[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.

[vanusa]

Do you really know this to be true, though?

Well yeah, because the concept of a "diversity statement", let alone of a DEIB, did not exist at the time.

And that's the topic of discussion here -- whether these mandatory affirmative statements are necessary, or even helpful. Not "discussions in faculty meetings" (which of can be effective). But these precious mandatory affirmative statements, as judged and scored by these boards with their (as you seem to acknowledge) apparently unknowable criteria.

I'm just going to address one more snippet of what you said, then I'm going to have to bail:

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!"

We keep going back in circles, here. You seem to just assume, prima facie, the effectiveness of these statements: that candidates with "weak" affirmative diversity statements -- as judged their spouting what you deem to be "empty platitudes", and for their failure to emit who knows what positive signals you or whoever is sitting on the DEI board that year is looking for -- are basically childish, self-centered jerks (who wouldn't already be revealing these traits by other means). And that that requiring "strong" affirmative statements somehow protects the university community against the encroachment of these childish, self-centered jerks. Who might just not immediately agree with whatever accessibility guidelines come down the pipe (in regard to students with disabilities) -- but would become become obstructionist, and start to pout and stomp their feet, as you hyberbolize: "I don't care what guidelines say! I'm going to run my class the way I see fit!"

I don't know what higher plane of reality you inhabit such that you feel confident you can draw a causative association between a candidate's making a statement like "I treat everyone equally" -- and their being disposed of that kind of behavior.

But I maintain that is, at best... a gut-level association -- kind of like "I know their kind", "I know them when I see them". That is to say: at best, a very tenuous association -- and at worst, a stereotype. And an ideologically-driven one at that. Which indicates, ironically, a lack of depth of understanding of cognitive ... diversity.

That's how I see it. You can see it otherwise of course, and that's perfectly fine. I do need to move on though, and call it a day with this thread. You are extremely even-tempered and civil (much more so than I), but as the other commenter pointed out, this thread has gotten way too long, and is now way past its expiration date.

[ModernMech]

> Well yeah, because the concept of a "diversity statement", let alone of a DEIB, did not exist at the time.

What I was saying is that diversity initiatives, training, seminars, workshops, and all the various activities that are now concentrated in the DEIB office have been going on for quite some time at different levels in the University. Offices of diversity haven't always been around, but similar efforts have always existed. Maybe your instructors haven't written a DEI statement, but surely they have engaged in the activities one would write about in a DEI statement. Every member of the faculty has.

> You seem to just assume, prima facie, the effectiveness of these statements

The statements are most effective in focusing candidates to answer questions about diversity during the interview.

> their failure to emit who knows what positive signals you or whoever is sitting on the DEI board that year is looking for

The "positive signals" we are looking for are specificity. We just want examples. What have you done specifically? What do you plan to do specifically? Otherwise, yeah, they're platitudes.

> are basically childish, self-centered jerks

I'm sorry I probably overstated Berkeley's intention with their rubric, as I'm not a part of Berkeley and had no hand in writing it, but I just had some specific instances in mind when I that this. I will say I've read a lot of statements that say something to the effect of "I treat everyone equally" and I've had a lot of discussions with those candidates. It usually turns out that after a probing discussion, their actual position is much more measured. The "I treat everyone equally" absolutists I've come across have actually ended their careers in self immolation. And I mean, they were hired in the first place, so their statement didn't even affect their candidacy, but I will say their attitude lead to problems.

> You are extremely even-tempered and civil

It comes from dealing with teenagers all day. Cheers!