A heartfelt letter, sent in response to my last post, illustrates the personal impact that the current climate of exclusion in the name of diversity at US and Canadian Universities can have.
Isn’t this really an economic problem? I agree 100% that two wrongs don’t make a right. But who’s committing both wrongs? Bear with me. Until very recently, opportunity, academic and otherwise, was the privilege of white males at the expense of everyone else, women, blacks, Native Americans, — anyone who was not a white male. I’m old enough to remember when there were doctors and lady doctors, nurses and male nurses; when the best of everything in society was reserved for white people. I was born shortly after the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt attempted to remedy poverty with the New Deal programs. However, when it was communicated to the white men of the country that someone other than them were the beneficiaries of the programs, they began to chip away at the very programs that benefited them and everyone else. I’m thinking of Ronald Reagan’s campaign based on putting a stop to the welfare “QUEENS” by which he meant black women. While he was pulling the rug out from under the black women, he also went after the recipients of Social Security Disability, and labor unions — remember the air traffic controllers? All the big tax cuts benefited who? The ultra wealthy. The rest of us, are left to fight among ourselves for the crumbs that are left — and that includes the academic world. Why do we always need to play a zero sum game. It seems to me that the remedy for the centuries of discrimination against women in academia (Henrietta Leavitt leaps to mind), is higher taxes on the ultra wealthy who control the lion’s share of the wealth of the world so that Universities have the resources to employ all the best minds in the various fields, not the least of which is physics. The remedy is inclusion, not some other kind of exclusion. We need to keep our focus on the real source of the problem — those who control the wealth and their hired soldiers in congress and state legislatures. Let’s get over our zero sum thinking. if the universities have the resources they need, students wouldn't need to agree to a life of debt, and there would be plenty of faculty positions to be filled. Them's the thoughts of an old socialist who's now trying to learn something about physics, cosmology, and evolutionary biology.
First, Then why didn't he get the position? It's a serious question. Are his accomplishments so common that he would not rise above the pack of candidates for those positions which not set aside for DEI, or are we only getting a portion of the story? I suspect the latter.
Second, "Numerous other instances" is not a helpful statistic. What is the percentage of DEI set-asides? How many positions open in a year? How many total candidates and how many in the DEI beneficiary groups are there for those positions each year? Any references to actual data would be greatly appreciated.
Third. Are you suggesting that people (or maybe just academics) are immune to bias and discrimination, regardless of whether it is conscious? I think it is not controversial to claim that humans are tribal by nature and that despite best intentions, we are naturally inclined to act with predjudice. If this was not true, we would not have the inequities in society that created Afirmative Action/DEI programs to begin with. Human nature has not changed and in my experiencen there are still significant imbalances in the system.
Forth. Correcting imbalances in the constituency of a population is not a "wrong" especially when those imbalances are due to centuries of overt discrimination. In a system with limited opportunity, someone is going to lose out.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I respect your opinion but in this case it is at odds with my understanding, which I admit is limited on this topic. I've been an engineer working in industry for 30+ years, not in academia, In my experience, the repesentation of women and minorities in science and engineering roles is grossly out of whack.
I'd like to see some data from reliable sources. We both know that anecdotal evidence is weak at best. Furthermore, the bulk of arguments against DEI that I've read or heard come from a radicalized political faction for which I have nothing but disdain. I know that doesn't mean the issue isn't real but it is suspect until I've seen data from a credible source. Any references you can supply would be appreciated.
Anyway, thanks for your time and your many contributions to science, education, and other pursuits. I especially miss your appearances with Dawkins and Hitchens.
I have tried to give detailed evidence in a number of pieces I have written for Quillette and the Wall St. Journal... hope some of them are illuminating. thanks for the kind words.
You sound like a typical Fox News consumer.. I'll respond to your ridiculous post with a serious answer though it only deserves to be mocked.
100% diversity would indicate that all populations were represented in equal proportion to their appearance within society at large. I think something approaching that is the goal.
Your obvious distress with that prospect suggests that you rbelive you haven't actually earned your place in whatever professional or academic setting you occupy.
I really try to keep these comments and discussions respectful if possible.. You can disagree.. even disagree profoundly, but no ad-hominems if possible, ok?
Haven't you seen those photos, they come out every few months from different organizations 'our new diverse team' and it's a crowd of white women. See such a group is homogenous when considered in isolation, but as an isolated group of women in a male dominated environment it becomes an island of diversity. Anyway it was meant as a sort of gallows humor.
While we are critiquing each others comments tho, I will point out that you seem to have read a lot more out of mine than I wrote into it.
