D.E.I. Programs Are Getting in the Way of Liberal Education

[artalot]

I work in a conservative state where state-funded institutions are now banned from including the word 'diversity' on anything publicly posted to the web and even in internal emails. You literally cannot write the word. On the flip side, the (former) DEI office never required training, syllabus statements, or tests of loyalty. I can tell you that the anti-DEI people are much more authoritarian than the DEI people, and are much more interested in shutting down the conversation. When I can't put a word in writing, that is not freedom, that is censorship.

[Kron3007]

I see where the New York Times did an article the other day about controversies regarding required diversity statements by faculty at universities.  It mentioned concerns that they are a kind of "forced speech," that they can be taken as an effort to enforce ideological conformity, that they can easily turn into empty virtue signaling by those who are cynically prepared to write what they know they're expected to write.  It was not an op-ed piece, simply an article mentioning the issues.


https://www.nytimes.com › ucla-dei-statement

(May not be a good link; I read this in the print edition)


I've honestly been trying to keep an open mind about DEI, since it represents efforts toward important and desirable goals.  But the concerns about requiring diversity statements from applicants and faculty members seem plausible, especially in public universities.

Why? It means that one is aware of different experiences and struggles, and have an open mind to working with all students from all backgrounds.

If that's really all it means, then what tiny fraction of the population would disagree with it?
Especially among people who'd want to work in higher education????

If it really breaks one's crayons to be expected to express this level of professionalism, perhaps one should not be working in higher education?

Should they have to sign on to

• acknowledging the heliocentric nature of the solar system 
• believing that matter is made up of atoms

as well?

If the statements really only mean what they say, it's pointless. If they don't it's dishonest.

Well, would you hire a professor whose cover letter insisted they were a flat-earther and that the word was made of  blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm?

If their cover letter volunteered that, then it would indicate that they had very strong fringe beliefs. How long should the checklist be of fringe beliefs that people have to disagree with? That's the problem with these DEI statements; every normal person agrees with them. People shouldn't have to agree to "water is wet" in order to be hired. It's a hole with no bottom.

In any diversity statement I have had to write (which is becoming a frequent occurrence), it is not about agreeing that diversity is good, or saying "water is wet".  It is about outlining the tangible steps you have taken to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, ensure equitable evaluation of candidates/students, or whatever, depending on the context.  The type of diversity statement you allude to is superficial and will not suffice anymore.

So, you are right that basically everyone will agree that diversity and inclusion are good things (although some may not actually), but that is not actually what they are looking for in these statements.

I am pretty fed up with them as they add a significant extra layer to everything I do, but I do see the point as they make you reflect on how you are running your lab/class/etc when done properly.       

[apl68]

In any diversity statement I have had to write (which is becoming a frequent occurrence), it is not about agreeing that diversity is good, or saying "water is wet".  It is about outlining the tangible steps you have taken to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, ensure equitable evaluation of candidates/students, or whatever, depending on the context.  The type of diversity statement you allude to is superficial and will not suffice anymore.

So, you are right that basically everyone will agree that diversity and inclusion are good things (although some may not actually), but that is not actually what they are looking for in these statements.

I am pretty fed up with them as they add a significant extra layer to everything I do, but I do see the point as they make you reflect on how you are running your lab/class/etc when done properly.       

And see, that seems to be what concerns people about these statements.  How much does one have to agree to, and how far does one have to go (or perhaps pretend to go) down the road of ideological conformity in order to get hired?  I can see there being legitimate concerns here that angry, reflexive denunciations of anybody who voices qualms about some aspects of DEI as evil or backward fail to address.

[apl68]

I work in a conservative state where state-funded institutions are now banned from including the word 'diversity' on anything publicly posted to the web and even in internal emails. You literally cannot write the word. On the flip side, the (former) DEI office never required training, syllabus statements, or tests of loyalty. I can tell you that the anti-DEI people are much more authoritarian than the DEI people, and are much more interested in shutting down the conversation. When I can't put a word in writing, that is not freedom, that is censorship.

Our governor's executive order forbidding mention of "diversity" in state agency materials was a transparent piece of signalling to the GOP base to burnish her national credentials.  She's been doing a lot of that.  She has come to denounce black history studies in general as biased and divisive.  Which, even acknowledging the excesses that have sometimes taken place in the teaching of the field, is a serious case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

[Kron3007]

In any diversity statement I have had to write (which is becoming a frequent occurrence), it is not about agreeing that diversity is good, or saying "water is wet".  It is about outlining the tangible steps you have taken to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, ensure equitable evaluation of candidates/students, or whatever, depending on the context.  The type of diversity statement you allude to is superficial and will not suffice anymore.

