6 ms·

The ivy leagues are exceptional and subject to their own dynamics. I've never been at one, so I can't speak to them. (Have you been a job candidate or on the h

The ivy leagues are exceptional and subject to their own dynamics. I've never been at one, so I can't speak to them. (Have you been a job candidate or on the hiring committee at a top institution? If so I'm curious; if not, I don't have much interest in conjecturing about the accuracy of flame bait reporting on this topic atm to be honest.) I do, however, know that I am pretty accurately describing how the other 4000+ colleges and universities work. Based on a sampling, yes, but I'm somewhat confident here. To be a bit blunt: IDGAF about the top few dozen colleges and universities and I genuinely don't get why everyone else obsesses over them^1. Most of us will attend/work at the other 4K institutions. Let's focus on making those places good. (And, no, the ivy league and other elites aren't thought leaders in those orgs.) -- [^1]: In my own life, I see a lot of the anti-DEI stuff about those institutions combing from parents of thoroughly mediocre kids who think that their special little snowflake didn't get into Harvard because of racism or whatever. To the point where I wonder if this entire genre of reporting, especially in places like the Economist, is basically just therapy for yuppie parents with over-inflated opinions of their child(ren, but usually not).

ModernMech 4y ago
> Have you been a job candidate or on the hiring committee at a top institution? I have been both, and I would say your take is basically accurate, but it’s actually more fundamental than what you describe. Diversity statements are needed because teaching a diverse classroom is part of the job today. Applicants must demonstrate that they’ve grappled with the issues that arise while teaching. Applicants who can’t articulate a salient position on real issues they will face on the job are rejected for being unqualified, not because they don’t adhere to some Marxist political agenda pushed by radical DEI administrators. I agree with what you wrote in your other post, that a lot of the discourse here is from people who have neither read nor written a DEI statement. It makes the discourse frustrating, because it means people are getting worked up over what they imagine the process looks like - which is usually a caricature of the sort you see being portrayed in other comments. The dearth of actual experience on this topic means that these 800 comment threads that crop up here are low quality echo chambers.
- haberman 4y ago
  When I see someone argue from first-hand experience that this is all no big deal, I feel fairly confident predicting that their politics are more or less aligned with present-day progressivism. And within that context, I can believe that it's no big deal to merely repeat the progressive world view that the interviewers want to hear at that moment. What would change my view on this is to hear someone who has reasonably strong disagreement with present-day progressive stances on education, and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. > Applicants who can’t articulate a salient position on real issues they will face on the job are rejected for being unqualified But that is the whole question right there. What is a salient position? If only one world view is credited as being "salient", then it is a de facto political litmus test.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > What would change my view on this is to hear someone who has reasonably strong disagreement with present-day progressive stances on education, and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. Once again, the purpose of a DEI statement is not to articulate how much you agree (or disagree) with progressive ideology. Doing either will sink your application. The point of the essay is to describe how you handle on the job challenges related to diversity, because they are not abstract. Discussions of trans kids, sick people, blind people, wheelchair bound people, etc. are abstract to many here on HN, because meeting and serving the needs of such people is not part of the daily job description of the commentariat here. But it is part of the daily job of a professor, so it’s essentially addressed in the job application. Could you imagine giving your political views during a C++ coding interview? DEI statements are no different. Just because the political parties have made diversity into a political issue, doesn’t mean it’s a political issue in our department during the hiring process. We never talk about candidates with any political colorings, only about their ideas and experience related to the job. The key mistake many posters here are making (including you) is assuming this process is carried out by political actors looking to implement an agenda. Maybe you can find instances of that (as you can anywhere), but it’s mostly people just looking to hire a colleague, and trying to find the best one. It’s not political. Consider yourself lucky that political parties haven’t turned your hiring process at your job into a political football. I didn’t ask for this grief. > What is a salient position? If only one world view is credited as being "salient", then it is a de facto political litmus test. The salient position is that: the classroom is diverse, and that creates challenges in teaching. Any denial of that is to deny the reality of the job. That’s not a political litmus test, that is a job qualification test. Every member of the faculty knows this to be true from experience, from the famously conservative prof in the bio department, to the purple haired feminist in the sociology department. To deny this on your application is to telegraph you are willing to put your own political feelings ahead of the realities of the job. Moreover, when an applicant parrots anodyne platitudes about how they treat every student equally, they neglect an opportunity to set oneself apart by highlighting experience in this area. For instance pronouns are a hot button issue. Some applicants will make some big deal about pronouns not being necessary, and we will have to reject that application because we all have our pronouns in our signatures. Not for political reasons, but because we have many trans students, and it makes things easier for everyone when pronouns are used upfront; when you have a Frank on your roster who is wearing a dress and lipstick and goes by Francine, having a protocol of pronoun visibility reduces friction in the classroom. It makes Francine feel welcomed and it helps her classmates as well. It’s a net win for everyone, and so political options about tans and pronouns are just not needed. You may feel political about pronouns, but our acceptance and usage of them is a practical matter for us because we have trans customers. Therefore arguments from a political position have no place in a DEI statement. You can argue that they aren’t practically needed, but that will go against our experience. Feel free to hold whatever political opinion you want. Like I said, the bio prof is famously conservative. But you should keep your politics to yourself, especially during the application process. I believe that’s universally applicable advise.