I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction and barbed reply. Your comment seemed like the kind of thing I would hear coming from a Fox commentator and I've lost patience with that sort of thing. The jibes were unnecessary and uncalled for regardless of your intent.
This story seems incomplete at best. Given this person's reported accomplishments, I find it difficult to believe he cannot find a position in academia. Is the field of astrophysics so competitive that such accomplishments/credentials are commonplace among applicants? If not, why is he having such difficulty (or are we to believe that no white males are receiving positions)? If they are commonplace, then I'm impressed, but then there must be other factors weighing against him.
Regardless, as an accomplished astrophysicist, he should have no problem finding a lucrative and rewarding position in industry. He might not get paid to theorize about the nature of the universe right away, but he should easily be able to land a position doing challenging technical work and earn a 6-figure salary while he searches for the elusive faculty position he desires.
I don't like the idea of discriminating against anyone on the basis of sex, race, age... but it would be incredibly naive or intellectually dishonest to pretend it wouldn't take place if DEI programs were eliminated. That's why we have DEI.
It sucks that discriminating against white males may be institutionalized but correcting imbalances in populations,due to past conscious or unconscious wrong , isn't the problem. The past wrongs are the problem.
first, I can attest that given the accomplishments he should have gotten a position. Second, I can attest that this is not an anomaly.. I know of or have heard of numerous other instances. Third, no idea why you think bias based on age race or sex would occur if DEI were eliminated. Fourth, two wrongs definitely do not make a right.
Hardly. Practicing reasonable DEI policies does not preclude the practice of merit-based rewards.
Define merit. Do interpersonal skills count? They certainly count when it comes to finding work. No one gets a job based on a resume. Why shouldn't one's commitment to justice count? No one is suggesting giving a position to an unqualified individual.
Why do you get to force your definition of merit on institutions? If they chose to include some measure of the strength of DEI statements in their merit equation, that is their right. For every one that does so, there are four that don't. Find an institution that agrees with your philosophy.
Set-asides are commonplace in the US. We have small business set-asides, minority owned business set-asides, veteran-owned business set-asides, ... no one whines about those. Society benefits from those programs. The same should be true of DEI in academia and industry. No one is forcing DEI on institutions. They can choose whether to implement those programs based on some perceived value. No business, government agency, or university has set hiring quotas. That would be a violation of Federal law. Some fraction (<20% from what I have read) of universities require their applicants to provide "diversity statements" and can use them as part of the merit equation". If someone can't formulate a reasonable statement, maybe that person isn't as qualified as they think they are. If someone can actually demonstrate discrimination based on sex or race or ... whatever, then that person has the right to sue in court.
I think you are not aware of many of the unfortunate realities at universities today. 76% of candidates for biology prof at Berkeley were dismissed before their research statements were examined because they didn’t make the DEI cut. Merely saying that you believe diversity is important and treat everyone with respect and encouragement isn’t good enough. Again, please read some of the other things I have written about.
You're right. I haven't been on a university campus in over 30 years except for an occasional working group meeting here or there. So I only know about the sensational cases that make it into stories like the one you posted.
You're also right that "merely saying that you believe diversity is important and treat everyone with respect and encouragement" is insufficient. Berkeley provides guidlines on how to write a DEI statement and provides a sample scoring guide. They tell you exactly what they expect and it is a lot more than a one one-liner.
Maybe a one-line statement is all that should be necessary but if that was the case, there probably wouldn't be any inequity driving DEI initiatives in the first place.
All your WSJ and Quillette content is paywalled. I won't be contributing to Murdoc's disinformation machine, but maybe i'll spring for a Quillette membership in a few weeks ,but frankly, I feel like I've spent too much time on this topic as is. For me, it comes down to the following:
1) The vast majority of universities don't require DEI statements.
2) it's supposedly a free contry. If a school decides DEI initiatives are important, and someone disagrees, then that person can either play the game or play with one of the 85% of schools that do not require DEI statements.
3) If universities are misusing DEI statements to violate federal anti-discrimination laws, sue them.
4) If DEI initiatives have gone overboard, it's a self-correcting problem. Talent will drift away or be driven from universities with bad policies. Schools will get sued. Schools will lose their competitive edge. All these effects will drive a loosening of DEI requirements. Hopefully, society's position on the DEI spectrum will converge to some reasonable compromise between a pure meritocracy and a DEI police-state.
5) The most vocal opponents of DEI initiatives are regressive politicians for whom I have zero respect. While that doesn't mean all opposition to DEI is wrong, it is suspect.
You are right. You have spent a lot of time on this. I understand you’re erring on the side of good intentions here. Most universities actually do require DEI statements. As I described in one article, when I sido a random survey of job announcements in physics 24 out of 25 institúyenos requieres them.