So, you are right that basically everyone will agree that diversity and inclusion are good things (although some may not actually), but that is not actually what they are looking for in these statements.

I am pretty fed up with them as they add a significant extra layer to everything I do, but I do see the point as they make you reflect on how you are running your lab/class/etc when done properly.       

And see, that seems to be what concerns people about these statements.  How much does one have to agree to, and how far does one have to go (or perhaps pretend to go) down the road of ideological conformity in order to get hired?  I can see there being legitimate concerns here that angry, reflexive denunciations of anybody who voices qualms about some aspects of DEI as evil or backward fail to address.

I suppose, but I think that is a little off the mark. You don`t need to agree with someone`s religion or ideology to make them feel welcome in your lab.  For example, one step you could take is a flexible work schedule to facilitate prayers or religious holidays for religious people.

I am not religious in the slightest, but these are definitely accommodations I make in my group.  Personally, I think religion is kinda dumb, but that should not be reflected in my lab environment.  Likewise, religious people may hate gays or disagree with their choices, but that should not be reflected in their class, lab, etc. 

[Wahoo Redux]

In any diversity statement I have had to write (which is becoming a frequent occurrence), it is not about agreeing that diversity is good, or saying "water is wet".  It is about outlining the tangible steps you have taken to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, ensure equitable evaluation of candidates/students, or whatever, depending on the context.  The type of diversity statement you allude to is superficial and will not suffice anymore.

So, you are right that basically everyone will agree that diversity and inclusion are good things (although some may not actually), but that is not actually what they are looking for in these statements.

I am pretty fed up with them as they add a significant extra layer to everything I do, but I do see the point as they make you reflect on how you are running your lab/class/etc when done properly.       

And see, that seems to be what concerns people about these statements.  How much does one have to agree to, and how far does one have to go (or perhaps pretend to go) down the road of ideological conformity in order to get hired?  I can see there being legitimate concerns here that angry, reflexive denunciations of anybody who voices qualms about some aspects of DEI as evil or backward fail to address.

I suppose, but I think that is a little off the mark. You don`t need to agree with someone`s religion or ideology to make them feel welcome in your lab.  For example, one step you could take is a flexible work schedule to facilitate prayers or religious holidays for religious people.

I am not religious in the slightest, but these are definitely accommodations I make in my group.  Personally, I think religion is kinda dumb, but that should not be reflected in my lab environment.  Likewise, religious people may hate gays or disagree with their choices, but that should not be reflected in their class, lab, etc. 

And the whole impetus for DEI is the fact that some people stubbornly refuse to let go of their hate and prejudice.  And this is a big part of our national psyche. 

My problem with DEI in this day and age is that, like all good intentions, some people simply take it too far and become zealous to the point of paranoia.  That, and some people expect someone like me, who is an "awkward ally," to pay for the sins of my fathers.

[Kron3007]

In any diversity statement I have had to write (which is becoming a frequent occurrence), it is not about agreeing that diversity is good, or saying "water is wet".  It is about outlining the tangible steps you have taken to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, ensure equitable evaluation of candidates/students, or whatever, depending on the context.  The type of diversity statement you allude to is superficial and will not suffice anymore.

So, you are right that basically everyone will agree that diversity and inclusion are good things (although some may not actually), but that is not actually what they are looking for in these statements.

I am pretty fed up with them as they add a significant extra layer to everything I do, but I do see the point as they make you reflect on how you are running your lab/class/etc when done properly.       

And see, that seems to be what concerns people about these statements.  How much does one have to agree to, and how far does one have to go (or perhaps pretend to go) down the road of ideological conformity in order to get hired?  I can see there being legitimate concerns here that angry, reflexive denunciations of anybody who voices qualms about some aspects of DEI as evil or backward fail to address.

I suppose, but I think that is a little off the mark. You don`t need to agree with someone`s religion or ideology to make them feel welcome in your lab.  For example, one step you could take is a flexible work schedule to facilitate prayers or religious holidays for religious people.

I am not religious in the slightest, but these are definitely accommodations I make in my group.  Personally, I think religion is kinda dumb, but that should not be reflected in my lab environment.  Likewise, religious people may hate gays or disagree with their choices, but that should not be reflected in their class, lab, etc. 

And the whole impetus for DEI is the fact that some people stubbornly refuse to let go of their hate and prejudice.  And this is a big part of our national psyche. 

My problem with DEI in this day and age is that, like all good intentions, some people simply take it too far and become zealous to the point of paranoia.  That, and some people expect someone like me, who is an "awkward ally," to pay for the sins of my fathers.

