Oxford University Planning to Base New Hiring Practices on Candidates’ ‘Woke Score’
“could make or break an opportunity to teach at the school”
This is nothing more than a legal method of weeding out applicants who are politically undesirable. Some American schools already do this by requiring applicants to submit a diversity statement.
KOMO News reports:
University criticized for planning to hire based upon ‘how woke’ someone is, report says
England’s oldest university is facing harsh criticism over its proposal to require every academic appointee to be demonstrably committed to “EDI”, or equality, diversity and inclusion.
Professors at the University of Oxford are reportedly “furious” a candidate’s “woke score” could make or break an opportunity to teach at the school. Some of them spoke anonymously with The Telegraph.
The proposal from the race equality task force at Oxford reportedly said it was “important to embed EDI” into “all recruitment”.
“Good citizenship and/or commitment to EDI work” should be considered “essential criteria” for all applicants, the task force’s proposal says, according to The Telegraph.
While the proposal says it is aimed at addressing “racial inequalities among staff”, one professor at Oxford, speaking anonymously, reportedly shared his concerns with The Telegraph the proposal will “tease out” a candidate’s views on diversity and thereby potentially weed them out of consideration.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is there some duke that can write a sternly worded letter to whomever runs Oxford University?
I am sure someone will write to The Times at once!
It should be « whoever » and not « whomever. » The object of the preposition « to » is the entire clause the subject of which is « whoever ». The object is NOT « whoever. » Therefore, it should not be « whomever. »
Could you provide a reference for that rule? At most I think either one would be correct. And “to who …” sounds wrong coming off the tongue.
It’s interesting that the word “diversity” is so often used to promote conformity.
“Good citizenship and/or commitment to EDI work” should be considered “essential criteria” for all applicants, the task force’s proposal says, according to The Telegraph.”
Just make it a Communist Party membership and be done with it.
Then you can skip all the time-wasting bullshit tests and just show a card.
The simple answer is that “diversity” should always be defined to include “viewpoint diversity.”
Oxford isn’t as bad as some American universities.
Berkeley has been requiring “Diversity Statement” litmus tests for a while, used to weed out those who aren’t supporters of the Young Marxists. In one case, the diversity bureaucrats weeded out 76% of the applicants before letting anyone judge their credentials for the job.
https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diversity-initiative-berkeley/
For the Berkeley life science positions, 53.7% of the applicants were white, but only 13.6% of those who made it to the short list were white. Those numbers appear to show profound racial discrimination.
https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf
Berkely actually published that?
If it had been leaked I’d suspect it was a fraud as no one would map out illegal discrimination so conveniently.
It seems it’s not illegal so long as whitey is the victim.
The first round is a review only of DEI commitment, independent of research or teaching potential. It seems names were removed, so passion and specifics in that DEI statement are what would matter. Perhaps white faculty candidates disproportionately viewed it as an afterthought rather than the core of the application and the part that depended most on their writing skills in the moment. On the contrary, it seems that a faculty candidate needs to devote effort to preparing this statement, which will be needed for most jobs they apply for.
“Limiting the first review to contributions in DE&I is itself a dramatic change of
emphasis in the typical evaluation process which generally focuses on primarily on research accomplishments.
Furthermore, we believe that the redaction of candidate names from these statements reduced unconscious
bias in the evaluation processes. Without presumptions regarding a candidate’s gender, national origin or
ethnicity, reviewers evaluated candidates solely on their statements on accomplishments, depth of
understanding, and future plans.”
Oxford’s gone downhill.
Once upon a time, it was the height of scholarship and learning to which many would aspire.
Now it should not be touched with a ten-foot pole.
I feel bad for the professors, but why did they allow it to get to this point?