[ModernMech]

Again, that's not about belief, that's about the reality that the student body is diverse, the school wants the student body to be diverse, and the classroom itself will accordingly be diverse. What specifically about the rubric is the most troubling to you?

By the way, as someone who hires faculty and reads many such statements (I have to ask, have you read any DEI statements? Do you have examples which you find especially troubling?), a discussion about how current efforts are dubiously effective would be welcome and would help your application at my institution. More often than not, what they are trying to do with these DEI statements is to weed-out applicants who have given no thought whatsoever to this part of the job. The most common failure here is to treat this job requirement as an afterthought and to focus 100% on the research portion. Someone who had genuine opinions about DEI education that run counter to the way things are done would be well received by the hiring committee at my institution.

[zozbot234]

> a discussion about how current efforts are dubiously effective would be a welcome and would help your application at my institution.

A required statement as part of applying for any faculty position or promotion is simply not the appropriate place for such a discussion. You're expecting what amounts to a serious research effort in social science. This kind of intervention in effective leverage points of a complex system (even if perhaps only a "system of oppression", as often described by those most concerned about DEI) is the stuff that research papers are made of, not short statements of conformity.

(Of course, this assumes that effective mitigation of DEI challenges is the actual goal of these requirements. It's not unreasonable to be rather skeptical about this, as the original professor who raised the issue - who is a social scientist - states in his blog post series.)

[ModernMech]

> not the appropriate place for such a discussion

Why? We want to hire faculty who have experience managing a diverse classroom. We want a diverse classroom because our student body is diverse. Our student body is diverse because our applicants are diverse. Diversity is part of this whole thing, and experience as faculty teaching diverse classrooms tells us that it's not something that can be treated as an afterthought.

> You're expecting what amounts to a serious research effort in social science.

No, we are expecting a cogent discussion of the issues which one encounters through teaching diverse classrooms. It's a matter of experience, and yes sometimes it amounts to years of experience to understand the complex and subtle role that diversity plays in the classroom. But as I said in another post, the failure mode here isn't typically an inability to articulate a deep understanding of this area, it's an inability to articulate any understanding or thought whatsoever to these problems. Even just discussing the problems is more than enough to get you past any cutoff or filter I've encountered.

[zozbot234]

> Even just discussing the problems is more than enough to get you past any cutoff or filter I've encountered.

Even assuming that this were true, the clear implication is merely that the scoring rubric for that part of the application is being disregarded, since it very explicitly says otherwise. The linked blog post series actually discusses the issue at length, so I'm not going to repeat what it says. Regardless, having scoring rubrics that explicitly demand ideological conformity to a specific point of view is still a recipe for significant problems in the future.

[ModernMech]

You're still not pointing out how this rubric is demanding ideological conformity. The wording of the rubric and the context in which it's presented have explicit language about how this is not in fact demanding ideological conformity. It's presented as a "sample", a "template", a "guide", "illustrative", and "recommended". It implores faculty search committees to tailor the rubric to the norms particulars of the academic discipline. Nowhere is it stated that this mandated and required.

I think one of the main issues here is that you are looking at the DEI component of the hiring process through the lens of the DEI office, which is not necessarily the view of the faculty search committee, who are the actual gatekeepers in the process.

But even if we consider the rubric as presented, I still fail to see where it's demanding ideological conformity. The rubric states it is evaluating:

  knowledge and understanding (section 1), track record of activities to date (section 2), and plans for contributing at Berkeley (section 3).

- For Section 1, requiring knowledge of a topic is not the same as requiring ideological conformity to a topic. I think we can all agree on that.

- Section 2 asks about a track record of activities. This is just asking about a candidate's service record, and an appropriate response here would be to talk about any community service experience one has.

- Section 3 asks about future plans. This is an opportunity for a candidate to talk about plans for incorporating community service and outreach with their research and teaching, which is usually a prerequisite to getting funding from top government funding agencies. A detailed service plan is an important part of any faculty candidate's application package, and the DEI letter is a great place to include it.

