Claremont McKenna is probably first on the list because in 2017, a student mob surrounded the building Heather Mac Donald was going to speak in, banged on the windows, and blocked a door; she had to be escorted out by police to deliver the speech from another location.
As a Washington State University alumnus, I was happy to see they were on board with institutional neutrality. Then I read their statement. It had exceptions that would swallow the rule to the point where I assume it will be business as usual.
Institutional Nuetrality seems kinda nice but surely the more important point is that they fundamentally undermine the university's role in advancing our understanding of the world and conveying that knowledge to students.
If diversity statements really don't ensure that the university mostly hires professors committed to diversity the case is obvious -- no benefit weighed against the reputational cost of common knowledge professors are letting the university pressure them to misrepresent their views. So assume it really does ensure that the university mostly hires professors who integrate the promotion of diversity with their teaching and research.
But now you've clearly sent the message that it's not ok to just focus on publishing what's true about chemistry, economics etc etc and let someone else answer worry about how we should apply that information to questions of race, gender and representation. And this makes it completely rational for everyone -- including students -- to wonder if what they are being told is really what the evidence says or if great counter arguments aren't being voiced because academics integrate concern for diversity into what they teach and research (and maybe covering/reporting that would harm this cause).
Of course this doesn't really happen outside a few really politized subjects because it really is all bullshit and everyone knows it but it erodes trust because academics can't really reassure people that it's all just crap and we don't mean it.
And, to quibble, institutional neutrality is relatively context sensitive. It's not such a problem if student affairs or whoever manages the dorms or does admissions takes a position on whether it benefits students to live in mixed gender dorms, have a racially/religiously diverse population.
Universities make all sorts of claims about how this kind of small X atmosphere or great books program etc etc are going to make for a better education. And alot of it is bullshit but it's not a problem and people can pick the pitch they like.
And if all a diversity statement amounted to was a statement that you will fit in with the campus (eg aren't going to be using slurs etc etc) it wouldn't be a big deal.
Having a college degree now also correlates with leftist ideology, so I don't think that part is a very persuasive argument against DEI statements. DEI statements should be abandoned because they don't work.
Claremont McKenna is probably first on the list because in 2017, a student mob surrounded the building Heather Mac Donald was going to speak in, banged on the windows, and blocked a door; she had to be escorted out by police to deliver the speech from another location.
As a Washington State University alumnus, I was happy to see they were on board with institutional neutrality. Then I read their statement. It had exceptions that would swallow the rule to the point where I assume it will be business as usual.
Yay Washington! At least they did something. It's not like they had to.
Institutional Nuetrality seems kinda nice but surely the more important point is that they fundamentally undermine the university's role in advancing our understanding of the world and conveying that knowledge to students.
If diversity statements really don't ensure that the university mostly hires professors committed to diversity the case is obvious -- no benefit weighed against the reputational cost of common knowledge professors are letting the university pressure them to misrepresent their views. So assume it really does ensure that the university mostly hires professors who integrate the promotion of diversity with their teaching and research.
But now you've clearly sent the message that it's not ok to just focus on publishing what's true about chemistry, economics etc etc and let someone else answer worry about how we should apply that information to questions of race, gender and representation. And this makes it completely rational for everyone -- including students -- to wonder if what they are being told is really what the evidence says or if great counter arguments aren't being voiced because academics integrate concern for diversity into what they teach and research (and maybe covering/reporting that would harm this cause).
Of course this doesn't really happen outside a few really politized subjects because it really is all bullshit and everyone knows it but it erodes trust because academics can't really reassure people that it's all just crap and we don't mean it.
Good stuff but needs proof-reading to rectify stray solecisms.
And, to quibble, institutional neutrality is relatively context sensitive. It's not such a problem if student affairs or whoever manages the dorms or does admissions takes a position on whether it benefits students to live in mixed gender dorms, have a racially/religiously diverse population.
Universities make all sorts of claims about how this kind of small X atmosphere or great books program etc etc are going to make for a better education. And alot of it is bullshit but it's not a problem and people can pick the pitch they like.
And if all a diversity statement amounted to was a statement that you will fit in with the campus (eg aren't going to be using slurs etc etc) it wouldn't be a big deal.
Is there any comment on the Orwell vs Kafka image?
Having a college degree now also correlates with leftist ideology, so I don't think that part is a very persuasive argument against DEI statements. DEI statements should be abandoned because they don't work.