Daniel Silverman
Tue, July 4, 2023, 11:00 EDT

The first sentence of these authors’ piece, which accuses DEI critics of mischaracterizations and false narratives, is not backed up with any facts whatsoever. Who are these critics? What are their mischaracterizations and false narratives? Specifically, what do DEI officers actually do, and how is this mischaracterized by the “attackers”? Of course universities should aspire to be diverse. The issue to be discussed, then, is the substance of this diversity, an issue that the authors studiously avoid throughout their piece. So I’ll spell it out: should there be an emphasis placed primarily on a diversity of immutable traits such as race and sex, or instead, on a diversity of beliefs and opinions and intellectual interests? Both? Something else? The authors' eschewal of the substance of their own assertions is most concerning, but surely, at the very least, students of diverse beliefs, opinions, intellectual interests, should be made to feel welcome and be taught well. Do DEI offices encourage such diversity among students and faculty and administrators? No, they don't. Rather, they emphasize the immutable, such as race and sex, and actively work against a diversity of beliefs and opinions. The authors are silent on this most basic element of their thesis. The truth is that DEI offices demand that some goups of people be treated differently from other groups of people based on certain of their immutable properties, not based on their individual personal circumstances. This is an anti-liberal approach to education.

As for claims of “political litmus tests,” when job applicants are compelled to write essays on how they have, in the past, conformed in both their beliefs and their activities to DEI tenets, and if they are required to map out their subsequent plans, and if their being hired or not is based to a considerable extent on the degree to which they conform to DEI office opinions, such a requirement compels speech, and, de facto, requires applicants to conform to DEI officers’ ideological standards. And again, what sort of diversity are we talking talking about? In fact, increasingly, DEI offices have veto power over such basic considerations as productivity and influence of research, and to a lesser extent, effective teaching and research guidance: if applicants do not pass ideological muster, they run the risk of not getting a job, or losing their job onced hired. That’s the political litmus test of which concerned liberal academics speak. So, the authors can’t say the attacks are misguided unless they address what DEI officers actually require, and how...but the authors are silent.

All of this requires skill and awareness. Faculty who cannot interact in a professional, collaborative manner with fellow staff and faculty will detract from the research and service mission of the university. Faculty who are oblivious to, or unskilled at dealing with, the varied learning styles and life experiences of their students will not be effective as classroom teachers or mentors.

Excellence in teaching is almost always considered in the American academy. Almost all universities now require applicants to supply teaching evaluations. So what exactly are the authors asserting here? The key components of effective teaching are imbuing students with knowledge of the course material, and honing students' ability to think critically about it. These can be reasonably accurately determined by considering both teaching evaluations in conjunction with an inspection of grade distribution (a bell curve, with a cluster around B- to C is most telling, thus optimal), and by measuring the academic success of students who have been taught by the applicant (not solely by grade, but by more substantive considerations including ultimate career success). And what is meant by the “varied learning styles” of students? Students may study in different ways. Some may be diligent by reading all assigned course material, by studying out of class, and then demonstrating their acquired knowledge in their evaluated work (constructive class participation, homework, exams, research papers etc.); others may engage in mere rote memorization, others may have poor or even non-existent study habits. This is, apparently, not what the authors are talking about, however. Indeed, the vagueness of their wording here suggests they are purposely withholding what they mean by “varied learning styles”. At one DEI seminar I am personally aware of, it was proposed by the “experts” that for some students, instead of writing research papers, they could draw a picture (for “visual learners”), or knit a sweater (for “kinesthetic learners”); I kid you not. I suspect this is what the authors have in mind when mentioning “varied learning styles,” but since they never provide any substantive exemplification, it remains a mere guess on my part. More specificity would be required to make their assertion actually mean something such that it might be evaluated.

Critics of DEIB say that faculty should treat all students alike. But students are not all alike. They differ, as humans differ broadly in society. Good teachers have the skills and awareness to adapt to and address the needs and perspectives of their diverse students.

No reasonable critic of DEI would say that all students should be treated alike. Please name these phantom reasonable critics and quote their words. Of course good teachers are sensitive to the individual needs of their students. The authors’ assertion here is not only vacuous, but it’s a straw man as well. (And no, Ron DeSantis and his ilk are not reasonable critics; he has no knowledge of the academy, and is clearly motivated by a populist ideology that has no bearing on the reality of university life, or, more broadly, intellectual life; another straw man by the authors.)

