'And as the UC system has discovered, DEI statements are an effective tool for racially balancing faculty, and it is open about this. In 2017, the University Office of the President explained that although “Proposition 209 eliminated some of the tools that UC had previously employed to achieve diversity in its faculty,” the university could use DEI statements to “increase[e] the presence of underrepresented minorities (African-American, Chicano, (a)/Latino (a)/Hispanic, and Native American) and women in its faculty.” The university’s experiments showed that an aggressive DEI statement policy that considers a candidate’s views on DEI before even looking at their qualifications could increase minority hiring as much as tenfold.
UC’s own DEI statement data indicate that its use of required DEI statements reliably filters out white and Asian applicants, which the university wants. A study at UC Berkeley boasted that using a restrictive DEI rubric and a DEI statement screening strategy on certain faculty positions significantly reduced the proportion of white and Asian applicants who passed through to the shortlist for consideration. Indeed, since the university began aggressively demanding DEI statements in faculty applications, Asian and white hiring has fallen, while black and Hispanic hiring has skyrocketed.
Whether for racial discrimination or to drive out dissenters from the DEI orthodoxy, DEI statement requirements are a terrible development for academic hiring. The university is essentially creating an ideological monoculture and putting racial and ethnic balancing ahead of actual diversity in “values and worldviews” that the university policy uses to justify its DEI policy.'
'And as the UC system has discovered, DEI statements are an effective tool for racially balancing faculty, and it is open about this. In 2017, the University Office of the President explained that although “Proposition 209 eliminated some of the tools that UC had previously employed to achieve diversity in its faculty,” the university could use DEI statements to “increase[e] the presence of underrepresented minorities (African-American, Chicano, (a)/Latino (a)/Hispanic, and Native American) and women in its faculty.” The university’s experiments showed that an aggressive DEI statement policy that considers a candidate’s views on DEI before even looking at their qualifications could increase minority hiring as much as tenfold. UC’s own DEI statement data indicate that its use of required DEI statements reliably filters out white and Asian applicants, which the university wants. A study at UC Berkeley boasted that using a restrictive DEI rubric and a DEI statement screening strategy on certain faculty positions significantly reduced the proportion of white and Asian applicants who passed through to the shortlist for consideration. Indeed, since the university began aggressively demanding DEI statements in faculty applications, Asian and white hiring has fallen, while black and Hispanic hiring has skyrocketed. Whether for racial discrimination or to drive out dissenters from the DEI orthodoxy, DEI statement requirements are a terrible development for academic hiring. The university is essentially creating an ideological monoculture and putting racial and ethnic balancing ahead of actual diversity in “values and worldviews” that the university policy uses to justify its DEI policy.'