UNC-Chapel Hill Now Mandates Diversity Equity and Inclusion Statements
“It’s hard not to see these as ideological litmus tests.”
Progressives sure do seem to like making their policies mandatory, even if they’re threats to freedom of expression.
From the National Association of Scholars:
Mandatory DEI Statements Undermine Academic Freedom at UNC-Chapel Hill
It’s hard not to see these as ideological litmus tests. As I show in my Texas report, at the Department of Biological Sciences at Texas Tech University, job candidates receive low scores on their diversity statements for failing to demonstrate a track record that “includes intersectional actions spanning the needs of minoritized individuals” and for conflating “diversity, equity, and inclusion without distinguishing among them.”
Many universities release their diversity statement rubrics, which make abundantly clear that candidates must embrace a “race-conscious” orientation in virtually everything they do. If a candidate expresses one of many commonly held beliefs that are now off-limits, such as opposition to affirmative action—or, even more poignantly, if they quote Martin Luther King’s admonition that individuals “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”—they can say farewell to their job prospects.
Today, the concepts of “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” are politically coded. Of course, out of context, each term seems unobjectionable and good in a banal sense. In the context of academia, however, they connote the adherence to a set of social and political views, especially those expressed, for example, by Ibram X. Kendi.
This brings me to the University of North Carolina (UNC). Recently, UNC-Chapel Hill reaffirmed its commitment to the Chicago principles on free expression and adopted the Kalven Committee Report, a statement that codifies the principle of institutional neutrality, promising “a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day.”
Mandatory DEI evaluations come in conflict with both sets of principles. A university that asks its faculty to state their commitment to politically-coded concepts is hardly neutral. Such statements make it likely for scholars to be penalized for expressing opinions held by many Americans. Moreover, they hinder academic freedom by requiring scholars to reorient their research to match a “social justice” agenda at the university.
I’ve reported before on UNC-Chapel Hill’s use of DEI evaluations for promotion and tenure—a policy adopted by both the School of Medicine and the Gillings School of Global Public Health. But I wanted to examine how the policy has been applied to hiring. Thus, I’ve created a snapshot of how the policy is applied to hiring at UNC-Chapel Hill.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“It’s hard not to see these as ideological litmus tests.”
NO. Stop it!
They are religious statements of faith, and should be treated as such.
Stop treating progressives as if they are not a religion because they don’t believe in a supernatural god. They are absolutely a religion, one which has captured most of America. It’s not “ideological”, it’s “religious“.
Their sacred wine is the Kool Aid they drink by the gallon…
In teaching job applications and interviews, you are asked to either write a diversity statement or answer questions about your views on diversity.
I bet us white guys never get them right. Systemic racism, don’t you know….
Refuse to accommodate. State that you will not sign onto any religious creed but your own.
And that’s what they are looking for–eliminate anyone who would oppose their rule.
Ultimately, the only solution is to take an absolute hacksaw to the Universities and force them to either accept heavy reform or be financially annihilated. “Power only yields to power”
Ok. What, exactly are we going to *do* about it?
These mandates are turning up in other red public schools like The University of Texas, Texas A&M and University of Tennessee (it’s easy to check, just act like you’re applying for a faculty job and look at the application requirements, but the NAS has been publishing a number of them recently).
But you never hear the Republicans *do anything.* They nominate and vote for the trustees who set University policy. They funnel large amounts of tax money regardless and (rightfully) know the base won’t force them to do anything about it.
They won’t even just take the ax to the funding structures.
But yes, show up to the football games all the same and keep donating.
Frankly. If you’re a right-leaning scholar these days you’d probably have more luck finding work in China. It’d be less woke too.
Actually, woke isn’t quite the word here. Perhaps the better way to say it is that you’re monitored by a secret police in either case. But at least one of them is going to be monitoring you for obvious reasons.
I’m being hyperbolic comparing to China. But it does feel that way.
Anyways, I’m venting a bit here. Seeing the rapid rise of these Progressive Loyalty tests has me irrationally angry. If the editor wants to delete all the replies to myself to clean things up, you’re welcome to.
I don’t think it’s irrational.
Congressman Massie has repeatedly pushed a 1-sentence bill to abolish the federal Department of Education. Once Congress changes hands, pass that bill.
https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395319