So how do we know whether applicants for faculty positions have these requisite skills? We assess them, using a variety of methods. Candidates can discuss their past experiences and future plans in answer to interview questions. They can give a talk as part of a campus interview. They can teach a class session. They can submit a written synthesis of their DEIB contributions and plans as a component of their application -- the so-called “diversity statement”.

How do we know whether applicants for faculty positions have these requisite skills? Asked and answered: teaching evaluations in conjunction with an inspection of grading norms, and the academic and professional success of their students. As for giving a talk as part of a campus interview, surely the authors’ own experience tells them that virtually all applicants invited for campus interviews do give job talks, such that their research and their classroom comportment may be evaluated. So what sort of interview do the authors have in mind? An alternative one? An additional one? What sort of questions would be asked at these interviews that can’t be determined by standard job talks, and by a classroom lesson observation? The “diversity” credentials of the candidates can be readily assessed by observing their comportment in front of the class. Do they treat everyone with respect? Do they answer questions in a manner that is sensitive to students’ pre-existing knowledge base? Do they gently inquire if they have answered questions to the students’ satisfaction, and if they haven’t, do they try again, deploying a diversity of strategies to make themselves understood? Why are the authors so unforthcoming about the questions to be asked in these “diversity” interviews? They seem to be hiding the truth that these interviews would (and do) consist of political litmus tests.

Diversity statements simply ask candidates to describe how they would effectively teach a diverse student body. Good DEIB statements are fact-filled descriptions, rooted in specifics, of a candidate’s past experience and future plans. A candidate of any identity can write a compelling DEIB statement. And they do because DEIB statements are part of almost all faculty searches at UC Berkeley.

“Diversity statements simply ask candidates to describe how they would effectively teach a diverse student body.” Well, “diversity statements” don’t ask anything, they state, but anyway, diversity queries, as already stated, apparently do not ask such milquetoast questions for which the answers are readily provided during observations of the applicants in the classroom setting. Rather, they focus on immutable traits, for example, race and sex (again, terms the authors studiously avoid throughout their piece, though they are obviously the only issues of relevance for them...why not come out and say it?). I call on the authors to provide a random selection of these diversity queries increasingly required by DEI offices: they are ideologically-based, ideology that focuses exclusively on individuals’ immutable characteristics that bear no inherent relationship to the intellectual and ideological diversity that are so crucial to universities as they fulfill their primary mission of fostering effective scholarship and critical thinking. Authors: prove me wrong. Finally, regarding the sentential couplet “A candidate of any identity can write a compelling DEI statement. And they do because DEI statements are part of almost all faculty searches at UC Berkeley,” well, this is a non-sequitur and can’t be evaluated.

Some have contended that DEIB statements are impermissible “compelled speech.” But they are no more compelled speech than a faculty candidate having to present a job talk or submit a research agenda.

The issue of “compelled speech” here pertains to candidates’ being forced to disclose their personal beliefs with respect to (for example) race and sex. But one’s personal thoughts are irrelevant to one’s job success unless these thoughts—through consequent actions—come to impinge on job performance. For example, I concur with the assertion that socio-economically deprived students are often at a disadvantage in the university setting, often coming from poorly funded districts, and often having to hold outside jobs. But if I allowed my belief to affect my evaluation of them by, say, elevating their grades, I can and should be called out and reprimanded. Meanwhile, stating research and teaching strategies during the application procedure are hardly “compelled” speech in the relevant sense, of course; by asserting otherwise, the authors are engaging in sophistical and dishonest argumentation of the highest order in an attempt to obfuscate. In sum, a “diversity statement” is at the very least compelled speech, but it is also the very worst: an ideological litmus test.

The debate over DEIB and statements by faculty candidates comes down to two questions: Is it important to hire faculty who are sensitive to diversity and inclusion and capable of fostering it in their classrooms and the university? The answer is obvious.

It is indeed—and obviously—important to hire faculty who are sensitive to diversity and inclusion and capable of fostering it in their classrooms and in the university at large.. But the authors’ assertion here is now clearly established as evasive posturing; it is setting up a yet another straw man. Political litmus tests and compelled speech reduce diversity.

Second, are DEIB statements useful as one of many considerations to help ensure hiring of faculty who will successfully teach and work with a diverse student body and staff? Again, the answer is clear. In a diverse world, hiring criteria must include the skills to succeed in a diverse environment.

It is far from established that DEI statements are a useful tool to predict whether faculty members will successfully teach and work with a diverse student body and staff. First, because the authors have not marshaled any evidence in favor of their assertion, and second (and more fundamentally) because adhering to the strictures imposed by DEI policies actually inhibits a diversity of opinion and practice. The authors' contentions here are symptomatic of the piece as a whole: it is a shocking example of poor argumentation, evasion, dishonesty, duplicity, and skulduggery, written to deceive the public into conforming to the authors’ unsavory and draconian anti-liberal worldview where diversity is sent to the back of the bus, where people are not judged by the content of their character and the acumen of their thinking, but instead by, for example, the color of their skin and the configuration of their genitalia.

DEIB statements are one way to showcase meritorious skills, enabling hiring committees to select those candidates most likely to succeed as faculty members.

DEI statements are indeed “one way” (as the authors vaguely put it) to showcase meritorious skills, but it depends what is to be regarded as meritorious, of course. The nature of this meritoriousness is clearly, in the authors’ view, passing a DEI political litmus test and conforming in both thought and practice to the office's ideology, and nothing more. The simple truth is that people have differing abilities. For example, not everyone is a good athlete, a good artist, or a good scholar. Liberalism and a liberal education provide the means and opportunities for people to find their niches accordingly; such a basic and self-evident truth is only offensive to those who would deny it.

In signing into law a bill that prohibits the teaching of critical race theory and gender studies, DeSantis said that those who want such an education should “Go to Berkeley.” As faculty members at UC Berkeley, we take this as praise, not criticism. Our goal is a diverse student body that reflects the rich diversity of California and the country, and a faculty who will teach them effectively. Diversity statements are one tool to help achieve this.

As someone forever revolted by all forms of prejudice against the immutable properties of individuals and groups, I am acutely aware that our country still has a long way to go before fully alleviating the terrible injustices that have been in place since its founding. These foundational injustices can be best addressed by focusing on their present-day consequences: the income and resources disparity that typically adversely affect the very groups that have endured these prejudices. So, why don’t the authors, in their capacity as faculty, petition Berkeley to divert funds from their enormous coffers into those poor areas in their campus’ immediate vicinity and beyond, whose residents (regardless of their immutable properties) suffer so much from the appalling economic disparity that plagues our country? Do they agitate for campus-sponsored job training programs for their under-privileged neighbors (regardless of their immutable properties), and for child-care facilities in their neighborhoods so that parents are freed to earn a decent wage ? Do they demand ever more financial aid to those deserving students (regardless of their immutable properties) who are in need ? Why don't they threaten to go on strike if the administrators do not abide? They would have my full support, and the support of other liberals as well. Again in their capacity as faculty, do they lobby for higher taxes on the wealthy, and much higher taxes on corporations, money that would be earmarked for better-quality primary education STEM classes, for civics classes, for critical thinking classes, and do they agitate for free health care for those who, unlike they themselves, cannot afford it, and again, threaten to strike if these steps aren’t taken by their elected officials to give their poorer neighbors a fair and fighting chance at Berkeley and other schools? Again, they would have my and other liberals' full support. Do they demand that their university close their Citizens United-like loopholes by which some of the most anti-democratic and dangerous regimes in the world donate inordinate amounts of money that is so often earmarked for anti-liberal and immoral endeavors like DEI, endeavors that illiberal and amoral administrators and DEI offices so greedily acquiesce to? Why don't they threaten to go on strike if the donation system is not reformed in a way that prohibits outside interests from stoking intolerance among academic units, faculty, and students? Again, liberals will have their back, because, after all, these are liberal responses to the problem. But do the authors do these things? Does their op-ed even mention them as strategies that may be "one way" of addressing inequality? No. Instead, they embrace policies that not only have not been demonstrated to assuage the problems they purportedly hope to solve, but also, are anti-liberal and anti-diversity unto their very core. Indeed, in the end, these authors' opinion piece succinctly demonstrates the poison symbiosis between administrators and faculty that has evolved at so many of our learning institutions: administrators’ primary function nowadays is to avoid lawsuits, so that money flows in one direction and one direction only (into the universities' coffers), and discrimination lawsuits in particular are probably their greatest fear. And so an acquiescent faculty, one that will do the administrators’ unsavory bidding, are their useful idiots in their goal to amass more and more money at the expense of diversity, at the expense of liberalism, and at the expense of our society's future. How far we have fallen!

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sharon Inkelas is a distinguished professor of linguistics, associate vice provost for the faculty and special faculty advisor to the chancellor on campus welfare at UC Berkeley.