I don't see how any of that is onerous or demanding of ideological purity and conformity. It seems rather reasonable to me.

[zozbot234]

> I think we can all agree on that

The OP (viz. economist John H. Cochrane) clearly disagrees, so I can only point to his blog post series. The "understanding" requirement especially can be twisted to argue that disagreeing with the common, ideologically slanted outlook of DEI offices equates to a lack of "understanding". Section 2 and 3 have similar issues, where the requirement for a "track record" and future "plans" could be construed to imply that "service" to an increasingly expansive DEI administrative bureaucracy must henceforth be part of one's duties as faculty.

You're effectively saying that everything is OK so long as faculty, and not the DEI offices that, by all indications, actually drafted these scoring rubrics, are ultimately in control of the process. There's likely quite a bit of truth to what you're saying, but this nonetheless strikes me as a rather weak argument.

[ModernMech]

John H. Cochrane makes the same mistake in his blog post that you are making here: treating this rubric as prescriptive and determinative in the hiring process rather than taking it for what it says it is: a sample, template, guideline, suggestion, etc.

For example, Cochrane offers a point-by-point analysis of each element and points out where he thinks they are lacking e.g.

  "doesn't discuss gender or ethnicity/race." Only specific kinds of diversity need apply.

No, this is not what the rubric says. It does not say that one may only talk about specific kinds of diversity. It presents itself as a suggestion through and through, and explicitly says its not exhaustive or "ironclad". He makes the same mistake throughout.

> The "understanding" requirement especially can be twisted to argue that disagreeing with the common, ideologically slanted outlook of DEI offices equates to a lack of "understanding".

The continual framing of this document as prescriptive of hiring practices is the thing that is being twisted here. Let's be clear about what this document is: it's a communication from the DEI office intended to aid faculty search committees. It bears repeating that concrete issues of diversity and inclusion are experienced almost daily by faculty members. Students who are bullied and marginalized because of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. are in every class I've taught, and these issue impact the learning environment and outcomes for students. Things that may seem theoretical to you or which you do not often confront are daily realities of the job for faculty, who can teach hundreds of students a year from around the world.

And so faculty do want applicants who show an understanding of these issues. What I've tried to say several times now is that many applicants do not consider DEI issues at all when applying for a faculty job. Not even a single thought. They think the job is research, which others in this thread have echoed. But that is emphatically not the job of a professor -- it may be a big part of it, but teaching and service are also very important as well.

As faculty, we understand DEI issues abound and are part of the job, and so I don't think it's unreasonable to make it part of the application process to explain how you would handle these issues in the classroom. Can you make an argument for the opposite position? That despite the fact that issues of diversity impact the classroom environment, it's not appropriate to ask a candidate how they would handle those issues.

> You're effectively saying that everything is OK so long as faculty, and not the DEI offices that, by all indications, actually drafted these scoring rubrics, are ultimately in control of the process. There's likely quite a bit of truth to what you're saying, but this nonetheless strikes me as a rather weak argument.

Why is this a weak argument? Your primary worry seems to be that these rubrics will be used as an ideological purity test. But in the context of how the process works, I've shown that it's not given the kind of consideration you believe it is given. Even when it's used to maximum effect, what it serves to do is weed out people who aren't willing to give even a modicum of consideration to issues related directly to the duties of the job.

I really have to ask again, how many DEI statements have you read? I'd really like if you could provide an example of one you felt is okay, but was rejected as insufficient by faculty. I'm trying to get a better idea of the specific objections you have.

[oefrha]

As a non-white male person who successfully navigated highly diverse top U.S. institutions as an international student without all the DEI bullshit a while back, I’d rather work with faculty and staff who don’t cater to my ethnicity, gender or whatever irrelevant traits, thanks.