ModernMech 4y ago

> Have you been a job candidate or on the hiring committee at a top institution? I have been both, and I would say your take is basically accurate, but it’s actually more fundamental than what you describe. Diversity statements are needed because teaching a diverse classroom is part of the job today. Applicants must demonstrate that they’ve grappled with the issues that arise while teaching. Applicants who can’t articulate a salient position on real issues they will face on the job are rejected for being unqualified, not because they don’t adhere to some Marxist political agenda pushed by radical DEI administrators. I agree with what you wrote in your other post, that a lot of the discourse here is from people who have neither read nor written a DEI statement. It makes the discourse frustrating, because it means people are getting worked up over what they imagine the process looks like - which is usually a caricature of the sort you see being portrayed in other comments. The dearth of actual experience on this topic means that these 800 comment threads that crop up here are low quality echo chambers.

haberman 4y ago
When I see someone argue from first-hand experience that this is all no big deal, I feel fairly confident predicting that their politics are more or less aligned with present-day progressivism. And within that context, I can believe that it's no big deal to merely repeat the progressive world view that the interviewers want to hear at that moment. What would change my view on this is to hear someone who has reasonably strong disagreement with present-day progressive stances on education, and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. > Applicants who can’t articulate a salient position on real issues they will face on the job are rejected for being unqualified But that is the whole question right there. What is a salient position? If only one world view is credited as being "salient", then it is a de facto political litmus test.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > What would change my view on this is to hear someone who has reasonably strong disagreement with present-day progressive stances on education, and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. Once again, the purpose of a DEI statement is not to articulate how much you agree (or disagree) with progressive ideology. Doing either will sink your application. The point of the essay is to describe how you handle on the job challenges related to diversity, because they are not abstract. Discussions of trans kids, sick people, blind people, wheelchair bound people, etc. are abstract to many here on HN, because meeting and serving the needs of such people is not part of the daily job description of the commentariat here. But it is part of the daily job of a professor, so it’s essentially addressed in the job application. Could you imagine giving your political views during a C++ coding interview? DEI statements are no different. Just because the political parties have made diversity into a political issue, doesn’t mean it’s a political issue in our department during the hiring process. We never talk about candidates with any political colorings, only about their ideas and experience related to the job. The key mistake many posters here are making (including you) is assuming this process is carried out by political actors looking to implement an agenda. Maybe you can find instances of that (as you can anywhere), but it’s mostly people just looking to hire a colleague, and trying to find the best one. It’s not political. Consider yourself lucky that political parties haven’t turned your hiring process at your job into a political football. I didn’t ask for this grief. > What is a salient position? If only one world view is credited as being "salient", then it is a de facto political litmus test. The salient position is that: the classroom is diverse, and that creates challenges in teaching. Any denial of that is to deny the reality of the job. That’s not a political litmus test, that is a job qualification test. Every member of the faculty knows this to be true from experience, from the famously conservative prof in the bio department, to the purple haired feminist in the sociology department. To deny this on your application is to telegraph you are willing to put your own political feelings ahead of the realities of the job. Moreover, when an applicant parrots anodyne platitudes about how they treat every student equally, they neglect an opportunity to set oneself apart by highlighting experience in this area. For instance pronouns are a hot button issue. Some applicants will make some big deal about pronouns not being necessary, and we will have to reject that application because we all have our pronouns in our signatures. Not for political reasons, but because we have many trans students, and it makes things easier for everyone when pronouns are used upfront; when you have a Frank on your roster who is wearing a dress and lipstick and goes by Francine, having a protocol of pronoun visibility reduces friction in the classroom. It makes Francine feel welcomed and it helps her classmates as well. It’s a net win for everyone, and so political options about tans and pronouns are just not needed. You may feel political about pronouns, but our acceptance and usage of them is a practical matter for us because we have trans customers. Therefore arguments from a political position have no place in a DEI statement. You can argue that they aren’t practically needed, but that will go against our experience. Feel free to hold whatever political opinion you want. Like I said, the bio prof is famously conservative. But you should keep your politics to yourself, especially during the application process. I believe that’s universally applicable advise.