In the early days of higher education, most universities were largely the domain of white males. There were, of course, some black schools and women’s colleges. Through concerted efforts, campuses have become more inclusive—though there are still clearly issues in access to higher education. This opening of the campuses has generally been regarded as a positive thing and few would now argue that blacks or women should be excluded from any campus in America. However, some think that the current push for diversity is a violation of the freedom of faculty.
One concern is that some schools require faculty to submit written statements of their commitment to diversity as part of the tenure application process, job application process and in other contexts. Some see this as compelled speech because it is forcing faculty to pledge to an ideology. Even if it is compelled speech, the First Amendment only applies to public employers—private schools are free to do as they wish since employees are free to go elsewhere. But the moral concern remains even for private employers: just because they can legally compel speech does not entail that is right to do so.
It is worth noting that even public schools can legitimately compel actual and potential faculty to provide statements in writing if they wish to advance or be employed. For example, most jobs require a letter of application, a teaching statement and a research statement. One can opt out—but this all but guarantees that one will not be hired. As another example, the applications for tenure and promotion require the faculty to provide documentation. This is, obviously enough, not a violation of the freedom of expression—even when a job applicant must present a philosophy of teaching or research. This is because they are not forced to commit to any specific philosophy. In contrast, a pledge to diversity does compel assenting to a specific set of values, which would seem to violate the right to free expression, the right to freedom of thought and academic freedom. As such, requiring faculty to submit such statements or accept such values would seem to be morally wrong.
However, a reasonable counter is to point out that faculty are expected to accept certain values when they are hired and to continue their employment. For example, they are expected to accept the rules of academic conduct and enforce them in their classes. As another example, they cannot hold to and act on the view that it is acceptable to exchange grades for sex, favors or money. As a third example, they must accept they cannot preach their religion to the class or recruit terrorists. And so on, for a multitude of moral and ideological values. As such, faculty are already expected to accept and hold to many values as a condition of their employment. It could thus be argued that requiring a statement of commitment to diversity is not an unwarranted imposition on freedom.
One obvious counter is that while faculty do have to agree to professional ethics and to follow the rules of the school, they are not required to provide specific statements of their commitment to these values—they just need to avoid (getting caught) violating them. For example, I was not required to write a statement about how I would not accept favors for grades, although I am aware that such a thing would be unacceptable and grounds for firing. Likewise, I was not required to provide a diversity statement, but I am aware that creating a hostile classroom would be unacceptable and probably result in being fired. While this is a form of tacit acceptance, it does not compel an active statement, and this can be seen as a critical difference.
Those in favor of diversity statements might contend that they are not compelled speech since they are on par with the statement of teaching philosophy and statement of research philosophy. A person is free to include in their teaching and research statements values that go against what the school is looking for. Such candidates are unlikely to get hired (or get tenure). Likewise, people are free to include in their diversity statement an argument against diversity and a statement of their opposition. But they would be unlikely to be hired if they go against the stated values of the institution.
Those opposed to diversity statements could expand on the point that these statements are different, since they have a clear and expected answer and involve a specific set of values. They could also note that unlike things like academic honesty and shaking students down for cash or sex, there is not a broad consensus on diversity, and this is a matter that divides people politically.
Proponents of the diversity statements could counter by contending that the value of diversity is on par with the established and expected academic values. They could also note there are people who sincerely hold values directly opposed to key values of the academy, such as honesty and not exploiting students, and consider these political views as well. So, if these values can be used to exclude certain people, so can the values connected to diversity. Schools obviously need to take a stand on certain values, but there is still the reasonable question about which values should be embraced.
While I do agree that campuses should be diverse in the sense that no one should be unjustly excluded nor unjustly subject to hostility, I also oppose forcing faculty to provide explicit and specific diversity statements. My main concern is this does set a precedent for forcing faculty to explicitly endorse, in writing, certain values and the next time the values could be ones I disagree with.
Lots of people believe that some diversity policies, such as affirmative action, actually end up harming the very people these policies were designed to help.
One can also take issue with the quality of the science behind the theory of “implicit bias.”
You could never make these arguments in your “diversity statement,” however, without risking your job.
Perhaps…but you don’t seriously believe that that is what is holding him back, do you?
