FIRE organized a debate between myself and Prof Brian Soucek (UC Davis) on this topic. Here is a recording, for those interested:
I found it constructive and illuminating; it made clear that a key point of difference is about whether "diversity" is an extramural or intramural purpose of higher education. I think it is clearly the former: the essential purpose of universities is the production and dissemination of knowledge (i.e., research and teaching). Universities have over time been enlisted (or enlisted themselves) in various social causes, from anti-communism to the "war effort," to diversity. These are extramural; we can debate the wisdom of universities committing themselves to these social policies, but their having done so does not give them a right to corral faculty time and effort for the same purpose.
Afterwards, FIRE sent us various questions submitted to chat, and invited us to respond. A journalism professor commented in "Chat" that she thought it was "funny" that Soucek and I were "white males." I wrote to this professor as follows: "Throwing out a random comment about how 'funny' it is that the speakers have certain demographic attributes is an insult to the speakers, who have worked hard on these topics and had substantive things to say." No other comments were this stupid, fortunately (although the journalism professor, perhaps unsurprisingly, didn't recognize how stupid the remark was).
A more interesting question asked why a university, that is (currently) allowed to consider "diversity" in recruiting students, should not also be able to take steps to insure student success. This professor (of law) directed to me UC Davis's own "diversity statement" requirements, which ask committees to consider, among other things, the applicant's "awareness of inequities and challenges faced by underrepresented minority student and faculty" and their "track record" in "reduc[ing] barriers in education or research for underrepresented minority students and faculty."
While schools can clearly require from faculty pedagogical practices that contribute to student success, do the Davis criteria really screen for those?
We can agree that faculty should be trained to adjust their teaching for “challenges” their students face, whatever they are; that’s a core pedagogical function. “Inequities” are irrelevant in that regard, so it’s unclear why they’re mentioned (unless there is an ulterior purpose at play). More generally, it's absurd to think a PhD in say chemistry or philosophy or most other subjects will have any expertise in the special learning needs of “minority” students (assuming they have them: what is the evidence?), so the question just invites bullshitting or is really being used as a screening device for something else. (Everyone knows PhD programs do a poor job training students to teach, let alone training them to teach students with “special needs,” whatever their source.)
Moreover, if the goal is student success, then why does the question ask *only* about the challenges faced by underrepresented minorities? This suggests an extramural social goal is being pursued, not a strictly pedagogical one. And why are the “inequities and challenges” facing “faculty” relevant? That “faculty” are mentioned strongly suggests this is not really about successful pedagogy.
According to UC Davis’s own data:
The enrolled student population at University of California-Davis, both undergraduate and graduate, is 25.6% Asian, 25.2% White, 21.6% Hispanic or Latino, 5.55% Two or More Races, 2.17% Black or African American, 0.328% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders, and 0.164% American Indian or Alaska Native.
Who is the underrepresented minority here? Blacks clearly, but since they comprise only 1 out of every 50 students on campus, surely it can’t be that their challenges trump the challenges facing Whites and Latino students, all of whom are also underrepresented relative to their share of California population? And surely the needs of the over-represented “Asian” students (if there are any special needs defined by Asian-ness, which is doubtful) should count if we’re screening for faculty who can contribute to student success. (Indeed, one might ask why the needs of whites and Asians shouldn't count for more, since they represent more than half the student body!) And why think the needs of the Hispanic students are the same as the needs of “Black” students (if either as a group have distinct pedagogical needs).
(This is why Bakke was so pernicious. There’s a good reason, of remediation and compensatory justice, to favor Blacks in admissions, given the world-historic injustice they suffered in this benighted country. It’s got nothing to do with diversity, as I’ve written elsewhere. But because Justice Powell endorsed the “diversity” nonsense, here we are.)
All of the preceding suggests that even the Davis diversity statement (which is fairly benign compared to many others) is really pretextual, and has nothing to do with successful teaching, and much more to do with assessing the ideological commitments of the candidate, justifying sotto voce unlawful employment practices (giving racial preferences in hiring under the guise of hiring faculty sensitive to “diversity”), and pursuit of an extramural goal of trying to make the professions graduates enter “more diverse” and more “racially equitable.” Even if one thought the latter extramural goal was a worthy one (I am not against it, but for by now familiar Marxian reasons, I really don’t think the main problem in America is lack of racial equity), it would still be an extramural goal to which it would be inappropriate to commandeer faculty time.
Recent Comments