Life science jobs at Berkeley give precedence to candidates’ diversity and inclusion statements

Why Evolution is True ^ | December 31, 2019 | Jerry Coyne

[karpov]

We’ve recently been discussing the use of mandatory “diversity statements” for academic job candidates, and the University of California’s commitment to not just using them in all searches, but giving these statements precedence in the hiring process, so that if your statement doesn’t exceed a minimum numerical cutoff for promoting diversity, increasing it in your past, and promulgating it in the future should you be hired, your candidacy is terminated (see here and here). This practice of making candidates not only swear fealty to diversity, but also show a history of concerted efforts to increase it, has been controversial, deemed as a form of ideological/political conformity that doesn’t belong in a hiring process.

A document from the University of California tells us how the system worked in six searches in the life sciences, and I find it a bit disturbing—disturbing because the ideology and social engineering is clear, because candidates, however good in scholarship, were eliminated if their diversity statements fell below a specified cutoff, and disturbing because the only kind of diversity involved was racial and gender diversity. But we know that that is what people mean when they talk about “diversity”. Ideological, class, and background diversity are irrelevant.

In this process, diversity statements were used at the outset of searches to eliminate candidates. There were two searches.

A.) Search 1 (“Cluster search”). Here five faculty lines were opened in the Life Sciences with no stipulation as to preferred sub-areas. Instead of departments vetting the candidates at the beginning, a committee was formed of 22 members from all departments in the Life Sciences. 993 applications were received, of which 893 were considered viable.

These 893 applications were then vetted for diversity statements alone, rating the statements in three areas:

[karpov]

The post goes on to mention that 76% of the 893 job candidates were rejected from further consideration because of their low-rated "diversity statements". Not surprisingly, this eliminates a disproportionate number of male, white, and Asian applicants. Economist John Cochrane blogged about this here and here.

If universities are racial spoils systems, I don't want them funded with my tax dollars.

Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity spell DIE, which is the message to disfavored groups. I will use the die keyword on diversity stories.

[lepton]

So...they’ll only hire the inconsistent or the schizophrenic?

[Verginius Rufus]

A disproportionate number of buildings on the UC Berkeley campus are named for white males. Obviously renaming in the interests of diversity is called for.

/s

[Seruzawa]

History has shown that there is only one true and effective cure for Nazis.

[NobleFree]

University of California’s commitment to not just using them in all searches, but giving these statements precedence in the hiring process, so that if your statement doesn’t exceed a minimum numerical cutoff for promoting diversity, increasing it in your past, and promulgating it in the future should you be hired, your candidacy is terminated

If you want a good education, look elsewhere.

Employers also need to adjust downward their understanding of what UC grads bring to the table.

[I want the USA back]

Ok, what this is about is changing the face of the world of scientists, just like they changed universities. Only properly vetted liberals will be hired. Conservatives will not get jobs. In time, there will be very few normal scientists, and science will have been diverted to the service of the left.

Most “science” magazines have already gone that way. Scientific American has gone way left.

[aimhigh]

I’ve seen Oregon state government job announcements that require a statement about how the applicant has promoted diversity and equality. Conservatives need not apply.