[ModernMech]

> without all the DEI bullshit a while back, I’d rather work with faculty and staff who don’t cater to my ethnicity, gender or whatever irrelevant traits,

Let me give you an example of where one example where it might feel like bullshit and be perceived to be irrelevant to you, but makes a big deal when it comes to individual students in my classroom.

On the issue of pronouns, many people feel like it's a bullshit thing they don't want to deal with. They view the inclusion of pronouns in a signature as a waste of time. I've been told as much. It's fine to have this position in the abstract, but it comes with costs in contexts that confront the reality that transgendered students exist.

Consider the fact that every semester, I will have at least 1-2 transgendered students in my classroom. For 99% of the students there, their pronouns are conventionally obvious. However, some students might be registered as "Christopher" yet they may present as conventionally female, and go by "Chris".

A good DEI statement might talk about an experience one has with this kind of situation. It's a situation that happens commonly for educators. How did they handle this situation? How did the students respond? What did the applicant learn? Pretty much the only wrong answer here is to dismiss this as a bullshit nonissue that is irrelevant. Maybe it's irrelevant to you in your personal life, but it's not irrelevant to everyone, and in fact is quite relevant to the professional performance of a faculty member.

[oefrha]

I have a name English speakers can’t pronounce. Many people can’t pronounce it even after correction; some are a bit off, others are wildly off. How do I deal with it? I’m mature enough to recognize that people don’t intentionally butcher my name to insult me, and it is almost entirely irrelevant to why I’m in a university, as long as I know when other people are addressing me. See, objectively relevant to me, actually bullshit nonissue to mature adults with a basic sense of mutual respect. “Quite relevant to her professional performance of a faculty member”, yeah, it’s relevant because you made it so.

[ModernMech]

I understand that's how you deal with this situation as a mature adult, but to be clear not all of my students are adults, certainly very few of them are mature, and many are still developing what it means to mutually respect one another. The reality of teaching 100+ new students every semester, is that you get to meet people from all walks of life, at different levels of maturity and development. Some of them are very mature like you. Others are very emotionally immature, and that manifests in a variety of ways in the classroom. And to be clear, I'm not equating trans people with a lack or presence of emotional maturity, I'm just saying that not everyone in my classroom has the same degree of emotional maturity as you.

The point is that an experienced teacher knows this and knows how to manage these issues in their classroom. If you think these things are non-issues in the classroom, I'd really like to probe your experience teaching, specifically to learn how you deal with DEI issues that I encounter daily in the classroom.

[zozbot234]

> Pretty much the only wrong answer here is to dismiss this as a bullshit nonissue that is irrelevant.

Who's to say that there's any "right" or "wrong" answer to the issue? What if one were to fell back to basic norms of professional courtesy, that ask of us to treat others with tact and diplomacy so as to make them feel as comfortable as possible? One might then privately regard the whole matter as quite trifling, while nonetheless humoring the student's unconventional identity and presentation as merely the latest of many such possible eccentricities. This is clearly not the "accepted" answer in DEI offices, but it might be quite compatible with one's duties as an educator.

[ModernMech]

> Who's to say that there's any "right" or "wrong" answer to the issue?

Ultimately the faculty doing the search will decide what's an acceptable answer.

> What if one were to fell back to basic norms of professional courtesy, that ask of us to treat others with tact and diplomacy so as to make them feel as comfortable as possible?

You can absolutely go this route but I'll just remind you that it's a highly competitive job search for one of the top universities in the world. The applicant pool is going to be highly competitive. Remember, community service is part of the job of being a faculty member. Berkeley is looking for leaders in all areas of the profession, this includes community service in the past and solid plans for the future.

It's one thing to say that you will abide by professional norms and make students feel as comfortable as possible. But those are just platitudes. How have you done so in the past? What specific examples can you use? How did you resolve a conflict related to DEI issues? What specific practices do you integrate into your teaching that serve to make students feel as comfortable as possible? How have you demonstrated tact in the past handling of a situation? Or where you weren't tactful and you learned the hard way why tact is important? What is a diplomatic way you've resolved an issue in the classroom? The answers to these questions make an excellent DEI statement, and they serve to do nothing more than elaborate with specificity on what you said you'll do. That shouldn't be a problem, right? That's all a DEI statement is really asking for.