Definitely.

I also feel that far too much is window dressing.  I just finished a huge EDI component of a program review where I had to go over all the wonderful EDI things we are doing in our curriculum and teaching methods.  Problem is, professors have pretty much full autonomy, so as a department most of this is our of our control.

It would have been a lot of time I would never have gotten back, but chat GPT pitched in a lot on this section.

[marshwiggle]

In any diversity statement I have had to write (which is becoming a frequent occurrence), it is not about agreeing that diversity is good, or saying "water is wet".  It is about outlining the tangible steps you have taken to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, ensure equitable evaluation of candidates/students, or whatever, depending on the context. 

So I'm honestly curious about how you can show "tangible steps" to "ensure" equitable evaluation of candidates/students. Every time I grade something, I could be incorporating my own biases. Saying I try to be objective isn't any sort of "tangible step". Unless the LMS is set up for some sort of random presentation of student work for grading, I will see the students' names before I evaluate them. In the lab, I will be aware of their physical characteristics as I evaluate them.

Under those conditions, what possible way is there for a person to take "tangible steps" to be objective that will be anything other than just the widely-held principle of trying to treat everyone equally?

It sounds like trying to prove you're not planning a murder; the absence of anything suggesting you are can just be taken as evidence that you're being really sneaky about it.

It's just like black helicopters and tinfoil hats. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

[Ruralguy]

I would just say this: If you are not paying attention to something then you know you aren't. Don't expect magical results. Which is to say, it takes more than "History is history, the minority candidates in History will just apply like anybody else. A job is a job." I don't need to do anything else" to get candidates of color and other minorities. If you don't really care, then you don't.

[Kron3007]

In any diversity statement I have had to write (which is becoming a frequent occurrence), it is not about agreeing that diversity is good, or saying "water is wet".  It is about outlining the tangible steps you have taken to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, ensure equitable evaluation of candidates/students, or whatever, depending on the context. 

So I'm honestly curious about how you can show "tangible steps" to "ensure" equitable evaluation of candidates/students. Every time I grade something, I could be incorporating my own biases. Saying I try to be objective isn't any sort of "tangible step". Unless the LMS is set up for some sort of random presentation of student work for grading, I will see the students' names before I evaluate them. In the lab, I will be aware of their physical characteristics as I evaluate them.

Under those conditions, what possible way is there for a person to take "tangible steps" to be objective that will be anything other than just the widely-held principle of trying to treat everyone equally?

It sounds like trying to prove you're not planning a murder; the absence of anything suggesting you are can just be taken as evidence that you're being really sneaky about it.

It's just like black helicopters and tinfoil hats. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

There are many ways to make evaluations equitable.  I am no expert, so you are probably just as capable of finding out.  Here is a nice little primer for you (Chat GPT told me about this term, and I googled it to learn more.):

https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/designing-your-course/universal-design-learning

[Hibush]

I work in a conservative state where state-funded institutions are now banned from including the word 'diversity' on anything publicly posted to the web and even in internal emails. You literally cannot write the word. On the flip side, the (former) DEI office never required training, syllabus statements, or tests of loyalty. I can tell you that the anti-DEI people are much more authoritarian than the DEI people, and are much more interested in shutting down the conversation. When I can't put a word in writing, that is not freedom, that is censorship.

Our governor's executive order forbidding mention of "diversity" in state agency materials was a transparent piece of signalling to the GOP base to burnish her national credentials.  She's been doing a lot of that.  She has come to denounce black history studies in general as biased and divisive.  Which, even acknowledging the excesses that have sometimes taken place in the teaching of the field, is a serious case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

Does that mean none of the 528 authors in this Nature paper could be from your state?

"The power of genetic diversity in genome-wide association studies of lipids"

[Kron3007]

I work in a conservative state where state-funded institutions are now banned from including the word 'diversity' on anything publicly posted to the web and even in internal emails. You literally cannot write the word. On the flip side, the (former) DEI office never required training, syllabus statements, or tests of loyalty. I can tell you that the anti-DEI people are much more authoritarian than the DEI people, and are much more interested in shutting down the conversation. When I can't put a word in writing, that is not freedom, that is censorship.

Our governor's executive order forbidding mention of "diversity" in state agency materials was a transparent piece of signalling to the GOP base to burnish her national credentials.  She's been doing a lot of that.  She has come to denounce black history studies in general as biased and divisive.  Which, even acknowledging the excesses that have sometimes taken place in the teaching of the field, is a serious case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

Does that mean none of the 528 authors in this Nature paper could be from your state?

