Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[ciao_yall]

A DEI statement is not the same as swearing to not have been a Communist, Socialist, Sexual Deviant or any other such silliness.

All a DEI statement says is that you will make sure that students will be supported and successful, regardless of their race, gender, religion or ethnicity.

If that's all it means, then it's pointless, because by law discrimination on those grounds is prohibited, and could get you fired.

You might as well also be required to sign a document saying you won't embezzle your employer, or assault other people on campus.

That said, it's one thing to say you won't XYZ. It's another to explain how you will set up policies and procedures to ensure that there won't be conditions in which embezzlement won't be possible, such as conflicting duties; or protecting personal safety, such as background checks, hotlines, well-lit back alleys, that sort of thing.

DEI shows that you are aware, alert, and proactive, rather than waiting for a student or employee to sue the college.

So anyone who tries to conflate DEI with McCarthyism is kinda stupid.

That would be true if, indeed, that was all it meant. The problem with McCarthyism and other witch hunts is that it's impossible to prove a negative, which is what is being demanded. You're assumed to be a (witch, communist, bigot) unless you can somehow prove you're not. You can't prove that any more than you can prove that you're not just a figment of the imagination of the person questioning you. Any "evidence" in your favour can be taken as just "evidence" of how careful you are about covering up your deviance.

You're right. It is difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative. DEI statements don't prove or disprove anything. They just demonstrate a level of social and professional competence in today's world.

DEI statement requirements differ across states and across institutions within states. That's one reason somebody working at a particular California university can think DEI statements don't exist and others claim they do. Here  is Berkeley's:

https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity

Part I tests knowledge. Part II tests what the candidate has done in the past. Part III tests what the candidate plans to do in future.

None of this is harmless and all of it filters out candidates who have different political views. It's more like an admission test to a cell of a political party.

It forces other thinking people to game the system, thereby promoting the idea of widespread support, or -- go to Texas!

Trying to imagine someone who thinks:

I:   I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.

II:  In the past, I have actively or passively undermined students whose backgrounds or world views were different from my own by actions such as, but not limited to... (a) Setting insensitive policies; (b) including content that was offensive to certain students and not contributing to the learning objectives;  (c) continuing to use expressions that were considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist despite being educated otherwise.

III. So, I'm gonna keep on keeping on because I have no desire to change or grow as a person!

dismalist, would you find this person a valuable and desirable colleague?

[dismalist]

A DEI statement is not the same as swearing to not have been a Communist, Socialist, Sexual Deviant or any other such silliness.

All a DEI statement says is that you will make sure that students will be supported and successful, regardless of their race, gender, religion or ethnicity.

If that's all it means, then it's pointless, because by law discrimination on those grounds is prohibited, and could get you fired.

You might as well also be required to sign a document saying you won't embezzle your employer, or assault other people on campus.

That said, it's one thing to say you won't XYZ. It's another to explain how you will set up policies and procedures to ensure that there won't be conditions in which embezzlement won't be possible, such as conflicting duties; or protecting personal safety, such as background checks, hotlines, well-lit back alleys, that sort of thing.

DEI shows that you are aware, alert, and proactive, rather than waiting for a student or employee to sue the college.

So anyone who tries to conflate DEI with McCarthyism is kinda stupid.

That would be true if, indeed, that was all it meant. The problem with McCarthyism and other witch hunts is that it's impossible to prove a negative, which is what is being demanded. You're assumed to be a (witch, communist, bigot) unless you can somehow prove you're not. You can't prove that any more than you can prove that you're not just a figment of the imagination of the person questioning you. Any "evidence" in your favour can be taken as just "evidence" of how careful you are about covering up your deviance.

You're right. It is difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative. DEI statements don't prove or disprove anything. They just demonstrate a level of social and professional competence in today's world.

DEI statement requirements differ across states and across institutions within states. That's one reason somebody working at a particular California university can think DEI statements don't exist and others claim they do. Here  is Berkeley's:

https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity

Part I tests knowledge. Part II tests what the candidate has done in the past. Part III tests what the candidate plans to do in future.