[vanusa]

I've been told as much. It's fine to have this position in the abstract, but it comes with costs in contexts that confront the reality that transgendered students exist.

So not in the abstract, but in the concrete, please: if someone is asked to state their pronouns (either in their email signatures, or at a meeting) -- are they allowed to opt-out? Or will there be "consequences" for doing so?

[ModernMech]

> if someone is asked to state their pronouns (either in their email signatures, or at a meeting) -- are they allowed to opt-out? Or will there be "consequences" for doing so?

In my department it was suggested by a colleague (not a mandate from on high) that we do precisely this, and after a discussion of the merits of the idea most of us decided we would, but not all. No negative consequences befell those who didn't. We have gotten feedback from students that this was a welcome move from their perspective. No students have complained.

[vanusa]

Thanks, that sounds reassuring. I appreciate your thoughtful responses to my other questions, as well - I may give these another pass (if I find time) tomorrow.

[MatteoFrigo]

Would you mind stating which institution you work for, so I can recommend that my kids avoid it like the plague?

I want teachers who can answer questions about Fourier transforms, not teachers who can "manage a diverse classroom". Really, "manage"?

[ModernMech]

The job of a teacher at a university is not to simply answer questions, but to manage (this is a term of art) a classroom for tens to hundreds of students at a time. One aspect of classroom management is mediating interpersonal conflicts, which happen often at scale and can hinge on issues relating to gender, race, religion, and other sensitive personal matters.

If you just want someone to answer questions on a subject matter, then a tutor is what you’re looking for. If you want to be a part of a student body, then you want someone who is not just good at answering questions, but can also effectively manage a classroom. Otherwise you’re in store for 14 weeks of confusion and chaos.

[vanusa]

"Often happen at scale"? What on earth are you talking about?

The schools I went to very much "politically aware" -- and there was no shortage of drama and controversy in the student newspapers, online and all over campus, in fact. But in the classroom? I literally cannot think of a single instance of "interpersonal conflict" that would have required special "management" skills of any kind (beyond simple decency and common sense). Everyone got along, and it was all pretty mellow and chill, actually.

[ModernMech]

> "Often happen at scale"? What on earth are you talking about?

What I mean is that things that are rare for most people in everyday life become commonplace when you deal with batches of 100s of humans at a time.

For example, bipolar disorder occurs at a frequency of about 1% in the general population. Statistically in my classroom of 100 students, there's at least 1 who suffers from bipolar disorder, and therefore is in serious danger of for the first time undergoing an acute mental health crisis at some point during the semester. Therefore in my profession, issues related to mental health are not a rare or abstract occurrence, but are ever-present in the classroom semester after semester. Indeed, in almost all of my classes there will be a student who undergoes such a crisis, and so it's best to have a policy for dealing with these issues when they arise.

> I literally cannot think of a single instance of "interpersonal conflict" that would have required special "management" skills of any kind (beyond simple decency and common sense). Everyone got along, and it was all pretty mellow and chill, actually.

By "schools I went to", do you mean as a student? If so, then it's not surprising you wouldn't have been exposed to any of these things; very sensitive matters are brought to instructors in confidence and are handled discretely. In a well-managed classroom, the issues of other students should be transparent to you.

Some examples that I experienced recently:

- Student had racial slurs spray painted on their residence, wanted to discuss an extension of his project due to emotional distress.

- Female student overheard other male students making lewd and harassing comments about her, made her feel unwelcome in the classroom and was affecting her performance.

- Student was bullying other students in his group to the point that they came to me in tears about how he was treating them.

Having taken classes you may feel you understand what it takes to run a classroom, but I assure you there's an endless stream of these kinds of issues that occur in the background that you have no idea your instructors are dealing with.