Anyway quillette is worth it. Also I gave a seminar online at Stanford about this and my slides are available on this substack site if you want to look at them. Thanks for your thoughts. No need to continue this conversation here.
DEI is being forced on institutions and through labor law on companies with > 50 employees. The very definition of equity is based upon outcomes where you just statistically add up number of check box categories which is not the same as equal opportunity. Equity excludes relevant variables from interest in an area to ability in a subject areas is built and built on a false assumption that all the check box groups have the same distributions of interests and cultures.
I started in a cultural group that was into fast cars in the 50's and then adopted the education culture of my Japanese and Jewish friends while ending up in the real sciences.
I know what they want in a "Diversity statement" for UC Berkeley and it is all nonsense. If I included the reality of gangs and gang fights (very diverse) and illegal street racing, etc. they wouldn't be happy, but if I included my later friends (from different check boxes) who came from educated families with a long history of academic accomplishment and with the academic and cultural values I adopted I may have gotten a look. However, I am not female or gay with no checkbox points. There is almost zero cultural diversity across my check-box diversity friends.
Since all the decisions we are talking about involve individuals, statistical analysis based upon arbitrary groupings ignoring relevant variables like culture are logically wrong. It was just a big benefit to some of my check box friends whose cultural value systems are identical to ours and a disadvantage to my Asian check box friends and now detrimental to male children.
What DEI laws are you citing? The only laws I see popping up are anti-DEI laws being enacted in several states like Florida, Texas, Arkansas. I've worked for corporations and research institutions with employees numbering in the 1000s. If they were bound by DEI labor laws, there was no evidence of it. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate based on age, sex, race, religion,... and, thanks to the conservatively packed, unrepresentative, Supreme Court, Affirmative Action is effectively dead.
No "male children" are being blocked from professorships because of insufficient DEI statements. A very small subset of adults, those who fail or neglect to adequately address DEI issues in their DEI statements in the approximately 15% of job applications where DEI statements are required, are eliminated from consideration.
If you know how to write a DEI statements, you can probably make a mint by starting a service that does so for job applicants at universities or teaches applicants to write their own, but it sound like you thinkn its about a person's affiliation with an underrepresented group.. Ostensibly, that is not the case. According to Berkeley's scoring criteria, DEI statements are more about a candidate's awareness of past discrimination and its effects, ones commitment to DEI practices, and his or her plans to promote DEI as a faculty member.
If some organizations have decided that they value the goals of DEI, that is their decision to make. If that offends you, let them know and shop elsewhere ... turn your attention to the 85% of schools that don't require DEI statements. Anyone applying for a prestigious, highly sought-after, position should expect to be forced to jump through hoops, sensible and potentially nonsensical, in order to land that position. You don't have to like it, but those are the rules. Deal with it. The scoring criteria for DEI statements is available. Craft your statement around it.
Maybe emphasis on DEI has gone too far at some schools. If so, iit's a self-correcting problem. Schools will either abandon bad policies or they will lose their ranking as talent is driven away to other schools. If organizations are misusing DEI initiatives to discriminate, they are in violation of the law and they will be sued. If DEI statements become the norm, then a DEI statement writing industry will spring-up that will homogenize them and render them pointless to the schools.
It seems like way too much energy is being expended by talented and influential people on this issue. If they redirected their efforts on advocating for more government funding and fundraising, more students could attend school and more faculty positions would open-up. That would reduce the impact of DEI initiatives on applicants, reduce the need for DEI in the first place, and ultimately put more "brain-power" to work in the world to the benefit of everyone.
Perhaps you are either in non-STEM areas and/or have been away from academia for a very long time. In technical STEM areas where you absolutely require people who understand very technical subjects in detail, not just the hand waving buzz words of a salesman, you have to use merit. You can seldom maximize DEI and merit in the same individual person. The individual who truly understands modern science at the frontiers of knowledge spends a huge amount of his life focused on these areas to the detriment on focusing on your DEI issues and, sometimes, many social issues.
In reading some of the papers in the DEI and Social Science areas my analogy becomes Astrology where the human pattern matching related abilities found connections in effectively random pattern of visions of the celestial objects 2-D movements with no consideration of the distance dimension or earth movements. Demanding that astronomy majors write an "Astrology" support statments is insane.
By excluding the culture, interest, and ability of individuals in the DEI analysis it becomes impossible to have an analysis that describes reality. You can't correctly describe an N-Dimensional problem in N-x variables without assuming all x variables are constant. All the check-box grouping of DEI have a huge internal variance on all the more relevant parameters that make up an individual.
