[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.