None of this is harmless and all of it filters out candidates who have different political views. It's more like an admission test to a cell of a political party.

It forces other thinking people to game the system, thereby promoting the idea of widespread support, or -- go to Texas!

Trying to imagine someone who thinks:

I:   I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.

II:  In the past, I have actively or passively undermined students whose backgrounds or world views were different from my own by actions such as, but not limited to... (a) Setting insensitive policies; (b) including content that was offensive to certain students and not contributing to the learning objectives;  (c) continuing to use expressions that were considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist despite being educated otherwise.

III. So, I'm gonna keep on keeping on because I have no desire to change or grow as a person!

dismalist, would you find this person a valuable and desirable colleague?

Oh, c'mon!

How about: I don't give a flying fuck about your skin color, your beliefs, your sex, your gender identity, or your politics, only your ability and willingness to learn. I would sign a statement like that. Now anyone who does would be a valuable colleague. Even if only possible in Texas.

This is a political disagreement, nothing more and nothing less.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't tend to agree with dismalist very much, ciao, I find him rather...dismal.

But simply accusing people of [something politically incorrect] when they frustrate us does no good, it is one of the ways that we liberals alienate people and make ourselves look triggered.  We are not so bright or insightful that we can "educate" other people about what they should say or think----that's why the big Hamline-catalyst backlash is now occurring.

[ciao_yall]

I don't tend to agree with dismalist very much, ciao, I find him rather...dismal.

But simply accusing people of [something politically incorrect] when they frustrate us does no good, it is one of the ways that we liberals alienate people and make ourselves look triggered.  We are not so bright or insightful that we can "educate" other people about what they should say or think----that's why the big Hamline-catalyst backlash is now occurring.

The Hamline thing happened because one student was offended. Instead of dealing with it like adults, the college went bananas and fired the instructor.

And... I have used expressions in the past that I didn't realize others found hurtful. I'll share a few examples in a PM if anyone is really curious.

I was told "hey, I don't know if you realize what you are saying but..." and guess what? I changed my behavior! It wasn't that hard on me and it kept me from inadvertently hurting the feelings of people I cared about.

[marshwiggle]

Trying to imagine someone who thinks:

I:   I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.

II:  In the past, I have actively or passively undermined students whose backgrounds or world views were different from my own by actions such as, but not limited to... (a) Setting insensitive policies; (b) including content that was offensive to certain students and not contributing to the learning objectives;  (c) continuing to use expressions that were considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist despite being educated otherwise.

III. So, I'm gonna keep on keeping on because I have no desire to change or grow as a person!

dismalist, would you find this person a valuable and desirable colleague?

What proportion of candidates do you think  honestly feel this way? 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%?
I can't imagine anyone aiming to work at a university who would subscribe to this. (Heck, I'd be surprised if you'd find 1% of the population who would actually subscribe to this.)

[ciao_yall]

Trying to imagine someone who thinks:

I:   I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.

II:  In the past, I have actively or passively undermined students whose backgrounds or world views were different from my own by actions such as, but not limited to... (a) Setting insensitive policies; (b) including content that was offensive to certain students and not contributing to the learning objectives;  (c) continuing to use expressions that were considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist despite being educated otherwise.

III. So, I'm gonna keep on keeping on because I have no desire to change or grow as a person!

dismalist, would you find this person a valuable and desirable colleague?

What proportion of candidates do you think  honestly feel this way? 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%?
I can't imagine anyone aiming to work at a university who would subscribe to this. (Heck, I'd be surprised if you'd find 1% of the population who would actually subscribe to this.)

Do you think this way? Why or why not? Discuss.

[marshwiggle]

Trying to imagine someone who thinks:

I:  I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.

II:  In the past, I have actively or passively undermined students whose backgrounds or world views were different from my own by actions such as, but not limited to... (a) Setting insensitive policies; (b) including content that was offensive to certain students and not contributing to the learning objectives;  (c) continuing to use expressions that were considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist despite being educated otherwise.

III. So, I'm gonna keep on keeping on because I have no desire to change or grow as a person!

dismalist, would you find this person a valuable and desirable colleague?