As someone hiring people, only merit and mentor-ability counted, not the check boxes of DEI. Ironically the majority of my hires over the decades have been in a lot of the check-box categories, except for women. Some of the jobs required understand and working with anaerobic biological systems, which have properties that women are not attracted to. But that is just individual preference and a rare few women were interested with the right knowledge and abilities which were hired.
If you are correct that DEI statements are akin to astrology, (Seriously? I've seen the rubrick that Berkeley uses), institutions that focus on DEI will fade and those that don't will flourish. AGAIN, it's a self correcting problem. Time will tell.
In the meantime, it's a free country. If MIT wants to require DEI stements, or astrology reports, or the production of underwater basket weaving masterpieces, they have that right. Most institutions don't have such requirements. Go play in one of their sandboxes. MIT will go away in time.
There are plenty of talented, qualified people out there for any given faculty position. It's a competition between multiple qualified individuals. If you want that position, then you play be the rules of the institution regardless of how silly YOU think they are. If you dismiss a requirement crafted by a committee of education professional, then expect to be removed from consideration early.
BTW - why do you want to be associated with a school that promotes "astrology"? Laugh at them and move on.
If you want to prove your point, you need to demonstrate that unqualified individuals are getting positions because, somehow, all the real talent was disqualified for failing to folllow directions. If you can confirm your hypothesis, then we can test mine in a few years.
I can hardly wait. :|
Until then ...this topic couldn't become any less interesting. Good luck in your crusade. I'm going to focus on some technical problem.
As I said before, the shoe is in the other foot. Lots of similar stories from women scientists who were overlooked in the past in favor of men. Each male not hired now says that they are better than the female that was hired. Well, that's what all males that were hired were saying for women that were not hired. Finally a reminder to the claim that there few women in astronomy because they prefer other fields: May be the men who avoid college prefer to get rich playing or creating video games, etc. There is enough hostility between the sexes/genders/whatever, no need to add to it. Peace!
some of your points I agree with.. it is quite possible in the past (more than 40 years ago), there were women, jews, minorities, who were overlooked in favor of men, and had exactly the same gripes.. The point is that now, there is no reason to continue to keep one's fingers on the scales... and you are correct that many men are not going into higher ed because of other job opportunities or preferences... that doesn't take away from the data, however.
The email, and the conversation that followed, interested me greatly. Both are insightful and I thank those who participated.
Ive been fortunate to have some exceptional educators- I always like hearing Dr K question interviewees about the role of educators in their lives. On my part, I can readily point to a number of professors who really had an effect on my thinking. Most are/were on the 'political left' and pushed me to think critically (I 'm a Canuck who liked Reagan, so I had to learn to think :) ). Even at mid age, I find good old 'lefties stimulate my thinking better than those with whom I philosophically agree. (That's you Dr :) )
Academic institutions, especially publicly funded ones in Canada, have a duty and obligation to provide students with robust learning environments. If we need a conversation about diversity inclusion and equity (DIE) as it concerns hiring practices I would suggest the conversation needs to focus on contrasting thoughts, ideas, and perspectives. (Dr Jon Haidt has some excellent data on the limited viewpoint diversity found on american campus grounds). I'm not at all clear how sex, sexual preferences, religious notions, or race have any relevance in hiring decisions,. Apart from addressing claims of past injustices, however defined, I do not see how DIE in and of itself contributes meaningfully. But from the email above, they are all too material in the final decision making process. How are we as a society, and how are students, better off ?
Being old enough to remember loyalty oaths and security people looking into the details of my up and down sex life for my "clearances" , I knew they were violations of my rights but I also knew that was not in my best interest to say anything. Yes, these present DEI actions on faculty hiring are probably illegal but the potential down side cost of making a claim is very large and detracting from what you really enjoy (ie real science). Much like the time of the loyalty oaths, the individual cost of opposition can be the job you love and being "black balled" (nothing to do with your check boxes).
Red Lining and CC&R didn't just impact the black check-box, but all these other check-box groups do not appear to statistically have the same long term impacts as the black check-box. You need to determine why this observation is true in California. What culture cross interaction with the government required Red Lines and the check-box categories give that results?
I read your article on the 20% requiring DEI statements, but it became unclear when it kept shifting from facility hiring, job posting, and including non-tenure track hires from Lectures to Lab Assistants, bureaucrats, etc. Yes, I can believe that only 20% of the total posted opening require DEI statement (most aren't faculty positions), but that doesn't mean DEI is not highly relevant to tenure track positions. This use of numbers is misleading as you probably understand.