"The power of genetic diversity in genome-wide association studies of lipids"

528 authors, now that's inclusive!

[Caracal]

I suppose, but I think that is a little off the mark. You don`t need to agree with someone`s religion or ideology to make them feel welcome in your lab.  For example, one step you could take is a flexible work schedule to facilitate prayers or religious holidays for religious people.

I am not religious in the slightest, but these are definitely accommodations I make in my group.  Personally, I think religion is kinda dumb, but that should not be reflected in my lab environment.  Likewise, religious people may hate gays or disagree with their choices, but that should not be reflected in their class, lab, etc. 

This is a good example of what inclusion and equity should mean. It would be clearly illegal if you refused to accommodate religious holidays for people in your lab, but its easy to imagine a scenario where a less thoughtful version of you makes everyone who has a religious obligation specifically request time off and you vaguely communicate the sense that while they are entitled to the accommodation, you think that religion is silly and that these people are prioritizing it in a way that you don't approve of. Honestly, even if that wasn't what you were thinking, you can see how people who need to make frequent requests might worry that you were thinking that.

Instead, by having flexible schedules, you communicate to everyone that religious beliefs and obligations aren't a barrier to their success and all that you care about is that they can do the work. Flexible schedules also are something that can help people who have non-religious obligations, like child or elder care. That's likely to indirectly make your lab a more welcoming place for people from different backgrounds of all sorts.

[marshwiggle]

In any diversity statement I have had to write (which is becoming a frequent occurrence), it is not about agreeing that diversity is good, or saying "water is wet".  It is about outlining the tangible steps you have taken to foster a diverse and inclusive environment, ensure equitable evaluation of candidates/students, or whatever, depending on the context. 

So I'm honestly curious about how you can show "tangible steps" to "ensure" equitable evaluation of candidates/students. Every time I grade something, I could be incorporating my own biases. Saying I try to be objective isn't any sort of "tangible step". Unless the LMS is set up for some sort of random presentation of student work for grading, I will see the students' names before I evaluate them. In the lab, I will be aware of their physical characteristics as I evaluate them.

Under those conditions, what possible way is there for a person to take "tangible steps" to be objective that will be anything other than just the widely-held principle of trying to treat everyone equally?

It sounds like trying to prove you're not planning a murder; the absence of anything suggesting you are can just be taken as evidence that you're being really sneaky about it.

It's just like black helicopters and tinfoil hats. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

There are many ways to make evaluations equitable. 

But it's not about making them equitable; it's trying to prove that you have made them equitable.

The Humane Course Policies that Make Life Easier thread on here exemplifies the kind of things that lots of people automatically gravitate to, but not because of the DEI police. A shameless virtue-signaller would automatically point to that about DEI, whereas to many it's just good pedagogy and not something explicitly related to DEI at all.
 

[apl68]

I suppose, but I think that is a little off the mark. You don`t need to agree with someone`s religion or ideology to make them feel welcome in your lab.  For example, one step you could take is a flexible work schedule to facilitate prayers or religious holidays for religious people.

I am not religious in the slightest, but these are definitely accommodations I make in my group.  Personally, I think religion is kinda dumb, but that should not be reflected in my lab environment.  Likewise, religious people may hate gays or disagree with their choices, but that should not be reflected in their class, lab, etc. 

This is a good example of what inclusion and equity should mean. It would be clearly illegal if you refused to accommodate religious holidays for people in your lab, but its easy to imagine a scenario where a less thoughtful version of you makes everyone who has a religious obligation specifically request time off and you vaguely communicate the sense that while they are entitled to the accommodation, you think that religion is silly and that these people are prioritizing it in a way that you don't approve of. Honestly, even if that wasn't what you were thinking, you can see how people who need to make frequent requests might worry that you were thinking that.

Instead, by having flexible schedules, you communicate to everyone that religious beliefs and obligations aren't a barrier to their success and all that you care about is that they can do the work. Flexible schedules also are something that can help people who have non-religious obligations, like child or elder care. That's likely to indirectly make your lab a more welcoming place for people from different backgrounds of all sorts.

And DEI as understood here by you and Kron3007 makes perfect sense.  If "diversity statements" are meant to help candidates think issues like this through, then they could perhaps be a useful exercise.  If that's their purpose, then I can understand them.

I can also still understand concerns on the part of candidates that there is some sort of looked-for "right answer" when it comes to diversity statements that they need to be working toward.  Maybe there needs to be better messaging with regard to these requirements.  And fewer knee-jerk reactions all around when misunderstandings occur and concerns are aired.