Critiquing the ‘Diversity & Inclusion’ critics

This blog post from Stanford economist John Cochrane is a critique of diversity & inclusion statements (D&I), which many academics must write when applying for jobs at universities, and it rehashes some of the (I think tired) arguments against them. Looking at the scoring rubric that UC Berkeley uses to evaluate these statements, Cochrane argues that the D&I is essentially an ideological purity test that counterproductively disqualifies applicants with views different from those of their potential colleagues, and that they aren’t even a good way to get a more diverse faculty. I really appreciate him linking to the rubric and going over it in detail, and I think the D&I statement should definitely come in for some criticism, but I disagree pretty strongly with his analysis. 

My first problem centers on a passage Cochrane quotes from Abigail Thompson, a UC Davis math professor and VP of the American Mathematics Society, who argues that D&I statements are essentially a “political test” designed to make sure potential employees’ politics lean a certain way. Thompson says, 

Classical liberals aspire to treat every person as a unique individual, not as a representative of their gender or their ethnic group. The [Berkely scoring rubric for D&I statements] dictates that in order to get a high diversity score, a candidate must have actively engaged in promoting different identity groups as part of their professional life. [...] Requiring candidates to believe that people should be treated differently according to their identity is indeed a political test.

The upshot here seems to be that “classical liberalism” is not political, since it simply aspires to equality, but D&I initiatives are, because they advocate for more active interventions against the status quo. But this view of what is & isn’t political is incomplete and pretty self-serving. It’s similar to using the phrase “identity politics” against those who work toward including racially diverse groups in political movements, but not against overt appeals to white nationalism. It’s using “politics” as an epithet, something others are engaging in while you remain untainted by it. 

And that last sentence of Thompson’s is at best incomplete and at worst disingenuous: “Requiring candidates to believe that people should be treated differently according to their identity is indeed a political test.” D&I statements, generally speaking, come from the same belief she professes: that people should be given the same opportunities no matter their identity or background. But they also come from the observation (not simply the “belief”) that across U.S. sectors, this is not currently happening, and strong and sustained effort is needed to correct this problem – effort in the form of lifting up historically marginalized groups at the institutional level. 

So you can call D&I statements “political tests” if you want to characterize them negatively - and Thompson does, comparing them to Red Scare anti-communist “loyalty oaths” scholars were forced to sign in the 1950s. But you can also call them “records of effort,” because what they ask for is specific evidence that you’re curious enough about diversity to find things out about the experiences of people different from you, and that you have a record of working for inclusivity in your classroom, your department, your college, etc. The Berkeley rubric shows pretty clearly that this is what the people evaluating D&I statements are looking for. To me, it seems entirely reasonable for a university to say that these qualities are a priority for them and to screen job applicants accordingly.  

Of course, D&I statements are ripe for critique, and I partly agree with some of Cochrane’s points. He says, for example, that they often prioritize some kinds of diversity – of race and sexuality, for example – and ignore others, like diversity of religion or political beliefs. There’s something to this critique, I think. But it seems flatly wrong to lump diversity of political beliefs, which people can form and change, with racial identity, which people generally cannot change or even, for most of us, decide upon in any way (I’m not just white because my parents are white; I’m white because that’s what everyone thinks I am when they see me). He also critiques UC Berkeley’s practice of weighting the D&I statement quite heavily among its hiring criteria. This, to me, does bear some scrutiny. But, provided they’re hiring qualified candidates, it seems reasonable for a university to say, “This criterion is so important to us that we’re going to make it one of our highest priorities.” Academia has a whiteness problem, and they’re trying to tackle it.

A table that Cochrane posts, from a Berkeley report on the effectiveness of their D&I initiatives, shows that their efforts seem to be working:

UC Berkeley’s use of D&I statements appears to elevate candidates of color and suppress white candidates’ representation in the hiring pool. Cochrane’s response to this is: “If the point is to hire African Americans, Hispanics […] and women, why not just ask people what they are and hire them? […] Well, because racial and gender quotas are illegal, of course.” And sure, quotas might be illegal, but wanting a faculty that’s as diverse as your student body, or at least approaching that level of diversity, is not just legal but extremely desirable, from the point of view both of serving students and being competitive with other schools. Also, asking applicants “what they are” is not the same as asking what they’ve done and what they know, and, again, it is knowledge about and effort toward inclusivity that these schools want, along with better representation for marginalized groups in their faculty.

As I said, I’m all for critiquing D&I statements and their uses, but where Cochrane criticizes their very presence and motives, my own critiques come from questions about the onus they place on job applicants and new faculty. If you’ve read this far and you’re not an academic (thanks!) (I’m sorry?), you should know that the academic hiring process is super arduous for everyone involved, especially for job applicants, who are often in financially precarious positions. One point of difficuly is the amount of materials schools ask for: CV, cover letter, letters of recommendation, statement of teaching philosophy, D&I statement… It’s common to have to submit all these and more to a single job, and most applicants apply to many, perhaps dozens of jobs within the span of a few months, with each school expecting materials to be tailored to their specific needs. So the D&I statement is one more thing to produce, and writing any of these things well takes time.

I’ve also talked to academics of color who feel somewhat resentful at having to prove their diversity bona fides in a piece of writing designed specifically for that purpose, a/o/t, say, including info about inclusivity in the cover letter, teaching philosophy, and/or elsewhere. Asking for diversity bona fides in a separate statement seems to separate it from the things those other statements describe - teaching, scholarship, service & admin - when it’s wrapped up in all of them. Not to mention that writing the D&I at all for scholars in marginalized groups can feel like someone is questioning your dedication to your own identity, one that that someone is not themselves a part of. 

D&I statements can also send the message that, if you get the job (an enormous IF!) it’s on you to make our institution more inclusive. What I’ve often wanted to know when I’ve written these statements is, what are you, the institution, doing to foster D&I other than asking me to write this statement? What’s your record of hiring and supporting diverse faculty and staff? What’s your record of recruiting and supporting a diverse student body? If I get the job, what tools will I have at my disposal to advance inclusivity in my classroom? my department? my college? It seems to me that a good-faith request for a D&I statement would include links that thoroughly answer all these questions. And while I haven’t been on the market for a few years, when I was I never saw such things. 

So – Cochrane and those he cites seem more concerned by the supposed dominance of what they disparagingly call "wokeness” (his blog post is titled “Wokeademia”) than the actual dominance of whiteness. And while the D&I movement does need work, it also appears to be making some headway.