Isn’t this really an economic problem? I agree 100% that two wrongs don’t make a right. But who’s committing both wrongs? Bear with me. Until very recently, opportunity, academic and otherwise, was the privilege of white males at the expense of everyone else, women, blacks, Native Americans, — anyone who was not a white male. I’m old enough to remember when there were doctors and lady doctors, nurses and male nurses; when the best of everything in society was reserved for white people. I was born shortly after the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt attempted to remedy poverty with the New Deal programs. However, when it was communicated to the white men of the country that someone other than them were the beneficiaries of the programs, they began to chip away at the very programs that benefited them and everyone else. I’m thinking of Ronald Reagan’s campaign based on putting a stop to the welfare “QUEENS” by which he meant black women. While he was pulling the rug out from under the black women, he also went after the recipients of Social Security Disability, and labor unions — remember the air traffic controllers? All the big tax cuts benefited who? The ultra wealthy. The rest of us, are left to fight among ourselves for the crumbs that are left — and that includes the academic world. Why do we always need to play a zero sum game. It seems to me that the remedy for the centuries of discrimination against women in academia (Henrietta Leavitt leaps to mind), is higher taxes on the ultra wealthy who control the lion’s share of the wealth of the world so that Universities have the resources to employ all the best minds in the various fields, not the least of which is physics. The remedy is inclusion, not some other kind of exclusion. We need to keep our focus on the real source of the problem — those who control the wealth and their hired soldiers in congress and state legislatures. Let’s get over our zero sum thinking. if the universities have the resources they need, students wouldn't need to agree to a life of debt, and there would be plenty of faculty positions to be filled. Them's the thoughts of an old socialist who's now trying to learn something about physics, cosmology, and evolutionary biology.
First, Then why didn't he get the position? It's a serious question. Are his accomplishments so common that he would not rise above the pack of candidates for those positions which not set aside for DEI, or are we only getting a portion of the story? I suspect the latter.
Second, "Numerous other instances" is not a helpful statistic. What is the percentage of DEI set-asides? How many positions open in a year? How many total candidates and how many in the DEI beneficiary groups are there for those positions each year? Any references to actual data would be greatly appreciated.
Third. Are you suggesting that people (or maybe just academics) are immune to bias and discrimination, regardless of whether it is conscious? I think it is not controversial to claim that humans are tribal by nature and that despite best intentions, we are naturally inclined to act with predjudice. If this was not true, we would not have the inequities in society that created Afirmative Action/DEI programs to begin with. Human nature has not changed and in my experiencen there are still significant imbalances in the system.
Forth. Correcting imbalances in the constituency of a population is not a "wrong" especially when those imbalances are due to centuries of overt discrimination. In a system with limited opportunity, someone is going to lose out.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I respect your opinion but in this case it is at odds with my understanding, which I admit is limited on this topic. I've been an engineer working in industry for 30+ years, not in academia, In my experience, the repesentation of women and minorities in science and engineering roles is grossly out of whack.
I'd like to see some data from reliable sources. We both know that anecdotal evidence is weak at best. Furthermore, the bulk of arguments against DEI that I've read or heard come from a radicalized political faction for which I have nothing but disdain. I know that doesn't mean the issue isn't real but it is suspect until I've seen data from a credible source. Any references you can supply would be appreciated.
Anyway, thanks for your time and your many contributions to science, education, and other pursuits. I especially miss your appearances with Dawkins and Hitchens.
I have tried to give detailed evidence in a number of pieces I have written for Quillette and the Wall St. Journal... hope some of them are illuminating. thanks for the kind words.
I will look them up. Thanks.
Soon it will be 100% diverse, then they'll make it illegal to teach boys to read.
You sound like a typical Fox News consumer.. I'll respond to your ridiculous post with a serious answer though it only deserves to be mocked.
100% diversity would indicate that all populations were represented in equal proportion to their appearance within society at large. I think something approaching that is the goal.
Your obvious distress with that prospect suggests that you rbelive you haven't actually earned your place in whatever professional or academic setting you occupy.
I really try to keep these comments and discussions respectful if possible.. You can disagree.. even disagree profoundly, but no ad-hominems if possible, ok?
Point taken and addressed. I'll do my best to curb my barbed tongue in the future (here at least).
Haven't you seen those photos, they come out every few months from different organizations 'our new diverse team' and it's a crowd of white women. See such a group is homogenous when considered in isolation, but as an isolated group of women in a male dominated environment it becomes an island of diversity. Anyway it was meant as a sort of gallows humor.
While we are critiquing each others comments tho, I will point out that you seem to have read a lot more out of mine than I wrote into it.
I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction and barbed reply. Your comment seemed like the kind of thing I would hear coming from a Fox commentator and I've lost patience with that sort of thing. The jibes were unnecessary and uncalled for regardless of your intent.