What proportion of candidates do you think  honestly feel this way? 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%?
I can't imagine anyone aiming to work at a university who would subscribe to this. (Heck, I'd be surprised if you'd find 1% of the population who would actually subscribe to this.)

Do you think this way? Why or why not? Discuss.

I don't actually know anyone who says these things. Do you? Have you heard candidates applying for jobs who have said these things?

[ciao_yall]

Trying to imagine someone who thinks:

I:  I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.

II:  In the past, I have actively or passively undermined students whose backgrounds or world views were different from my own by actions such as, but not limited to... (a) Setting insensitive policies; (b) including content that was offensive to certain students and not contributing to the learning objectives;  (c) continuing to use expressions that were considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist despite being educated otherwise.

III. So, I'm gonna keep on keeping on because I have no desire to change or grow as a person!

dismalist, would you find this person a valuable and desirable colleague?

What proportion of candidates do you think  honestly feel this way? 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%?
I can't imagine anyone aiming to work at a university who would subscribe to this. (Heck, I'd be surprised if you'd find 1% of the population who would actually subscribe to this.)

Do you think this way? Why or why not? Discuss.

I don't actually know anyone who says these things. Do you? Have you heard candidates applying for jobs who have said these things?

Yes.

Oh, c'mon!

How about: I don't give a flying fuck about your skin color, your beliefs, your sex, your gender identity, or your politics, only your ability and willingness to learn. I would sign a statement like that. Now anyone who does would be a valuable colleague. Even if only possible in Texas.

This is a political disagreement, nothing more and nothing less.

Boom.

[dismalist]

Trying to imagine someone who thinks:

I:  I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.

II:  In the past, I have actively or passively undermined students whose backgrounds or world views were different from my own by actions such as, but not limited to... (a) Setting insensitive policies; (b) including content that was offensive to certain students and not contributing to the learning objectives;  (c) continuing to use expressions that were considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist despite being educated otherwise.

III. So, I'm gonna keep on keeping on because I have no desire to change or grow as a person!

dismalist, would you find this person a valuable and desirable colleague?

What proportion of candidates do you think  honestly feel this way? 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%?
I can't imagine anyone aiming to work at a university who would subscribe to this. (Heck, I'd be surprised if you'd find 1% of the population who would actually subscribe to this.)

Do you think this way? Why or why not? Discuss.

I don't actually know anyone who says these things. Do you? Have you heard candidates applying for jobs who have said these things?

Yes.

Oh, c'mon!

How about: I don't give a flying fuck about your skin color, your beliefs, your sex, your gender identity, or your politics, only your ability and willingness to learn. I would sign a statement like that. Now anyone who does would be a valuable colleague. Even if only possible in Texas.

This is a political disagreement, nothing more and nothing less.

Boom.

What you attribute to me and what I wrote have no logical connection to each other. One does not imply the opposite of the other. They are statements drawn from two different worlds, with fundamentally different beliefs about universities and minorities. Thus, two different political positions.

[marshwiggle]

Trying to imagine someone who thinks:

I:  I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.

II:  In the past, I have actively or passively undermined students whose backgrounds or world views were different from my own by actions such as, but not limited to... (a) Setting insensitive policies; (b) including content that was offensive to certain students and not contributing to the learning objectives;  (c) continuing to use expressions that were considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist despite being educated otherwise.

III. So, I'm gonna keep on keeping on because I have no desire to change or grow as a person!

dismalist, would you find this person a valuable and desirable colleague?

What proportion of candidates do you think  honestly feel this way? 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%?
I can't imagine anyone aiming to work at a university who would subscribe to this. (Heck, I'd be surprised if you'd find 1% of the population who would actually subscribe to this.)

Do you think this way? Why or why not? Discuss.

I don't actually know anyone who says these things. Do you? Have you heard candidates applying for jobs who have said these things?

Yes.

Oh, c'mon!

How about: I don't give a flying fuck about your skin color, your beliefs, your sex, your gender identity, or your politics, only your ability and willingness to learn. I would sign a statement like that. Now anyone who does would be a valuable colleague. Even if only possible in Texas.

