're talking about attaining tenure in California! DEI bites. Otherwise it wouldn't meaningfully exist.

All Texas needs is that some competing universities use DEI to provide a steady stream of applicants where tenure is not offered.

[mleok]

Not widespread support? Protections of tenure? We're talking about attaining tenure in California! DEI bites. Otherwise it wouldn't meaningfully exist.

All Texas needs is that some competing universities use DEI to provide a steady stream of applicants where tenure is not offered.

Contributions to diversity are not a requirement for tenure in the UC, I don't know how many times I have to tell you the same thing for it to get through to your thick skull. While it is true that faculty applicants need to include a diversity statement, there is no minimum score necessary for one to considered for a faculty appointment, unless it is an "excellence position."

The thing you seem to keep forgetting is that tenure insulates faculty from the political whims of the state legislature. This protects both liberal and conservative faculty. Put another way, even if you're a conservative faculty, unless you truly believe that Texas will not turn purple or blue during your professional lifetime, you would be much better off with the protections of tenure otherwise.

[dismalist]

Not widespread support? Protections of tenure? We're talking about attaining tenure in California! DEI bites. Otherwise it wouldn't meaningfully exist.

All Texas needs is that some competing universities use DEI to provide a steady stream of applicants where tenure is not offered.

Contributions to diversity are not a requirement for tenure in the UC, I don't know how many times I have to tell you the same thing for it to get through to your thick skull. While it is true that faculty applicants need to include a diversity statement, there is no minimum score necessary for one to considered for a faculty appointment, unless it is an "excellence position."

The thing you seem to keep forgetting is that tenure insulates faculty from the political whims of the state legislature. This protects both liberal and conservative faculty. Put another way, even if you're a conservative faculty, unless you truly believe that Texas will not turn purple or blue during your professional lifetime, you would be much better off with the protections of tenure otherwise.

No minimum score. That's so weak. So a higher DEI score can be used for hiring, promotion, and tenure.

We don't need all TT and potential TT faculty to go to Texas, just some. And some there will be, not just for California.

The thing you seem to be forgetting is that it is competition protects both liberal and conservative faculty from the whims of a DEI bureaucracy and legislature. Tenure is just another perk.

My skull is indeed thick.

[mleok]

Not widespread support? Protections of tenure? We're talking about attaining tenure in California! DEI bites. Otherwise it wouldn't meaningfully exist.

All Texas needs is that some competing universities use DEI to provide a steady stream of applicants where tenure is not offered.

Contributions to diversity are not a requirement for tenure in the UC, I don't know how many times I have to tell you the same thing for it to get through to your thick skull. While it is true that faculty applicants need to include a diversity statement, there is no minimum score necessary for one to considered for a faculty appointment, unless it is an "excellence position."

The thing you seem to keep forgetting is that tenure insulates faculty from the political whims of the state legislature. This protects both liberal and conservative faculty. Put another way, even if you're a conservative faculty, unless you truly believe that Texas will not turn purple or blue during your professional lifetime, you would be much better off with the protections of tenure otherwise.

No minimum score. That's so weak. So a higher DEI score can be used for hiring, promotion, and tenure.

We don't need all TT and potential TT faculty to go to Texas, just some. And some there will be, not just for California.

The thing you seem to be forgetting is that it is competition protects both liberal and conservative faculty from the whims of a DEI bureaucracy and legislature. Tenure is just another perk.

My skull is indeed thick.

Well, at least in my STEM field, nobody cares about the DEI score for regular faculty appointments. But, good luck to Texas. The'll join the likes of Wisconsin in dismantling their once great public universities.