Cheers
This story seems incomplete at best. Given this person's reported accomplishments, I find it difficult to believe he cannot find a position in academia. Is the field of astrophysics so competitive that such accomplishments/credentials are commonplace among applicants? If not, why is he having such difficulty (or are we to believe that no white males are receiving positions)? If they are commonplace, then I'm impressed, but then there must be other factors weighing against him.
Regardless, as an accomplished astrophysicist, he should have no problem finding a lucrative and rewarding position in industry. He might not get paid to theorize about the nature of the universe right away, but he should easily be able to land a position doing challenging technical work and earn a 6-figure salary while he searches for the elusive faculty position he desires.
I don't like the idea of discriminating against anyone on the basis of sex, race, age... but it would be incredibly naive or intellectually dishonest to pretend it wouldn't take place if DEI programs were eliminated. That's why we have DEI.
It sucks that discriminating against white males may be institutionalized but correcting imbalances in populations,due to past conscious or unconscious wrong , isn't the problem. The past wrongs are the problem.
first, I can attest that given the accomplishments he should have gotten a position. Second, I can attest that this is not an anomaly.. I know of or have heard of numerous other instances. Third, no idea why you think bias based on age race or sex would occur if DEI were eliminated. Fourth, two wrongs definitely do not make a right.
The concept of merit seems far from your thinking.
it is foremost in my thinking
Hardly. Practicing reasonable DEI policies does not preclude the practice of merit-based rewards.
Define merit. Do interpersonal skills count? They certainly count when it comes to finding work. No one gets a job based on a resume. Why shouldn't one's commitment to justice count? No one is suggesting giving a position to an unqualified individual.
Why do you get to force your definition of merit on institutions? If they chose to include some measure of the strength of DEI statements in their merit equation, that is their right. For every one that does so, there are four that don't. Find an institution that agrees with your philosophy.
Set-asides are commonplace in the US. We have small business set-asides, minority owned business set-asides, veteran-owned business set-asides, ... no one whines about those. Society benefits from those programs. The same should be true of DEI in academia and industry. No one is forcing DEI on institutions. They can choose whether to implement those programs based on some perceived value. No business, government agency, or university has set hiring quotas. That would be a violation of Federal law. Some fraction (<20% from what I have read) of universities require their applicants to provide "diversity statements" and can use them as part of the merit equation". If someone can't formulate a reasonable statement, maybe that person isn't as qualified as they think they are. If someone can actually demonstrate discrimination based on sex or race or ... whatever, then that person has the right to sue in court.
I think you are not aware of many of the unfortunate realities at universities today. 76% of candidates for biology prof at Berkeley were dismissed before their research statements were examined because they didn’t make the DEI cut. Merely saying that you believe diversity is important and treat everyone with respect and encouragement isn’t good enough. Again, please read some of the other things I have written about.
You're right. I haven't been on a university campus in over 30 years except for an occasional working group meeting here or there. So I only know about the sensational cases that make it into stories like the one you posted.
You're also right that "merely saying that you believe diversity is important and treat everyone with respect and encouragement" is insufficient. Berkeley provides guidlines on how to write a DEI statement and provides a sample scoring guide. They tell you exactly what they expect and it is a lot more than a one one-liner.
Maybe a one-line statement is all that should be necessary but if that was the case, there probably wouldn't be any inequity driving DEI initiatives in the first place.
All your WSJ and Quillette content is paywalled. I won't be contributing to Murdoc's disinformation machine, but maybe i'll spring for a Quillette membership in a few weeks ,but frankly, I feel like I've spent too much time on this topic as is. For me, it comes down to the following:
1) The vast majority of universities don't require DEI statements.
2) it's supposedly a free contry. If a school decides DEI initiatives are important, and someone disagrees, then that person can either play the game or play with one of the 85% of schools that do not require DEI statements.
3) If universities are misusing DEI statements to violate federal anti-discrimination laws, sue them.
4) If DEI initiatives have gone overboard, it's a self-correcting problem. Talent will drift away or be driven from universities with bad policies. Schools will get sued. Schools will lose their competitive edge. All these effects will drive a loosening of DEI requirements. Hopefully, society's position on the DEI spectrum will converge to some reasonable compromise between a pure meritocracy and a DEI police-state.
5) The most vocal opponents of DEI initiatives are regressive politicians for whom I have zero respect. While that doesn't mean all opposition to DEI is wrong, it is suspect.
You are right. You have spent a lot of time on this. I understand you’re erring on the side of good intentions here. Most universities actually do require DEI statements. As I described in one article, when I sido a random survey of job announcements in physics 24 out of 25 institúyenos requieres them.