[vanusa]

I get the point instructors need to have above-average empathy, and be able to deal with stuff that happens that occasionally happens in group settings. That's always been a given in higher education. And yes, students did have personal crises and occasionally untoward interactions did happen. (Outright bullying does seem kind of strange, but I distinctly recall how relieved I was that had completely disappeared when I hit campus for my freshman year. Really, that's HS and junior high level stuff -- and the selection process for a reasonably serious school seems to be quite effective at weeding out that kind of behavior. But no matter, that's a side topic).

But you know what? Stuff happened and the instructors, provosts and other staff were able to deal with it based, again -- on their capacities for empathy, common sense and elementary decency. Without having to produce a lengthy statement of their "understanding of the dimensions of diversity", "organizing and speaking at workshops" ... and all the other positive signals candidates are supposed to generate to avoid coming under suspicion of being either deficient in their capacities for treating other people decently (or worse, perhaps secretly harboring bigoted attitudes).

So this all gets back to the original question: Why are these DEI statements necessary? Why is it simply presumed that instructors are deficient in their understanding of "ethnic, socioeconomic, racial, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural differences" (quoting from the UC rubric) ... until they produce a carefully constructed attestation of their ... I know you're going to hate this term, but there's really no other term to use: virtuous awareness of the importance of these issues?

BTW I didn't drop the "v-" word just to tap in to the current hot-button debate about the pros and cons of virtue signaling. There really is something about the some of expectations in the UC rubric that is just ... weird, very weird, and in controlling, authoritarian way. For example the part where it gives as an example of a "wrong" answer to one of its sections (where a "wrong" answer can easily derail your candidacy, and hence, depending on the job you're applying for, effectively hobble our career):

    Explicitly states the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and “treat everyone the same.”

This is perfectly decent position for someone to have, in my view. In fact, until very recently, it would been seen as a very enlightened, principled position to take.

But in the current climate -- it is of course absolutely unacceptable to "treat everyone the same". You have to be aware of their presumed "difference" as based on observed characteristics and (inferred or presumed) group identity -- and factor this into your interactions with them at all times. Otherwise, you are clearly lacking in empathy, and completely incapable of understanding the fact that other people have different backgrounds and different perspectives than your own.

And any class you teach will be "14 weeks of chaos and confusion", waiting to happen.

[vanusa]

"I get the point that ...", "hobble your career"

[ModernMech]

> Stuff happened and the instructors, provosts and other staff were able to deal with it based, again -- on their capacities for empathy, common sense and elementary decency. Without having to produce a lengthy statement of their "understanding of the dimensions of diversity", "organizing and speaking at workshops"

Do you really know this to be true, though? Faculty and admin are always organizing and speaking at workshops on these topics, they're always holding seminars for one another about best practices and new ideas. They've most certainly had pointed discussions in faculty meetings about these issues and how to handle them. And they've been doing these things well before "DEI" became a thing.

Also, unstated in your comment is the presumption that dedicated reflection and intentional effort can't improve one's empathy and decency. That a baseline, instinctual level is enough, even though you admit earlier you believe it's a given that instructors need to have above-average empathy. Okay well if that's true, how does one develop above-average empathy? How does one demonstrate above-average empathy?

> all the other positive signals candidates are supposed to generate to avoid coming under suspicion of being either deficient in their capacities for treating other people decently (or worse, perhaps secretly harboring bigoted attitudes).

I think this is an important point you make here. Because we agree that the job of professor requires above-average empathy. I believe that anyone can improve their empathy through practice and intentionality. I also believe that although everyone considers themself to be empathetic and decent, everyone also has the capacity to make mistakes. I believe intentional practice and reflection are the best way to use these mistakes to maximize one's empathetic ability.

In that light, a DEI statement should be seen as an opportunity for an applicant to demonstrate their practice of developing an above-average empathy. Then the statement is not about identifying deficient capacities or bigoted attitudes. Rather, it's about identifying candidates who have recognized that empathy is a skill that can be honed like any other, and who have developed and implemented an explicit practice for honing their own empathy.

