Arguments against mandatory DEI statements for faculty hiring and advancement
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion statements:
1. Violate Academic Freedom.
Research in administration-favored areas is given preference in appointments and advancements by the rubrics used to evaluate DEI statements. This distorts the areas of research that the campus faculty would otherwise pursue, and violates the academic freedom of faculty members to choose their own research directions.
2. Violate the faculty role in the appointment and advancement process.
DEI statements can be used, and indeed are already and increasingly being used, in a prescreening process, filtering out files before they reach departmental faculty.
3. Constitute a political test.
Requiring DEI statements is a violation of Regents Standing Order 101.1 d.
4. Represent an additional criteria for faculty appointment and advancement.
See for example the Candidate evaluation tool used at UC Berkeley, pdf at right. The use of DEI statements as an additional criterion for evaluation in hiring or advancement was explicitly rejected by the systemwide Academic Council. They are in violation of APM 201-1 d, which emerged after a long process by the Academic Council in consultation with the Divisional Senates. Records of this can be found under the UC Systemwide tab. Diversity, equity and inclusion contributions were meant to be recognized, as are awards, grants, prizes, publications and honors. As with these, they were intended to be considered as part of the existing criteria, such as teaching or public service, and not as a new criterion that takes precedence over the others.
5. Are subjective, unverified and highly subject to manipulation.
DEI statements are based on assertions and social views, rather than on accomplishments. They disadvantage those from cultures that discourage self-promotion. They favor applicants from institutions that help craft such statements. Services exist to write statements for applicants. No evidence exists that statements scoring highly in the rubrics are associated with more inclusive or equitable practices.
6. Disadvantage international applicants.
International scholars are not able to satisfy criteria required for high scores in DEI statements.