Anyway quillette is worth it. Also I gave a seminar online at Stanford about this and my slides are available on this substack site if you want to look at them. Thanks for your thoughts. No need to continue this conversation here.
Bird:
DEI is being forced on institutions and through labor law on companies with > 50 employees. The very definition of equity is based upon outcomes where you just statistically add up number of check box categories which is not the same as equal opportunity. Equity excludes relevant variables from interest in an area to ability in a subject areas is built and built on a false assumption that all the check box groups have the same distributions of interests and cultures.
I started in a cultural group that was into fast cars in the 50's and then adopted the education culture of my Japanese and Jewish friends while ending up in the real sciences.
I know what they want in a "Diversity statement" for UC Berkeley and it is all nonsense. If I included the reality of gangs and gang fights (very diverse) and illegal street racing, etc. they wouldn't be happy, but if I included my later friends (from different check boxes) who came from educated families with a long history of academic accomplishment and with the academic and cultural values I adopted I may have gotten a look. However, I am not female or gay with no checkbox points. There is almost zero cultural diversity across my check-box diversity friends.
Since all the decisions we are talking about involve individuals, statistical analysis based upon arbitrary groupings ignoring relevant variables like culture are logically wrong. It was just a big benefit to some of my check box friends whose cultural value systems are identical to ours and a disadvantage to my Asian check box friends and now detrimental to male children.
What DEI laws are you citing? The only laws I see popping up are anti-DEI laws being enacted in several states like Florida, Texas, Arkansas. I've worked for corporations and research institutions with employees numbering in the 1000s. If they were bound by DEI labor laws, there was no evidence of it. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate based on age, sex, race, religion,... and, thanks to the conservatively packed, unrepresentative, Supreme Court, Affirmative Action is effectively dead.
No "male children" are being blocked from professorships because of insufficient DEI statements. A very small subset of adults, those who fail or neglect to adequately address DEI issues in their DEI statements in the approximately 15% of job applications where DEI statements are required, are eliminated from consideration.
If you know how to write a DEI statements, you can probably make a mint by starting a service that does so for job applicants at universities or teaches applicants to write their own, but it sound like you thinkn its about a person's affiliation with an underrepresented group.. Ostensibly, that is not the case. According to Berkeley's scoring criteria, DEI statements are more about a candidate's awareness of past discrimination and its effects, ones commitment to DEI practices, and his or her plans to promote DEI as a faculty member.
https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity
If some organizations have decided that they value the goals of DEI, that is their decision to make. If that offends you, let them know and shop elsewhere ... turn your attention to the 85% of schools that don't require DEI statements. Anyone applying for a prestigious, highly sought-after, position should expect to be forced to jump through hoops, sensible and potentially nonsensical, in order to land that position. You don't have to like it, but those are the rules. Deal with it. The scoring criteria for DEI statements is available. Craft your statement around it.
Maybe emphasis on DEI has gone too far at some schools. If so, iit's a self-correcting problem. Schools will either abandon bad policies or they will lose their ranking as talent is driven away to other schools. If organizations are misusing DEI initiatives to discriminate, they are in violation of the law and they will be sued. If DEI statements become the norm, then a DEI statement writing industry will spring-up that will homogenize them and render them pointless to the schools.
It seems like way too much energy is being expended by talented and influential people on this issue. If they redirected their efforts on advocating for more government funding and fundraising, more students could attend school and more faculty positions would open-up. That would reduce the impact of DEI initiatives on applicants, reduce the need for DEI in the first place, and ultimately put more "brain-power" to work in the world to the benefit of everyone.
Bird --
Perhaps you are either in non-STEM areas and/or have been away from academia for a very long time. In technical STEM areas where you absolutely require people who understand very technical subjects in detail, not just the hand waving buzz words of a salesman, you have to use merit. You can seldom maximize DEI and merit in the same individual person. The individual who truly understands modern science at the frontiers of knowledge spends a huge amount of his life focused on these areas to the detriment on focusing on your DEI issues and, sometimes, many social issues.
In reading some of the papers in the DEI and Social Science areas my analogy becomes Astrology where the human pattern matching related abilities found connections in effectively random pattern of visions of the celestial objects 2-D movements with no consideration of the distance dimension or earth movements. Demanding that astronomy majors write an "Astrology" support statments is insane.
By excluding the culture, interest, and ability of individuals in the DEI analysis it becomes impossible to have an analysis that describes reality. You can't correctly describe an N-Dimensional problem in N-x variables without assuming all x variables are constant. All the check-box grouping of DEI have a huge internal variance on all the more relevant parameters that make up an individual.
