This has been going on for so long at so many institutions. No more.
City Journal reports:
Cornell Hired Based on Race, Internal Documents ShowIn recent months, Ivy League universities have changed their tune on “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Under pressure from President Trump, these institutions have renamed DEI departments, scuttled unpopular programs, and assured the administration that they are following the law. As Cornell president Michael Kotlikoff explained in February: “Just as we do not exclude anyone at Cornell for reasons irrelevant to merit, neither do we . . . hire or promote employees, award chairs or tenure, or make any other merit-driven decisions at Cornell based on race, ethnicity, or other attributes.”Kotlikoff’s statement was unequivocal, but according to a trove of internal documents we have obtained, it was also untrue. In fact, whistleblowers at Cornell describe a system of intentional discrimination in faculty hiring that rewards and punishes individuals according to their ancestry, rather than their ability.Like the other Ivies, Cornell was captured by racialist ideologies in the wake of the BLM movement. In 2020, then-president Martha Pollack announced a spate of DEI initiatives, including mandatory cultural competency training for staff, a “Community Book Read” of critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, and the development of a “for-credit educational requirement for all undergraduate students on racism, bias and equity.” More quietly, administrators redesigned the hiring process to filter applicants by race and tip the scales in favor of “diversity hires.”A Cornell whistleblower pointed to two problematic features of the university’s hiring system. The first was its use of “diversity statements,” which allow applicants to express their commitment to left-wing racial ideology. In December 2022, a Cornell professor in one of the scientific departments wrote an email to colleagues explaining that the hiring committee would pre-filter applicants solely based on diversity statements.“As pre-planned as a best practice, we first did a pre-screening of just the [DEI] statements submitted by the candidates; all were read by two committee members, and any that were flagged as highly suboptimal were also reviewed by a third committee member with high DEI expertise,” the email reads. “In the end, we dropped just one candidate from further consideration because their [DEI] statement was so seriously and unambiguously weak that we could not imagine them being a finalist. That same process led us to identify a few others who also had weak [DEI] statements.”The email makes clear that DEI statements were used to reject candidates who were insufficiently committed to “diversity.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY