Biologist Jerry Coyne (Chicago) has the gory details. This is a lawsuit for unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination (and maybe also race discrimination) waiting to happen. From Professor Coyne's post:
893 applications were...vetted for diversity statements alone, rating the statements in three areas: knowledge about diversity, track record in advancing diversity, and plans for advancing diversity if hired. The published Berkeley diversity-evaluation rubric was used, rating candidates on a 1-5 scale for each of the three areas, so that the minimum score was 3 and the maximum 15.
Statements were evaluated blind to the candidate’s names, getting rid of some clues to sex and race. But these data would have been clear, I suspect, from the diversity statements alone (at least for minorities), so I highly doubt that candidates were evaluated “blind” in this respect. No cutoff in scores was described in the description of this search, though there one was in the second search (see below).
Only 214 of the 893 candidates (24%) passed muster here as having adequate diversity statements. These 214 were then passed on to the appropriate departmental search committees to create a short list for interviewing candidates (these are typically 3-6 candidates per job). In this search and the second one below, candidates were also asked to explain their ideas about diversity during the interviews. This, too, served to eliminate them:
"Finalists were asked to describe their efforts to promote equity and inclusion, as well as ideas for advancing equity and inclusion at Berkeley, as part of their job talk. They also met with the department equity advisor, and/or with a student panel during their on-campus interview. Only candidates who demonstrated, through their knowledge, past contributions, and/or future plans for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, potential to meet Berkeley standards were advanced as finalists and ultimately proposed candidates."
So even at the two last stages of the process, candidates were eliminated because of a perceived insufficient commitment to diversity.
See also Professor Coyne's charts of the race and gender breakdown of the applicant pool after screening for ideological purity. For example, women went from roughly 42% of the applicants, to 64% of the finalists; men went from 57% of the applicants, to 36% of the finalists. African-Americans went from 3% of the applicants to 9% of the finalists, while Hispanics went from 13% of the applicants to 59% of the finalists. By contrast, Asian-Americans went from 26% of the initial applicants, to just 18% of the finalists, and whites went from 54% of the applicants to a mere 14% of the finalists.
I recommend that those applying for jobs in the University of California system say only this in the diversity statement: "I decline to supply this statement which constitutes illegal viewpoint discrimination in violation of my constitutional rights." There are already lawyers gearing up to bring legal challenges; I hope they act soon. If you have been rejected from a University of California search, and suspect it was on grounds of insufficient ideological purity about "diversity," please get in touch with me. I can connect you with one public interest legal organization looking for plaintiffs.
(Thanks to Gregory Mayer for the pointer.)
Recent Comments