As someone hiring people, only merit and mentor-ability counted, not the check boxes of DEI. Ironically the majority of my hires over the decades have been in a lot of the check-box categories, except for women. Some of the jobs required understand and working with anaerobic biological systems, which have properties that women are not attracted to. But that is just individual preference and a rare few women were interested with the right knowledge and abilities which were hired.
If you are correct that DEI statements are akin to astrology, (Seriously? I've seen the rubrick that Berkeley uses), institutions that focus on DEI will fade and those that don't will flourish. AGAIN, it's a self correcting problem. Time will tell.
In the meantime, it's a free country. If MIT wants to require DEI stements, or astrology reports, or the production of underwater basket weaving masterpieces, they have that right. Most institutions don't have such requirements. Go play in one of their sandboxes. MIT will go away in time.
There are plenty of talented, qualified people out there for any given faculty position. It's a competition between multiple qualified individuals. If you want that position, then you play be the rules of the institution regardless of how silly YOU think they are. If you dismiss a requirement crafted by a committee of education professional, then expect to be removed from consideration early.
BTW - why do you want to be associated with a school that promotes "astrology"? Laugh at them and move on.
If you want to prove your point, you need to demonstrate that unqualified individuals are getting positions because, somehow, all the real talent was disqualified for failing to folllow directions. If you can confirm your hypothesis, then we can test mine in a few years.
I can hardly wait. :|
Until then ...this topic couldn't become any less interesting. Good luck in your crusade. I'm going to focus on some technical problem.
As I said before, the shoe is in the other foot. Lots of similar stories from women scientists who were overlooked in the past in favor of men. Each male not hired now says that they are better than the female that was hired. Well, that's what all males that were hired were saying for women that were not hired. Finally a reminder to the claim that there few women in astronomy because they prefer other fields: May be the men who avoid college prefer to get rich playing or creating video games, etc. There is enough hostility between the sexes/genders/whatever, no need to add to it. Peace!
some of your points I agree with.. it is quite possible in the past (more than 40 years ago), there were women, jews, minorities, who were overlooked in favor of men, and had exactly the same gripes.. The point is that now, there is no reason to continue to keep one's fingers on the scales... and you are correct that many men are not going into higher ed because of other job opportunities or preferences... that doesn't take away from the data, however.
I have no quarrel with the data :)
no surprise.. knowing you as I do from our interactions. :)
I am glad that you may think and anticipate my complaints next time you are on the subject!
:) of course it is always good to be surprised as well.
The email, and the conversation that followed, interested me greatly. Both are insightful and I thank those who participated.
Ive been fortunate to have some exceptional educators- I always like hearing Dr K question interviewees about the role of educators in their lives. On my part, I can readily point to a number of professors who really had an effect on my thinking. Most are/were on the 'political left' and pushed me to think critically (I 'm a Canuck who liked Reagan, so I had to learn to think :) ). Even at mid age, I find good old 'lefties stimulate my thinking better than those with whom I philosophically agree. (That's you Dr :) )
Academic institutions, especially publicly funded ones in Canada, have a duty and obligation to provide students with robust learning environments. If we need a conversation about diversity inclusion and equity (DIE) as it concerns hiring practices I would suggest the conversation needs to focus on contrasting thoughts, ideas, and perspectives. (Dr Jon Haidt has some excellent data on the limited viewpoint diversity found on american campus grounds). I'm not at all clear how sex, sexual preferences, religious notions, or race have any relevance in hiring decisions,. Apart from addressing claims of past injustices, however defined, I do not see how DIE in and of itself contributes meaningfully. But from the email above, they are all too material in the final decision making process. How are we as a society, and how are students, better off ?
Bird:
Being old enough to remember loyalty oaths and security people looking into the details of my up and down sex life for my "clearances" , I knew they were violations of my rights but I also knew that was not in my best interest to say anything. Yes, these present DEI actions on faculty hiring are probably illegal but the potential down side cost of making a claim is very large and detracting from what you really enjoy (ie real science). Much like the time of the loyalty oaths, the individual cost of opposition can be the job you love and being "black balled" (nothing to do with your check boxes).
Red Lining and CC&R didn't just impact the black check-box, but all these other check-box groups do not appear to statistically have the same long term impacts as the black check-box. You need to determine why this observation is true in California. What culture cross interaction with the government required Red Lines and the check-box categories give that results?
I read your article on the 20% requiring DEI statements, but it became unclear when it kept shifting from facility hiring, job posting, and including non-tenure track hires from Lectures to Lab Assistants, bureaucrats, etc. Yes, I can believe that only 20% of the total posted opening require DEI statement (most aren't faculty positions), but that doesn't mean DEI is not highly relevant to tenure track positions. This use of numbers is misleading as you probably understand.