> I know you're going to hate this term, but there's really no other term to use: virtuous awareness of the importance of these issues?

I have no feelings about this term.

> There really is something about the some of expectations in the UC rubric that is just ... weird, very weird

I will say again that the Berkeley rubric is the product of the Berkeley DEIB office, which is probably staffed by people who are very far from your position in the political spectrum. Most of what they say may seem quite weird to you. So the entire document has to be viewed through this lens, with the clear understanding that hiring committees, who I will state again are the ones with the power to derail your candidacy (not the DEI office), don't understand or agree with everything written in this document.

As far as the criterion you highlighted, it is a perfectly decent position for someone to have. The reason why it's seen as "wrong" by the DEIB office at Berkeley is because from experience we as a profession have found it leads to instructors with attitudes like "I don't care that Timmy has a learning disability, he has to take the test for the same 45 minutes as the other students!"

The idea isn't really to factor an individual's background into all of your interactions with them at all times, that would be exhausting. Instead, the idea is to recognize that someone's background can profoundly impact the way they experience your classroom, and sometimes that manifests itself in ways where you as an instructor have the opportunity to make conditions materially better. Sometimes these changes are very small and subtle, but can have a huge impact on students. The difficulty isn't making the change, it's in recognizing the need for one in the first place (this is really where the empathy skill is put to work).

Another way you can think about it is, it's less about particular students and individuals, and really more about the fact that there isn't one single archetypical student X that you can design a course around. Instead, there are different kinds of students -- X, Y, and Z -- and they all have competing and sometimes conflicting demands.

Let me give you some examples:

- Some instructors have a no laptops during class rule. But some students have trouble taking notes on paper due to any number of issues. A policy of treating everyone the same would lead to these students doing poorly in the class. Taking into account their needs can result in a policy that can be crafted to work for everyone.

- Most of my students are teenagers, but others are working parents. One of these parent-students had a sick child, and couldn't afford a sitter so that they could come to class. Some instructors would say this parent-student gets a zero and has to make up the work, because that's the policy for all students. On the other hand, I've already factored this reality into my course design, and the parent-student was able to take care of their child and also didn't miss a single minute of class. Experienced instructors do this as a matter of course and will be able to write about it in a DEI statement without a problem. Novice instructors don't even recognize the issue until it comes at them mid semester, where ad hoc changes to course policies can be problematic.

- I used to require some pretty involved software installation for one of my courses. Everyone has a laptop, so what's the big deal? Well, then I learned just how tenuous "having a laptop" can be. While some students had a brand new, state-of-the-art 16" Macbook Pro, others were using a 5 year-old family laptop shared between 4 siblings, and didn't have permission to install the required course material. Thus I adjusted my requirements here so that the software could be used from a browser, and required no installation at all.

> Otherwise, you are clearly lacking in empathy, and completely incapable of understanding the fact that other people have different backgrounds and different perspectives than your own.

Right, so if you say that you will "treat everyone the same", you have to square that with the "fact that other people have different backgrounds and different perspectives than your own." What follows from different backgrounds and perspectives is different needs and expectations. That's why "treat everyone the same" is problematic -- because it's hard to do that and also admit that you can fulfil all student needs and meet every expectation.

Finally I will say that I believe what the Berkeley DEIB office is really doing here with this particular criterion is cutting to the chase: "treat everyone the same" is one of those banal meaningless platitudes you will find in statements that are written as an afterthought. It's not often you will read a phrase that amounts to "treat everyone the same", and then what follows is a detailed, nuanced, well-reasoned discussion as to why this policy works in practice. Such a statement would be welcomed, although I think if you came to interview you may be challenged on your point of view.

Rather, it's typically just one platitude in a string of platitudes, which amount to a vague and ultimately meaningless DEI statement.

> And any class you teach will be "14 weeks of chaos and confusion", waiting to happen

Heh, I will say my students certainly are perpetually confused.