In my experience on search committees, I find the following:
For members of minority, under-served, under-represented, or otherwise “protected” classes, their “diversity statements” are received with smiles and nods, and are automatically given high marks on the approved spreadsheets. All they need to do is begin,
“As a [insert popular identity definition here], I believe I am uniquely qualified to contribute to the institute’s commitment to diversity”.
On the other hand, those who are not members of these protected classes, regardless of their work experience, how many “diverse” individuals they may have worked with or taught in the past, and regardless of any individual commitment to diversity or even complete blindness to race, color, ethnicity, background or anything other than “merit”, invariably produce clumsy statements that are sometimes painful to read –
“I never really thought about it. I have worked with people from all backgrounds. I think that “diversity” is fine, I am all for it, but then again, so is “merit”. And some of my best friends are [insert popular identity definition here].”
It just doesn’t work the same, and is thus inherently biased. Members of minority and protected classes have a distinct advantage.
If the requirement were otherwise – a statement of a “commitment to merit” for example, there would be a great hue and cry about how minorities did not have the same opportunity as whites, how this favors the wealthy who were able to go to the better schools, and it would be quickly reduced to being seen as simply another racist policy.
But now, the definition of “advantage” has flipped – those with the “advantage” are those who have suffered under the yoke of oppression – or whose ancestors have suffered thus: and it’s not just any yoke, it has to be on the “approved” list.
So think about the attitude of the Left on situations like requiring ID in order to vote, or even the re-location of voting centers based on budget concerns and centrality.
If either of these things makes it more difficult for the poor (who may be over-represented by African Ameicans), this is immediately viewed as “racist policy”, designed to disenfranchise African Americans.
So if a “diversity statement” is far more favorably received if the author is a member of a protected class, has “lived the life” or “walked the walk” so to speak, isn’t this requirement a policy that is inherently biased against those who have perhaps had more privilege in their lives, who have not been identified as being part of an under-represented minority? How is it different from the voter ID laws?
Word.
You’re all smart people. You can find the source, I’m sure.
It seems to me that the basis of allowing this requirement is the majority opinion in Bakke. My possibly incorrect interpretation is that
1. the college has a legitimate interest in providing a cross-section (“diversity”) of people for students to meet and expand their experience from and
2. the state has a legitimate interest in actions that help (racial) integration.
The finding allowed diversity to be considered, as one among many possible factors, for admission.
From there, it is possible to see how considering it as a factor in faculty hiring and promotion mught also be permitted.
The problem from there is motte-and-bailey:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3lCfSdXkAI2KTH.png:large
“The problem from there is motte-and-bailey”
And motte-and-Bailey is only a problem because we let them get away with such, along with straw man and similar sophist tactics. Why is that?
How does one not let people get away with a motte-and-bailey feint, when those setting up the terms control the rules and determinations of the institution? How have you succeeded in such situations?
First we should acknowledge that the tactics are used by everyone, or nearly everyone could be accused of using such tactics from time to time. It is the constant abuse/fall back of such things that are the real problem. These tactics themselves are essentially leaf issues. The root of the problem is that people, specifically people who pass themselves off as thinkers or philosophers, who do this consistently are nothing more than charlatans and mountebanks. Taking them at their word, thinking that you can use logic to refute a position that was never arrived at by logic in the first place is folly. You have to deal with the problem by the nature of the problem.
Not sure how clear that is as no coffee yet, but it will have to do for now.
OK, so motte-and-bailey is a common tactic. It is based on loose definitions. Anywhere a definition is loose, you can find acreage for a bailey. Now what?
I just wrote a bit about logic. Logic is barely relevant in these discussions. It’s all in the assumptions, the choice of facts – btw, I think the phrase “alternative facts” was truly great, for exactly this reason, though not perhaps in the context it was coined – and the choice of topics. I certainly don’t expect logic to refute these kinds of political arguments.
I don’t know the answer. I don’t even undrstand the cause. I distrust Haidt’s analysis. It feels too neat, too simple, too pat to ascribe the gap in understanding to a kind of value colourblindless in the psychology of people who are attracted to the left. Attribution, ultimately, to brain chemistry needs also to account for the commonly observed effect of change with age: “Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.” But it gives me a toy model to think about.
http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/
A fair point. We probably all agree that classrooms should not be hostile and that the academy should not exclude people based on race, sex, etc. So, when diversity statements are defended by that approach, they seem reasonable. When they are ideological screening devices, then that is far less defensible.