This is a political disagreement, nothing more and nothing less.

Boom.

What are you talking about? Dismalist's response was exactly in line with your supposed ideals. (Unless, perhaps when you say
I don't want to know anything about students whose backgrounds or world views are different from my own.
you actually mean
I don't want to specifically discuss the backgrounds or world views of students which may be different from my own.)

That's not the same thing at all. It is perfectly reasonable (and in fact, desirable if one wants to avoid potential bias) to stick to discussing things that are directly relevant to the student's education.

[mleok]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but tenure is a form of compensation.  It allows the school to hire people for less money in exchange for prestige and stable income.  The legislators are likely in a bubble where everyone they know has no concept of unemployment.  They can easily move from one job to the next with good connections.  They have no idea about the difficulties of the academic job search process.

Yes, I did mention this upthread, but the thread has been derailed by discussions of DEI statements, which are a red herring introduced by dismalist because he was unable to address the basic question why the removal of tenure, which is a form of compensation, would improve recruitment outcomes for Texas public universities. If you have the fortitude to read the entire thread, you'll see that dismalist has backpeddled on this issue (first saying it would improve outcomes for Texas, and then saying that it won't have too much of a negative impact for attracting high-performers) and finally decided that he could not win on the merits of his argument, and introduced the issue of DEI statements instead.

[dismalist]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but tenure is a form of compensation.  It allows the school to hire people for less money in exchange for prestige and stable income.  The legislators are likely in a bubble where everyone they know has no concept of unemployment.  They can easily move from one job to the next with good connections.  They have no idea about the difficulties of the academic job search process.

Yes, I did mention this upthread, but the thread has been derailed by discussions of DEI statements, which are a red herring introduced by dismalist because he was unable to address the basic question why the removal of tenure, which is a form of compensation, would improve recruitment outcomes for Texas public universities. If you have the fortitude to read the entire thread, you'll see that dismalist has backpeddled on this issue (first saying it would improve outcomes for Texas, and then saying that it won't have too much of a negative impact for attracting high-performers) and finally decided that he could not win on the merits of his argument, and introduced the issue of DEI statements instead.

One must understand how competition works. Seems to be a dirty word to some.

[Parasaurolophus]

One must understand how competition works. Seems to be a dirty word to some.

Doesn't "competition" suggest that, of two jobs with comparable pay, the one with more non-monetary compensation will be more attractive, and thus competition for it will be fiercer than for the job with less non-monetary compensation? The end result would be fewer applicants, and applicants of lower overall quality, for the job that offers less.

[dismalist]

One must understand how competition works. Seems to be a dirty word to some.

Doesn't "competition" suggest that, of two jobs with comparable pay, the one with more non-monetary compensation will be more attractive, and thus competition for it will be fiercer than for the job with less non-monetary compensation? The end result would be fewer applicants, and applicants of lower overall quality, for the job that offers less.

People differ in their tastes: Some value an extra dollar more, some value extra safety more, some value freedom from DEI more. So long as quality of researcher is not too highly correlated with desire for safety, nor with desire for DEI, non-tenure offering places will prosper if there's too much DEI offered by the competitors.

[mleok]

One must understand how competition works. Seems to be a dirty word to some.

Doesn't "competition" suggest that, of two jobs with comparable pay, the one with more non-monetary compensation will be more attractive, and thus competition for it will be fiercer than for the job with less non-monetary compensation? The end result would be fewer applicants, and applicants of lower overall quality, for the job that offers less.

People differ in their tastes: Some value an extra dollar more, some value extra safety more, some value freedom from DEI more. So long as quality of researcher is not too highly correlated with desire for safety, nor with desire for DEI, non-tenure offering places will prosper if there's too much DEI offered by the competitors.

These differences were already baked into the prior state of the competition between Texas and other states. It's not as if the DEI statement requirement in California is new, and all we're saying is that the removal of tenure makes Texas less competitive than it was. But keep trying to defend an indefensible position. Are you backpeddling now on your claimed negative correlation between desire for tenure and the quality of the researcher?