In case anyone is wondering, here is a link to two templates that the law society JV is talking about provides for attorneys to adopt. Not surprisingly, there ain’t much there.

As I stated earlier, dealing with a diverse student population is literally a core competency of a professor. They are the university's customers.

As to your earlier point, it is quite easy for competent, capable people to be excluded from so called "merit based" hiring decisions when things like a company culture of straight white Christian men is not accommodating to the needs of people different from that while it is deferential to in-group needs.

Sure, if you want to include diversity as part of a person's "merit," then merit-based hiring would lead to a diverse group of employees. I don't really view a person's ethnic or gender identity as a matter of merit though.

Here is an illustration of my claim: suppose you have two final applicants to a philosophy faculty position. Their qualifications, publications, etc are of equal quality, but one of them is a woman. I would argue that if you are hiring for a department that has no female philosophers, this would provide an additional good reason to prefer this person beyond their merit. However, if you were hiring for a department that already has many female philosophers, her gender would not be an additional reason to prefer her candidacy.

Yes, I do. Applying it more widely doesn't make sense since my objection is restricted to public universities. For instance, many private universities (religious ones in particular) require much more detailed and robust statements of faith from their faculty members than just a commitment to diversity, and I don't object to that. My objection here is specifically that I think public universities should not require particular political/social beliefs from their faculty unless they are required for the job. I don't think having a commitment to diversity is a requirement to be a good professor.

I mean, Kelhus999 didn't provide a link, and now you aren't either. Without details it is hard to go beyond generalities.

https://equity.ucla.edu/programs-res...mple-guidance/

Ok. Here is a link. This is a major public university in CA.

One way of treating people fairly might be not hiring racist dickbags. You could, for example, ask them to write an essay on why it’s not cool to be a racist dickbag.

This is the form of positive discrimination that I argue for - Juan it's what we were discussing before.

Except I point it that there is no ability to judge the best candidate exactly and so we should apply it once we get down to a shortlist of people who are all in the same competency neighbourhood.

Interestingly (for me anyway) I was talking to a maths professor recently who tries to do this but is frustrated by the rest of the department who think they can tell precisely who is best - he enthusiastically agreed when I said that's where the sexual/racial bias comes into play.

Would teachers who wrote acceptable statements be automatically opposed to colleges like Bryn Mawr, West Point, Oral Roberts, Brandeis, Grambling, and Cal Tech?

Man if you think having your work make you sign some bs diversity pledge or write some bs essay or says you had to adhere to some bs ideal that you don't really believe, just wait until you start working, like, virtually anywhere else.

You start each day with a chant at Walmart. I want UCLA professors to do that

The magnitude of the preference is I think the point of contention. If it was a case of being literally identically capable then there's definitely some incremental benefit from having a female in the department so as not to discourage capable women from pursuing that path.

But if there were differences that had a very subtle impact on the criteria used to choose candidates and that subtle difference had the potential to have a significant impact on something later down the pipe line, giving even a little bit extra weight to being a woman might lead to a significantly less efficient allocation of resources.

Because how do you quantify the likelihood of a faculty member doing groundbreaking research? Two people may be exactly equally capable of writing a thesis and both may make reasonably sensible arguments. But one may be arguing a point that's already well understood and unlikely to lead to a productive outcome, while the other is arguing a novel concept that some people on the committee think could lead to something substantial. You can't quantify that though and that begs the question of HOW are you prioritizing diversity relative to the intangible value of things like this? The subjective nature of determinjing the value of peoples ideas could also potentially hurt people from underserviced groups if there is a subliminal judgment based on their gender or whatever. So if you wanted to avoid that, just require that people put their ideas forward without their identity being attached to it.

.

Speaking of signalling, I think it's understandable that applicants will read the diversity statement requirement and understand it as signalling something about the university's politics, beyond just reading it as a neutral statement of values, or a set of job requirements, or whatever. I don't think kelhus is wrong to recognize that there's a political component to it, and the connection between politics and identity (re: identity politics!) is such that conservatives will feel that it's a challenge to their identity, in a way that goes beyond the specific details.

I also don't think all complaints about lack of ideological diversity (read: lack of conservatives) in academia are just thinly veiled racism. I think it can be an interesting problem in relation to "the intellectual case for diversity," avoiding group-think, and so on. I think there's a equilibriums and limits problem in talking about this sometimes, because liberals are prone to react in terms of limits (you want to hire more nazis!) whereas some folks talking about political diversity are really just saying that the equilibrium seems too lopsided towards the political left. I think you can recognize some potential issues without wanting to hire overt racists.

So, I think some of those issues can be worth thinking about. But, I also think it just doesn't seem that useful to inveigh against UC diversity statement requirements specifically. The political/ideological commitment to diversity is part of the mission of the UC system from the top down, set by the board of regents. It's not something that's going to change, any more than a Christian university is likely to change its commitment to Christianity. "If you really don't like it, go somewhere else" really does seem like the most reasonable advice. Otherwise, my expectation is that it only requires some minimum of social skills for political conservatives to work within the system as it exists, and the actual functional diversity goals (separate from the political signalling) should be something reasonable conservatives can find value in too.

This is probably a bad analogy in a few ways, but the company I work for has a lot of fairly conservative Christians in leadership roles, and the company mission and vision statements refer to "servant leadership" fairly often. I'm familiar with the usage of that phrase in a specifically Christian context, and it definitely signals that context to me. At least in some sense the company is signalling an ideological identity and commitment to Christian values that might be somewhat uncomfortable for non-Christians. But, boiled down, "servant leadership" also just means a bunch of practical ideas about helping people which I find entirely worthwhile. So I focus on that, and don't worry about the signalling/religious aspect of it. I could look for another job if it really bothered me. Both this and the diversity statement requirement feels like a "pick your battles" kind of thing, to me. It doesn't seem practical to me to expect perfect neutrality in either case. Obviously there's a difference between a public university system and a small private company, but I don't think the the actual burden UC is imposing on candidates is onerous enough to make it a significant problem.

If it was enough to create a significant problem, the anarcho capitalists would predict that competing institutions would pop up who don't make those errors and they'd crush the others who're making a categorical error in identifying talent.

Which is why it must really boil their blood to see that the most prestigious and financially successful schools are often the ones most closely associated with this type of 'PC propaganda'.

The UC system is funded by the state of California, which is ~$2 trillion in debt. So I doubt anarchicapitalists view the UCs as “financially successful”. They serve a role and a public good, which is the point. But I don’t think anyone is arguing they are an example of successful free market capitalism at work.

Citation needed

I was waiting for this comment for

This claim, but obviously it never came. I did my own research and couldn't find any data to back up Abbas claim. Where is it?

Maybe most closely associated is a tough thing to prove since the parameters aren't really even clear in the first place. Do you, though, dispute that there're a lot of people who voice outrage at the liberal bias in ivy league schools?

https://www.businessinsider.com/mich...sorship-2014-5

So what, exactly, is the problem? You believe it is important for academics to treat diverse students with respect, dignity, equality, etc. This is a perfectly fine thing for them to write on a "diversity statement" even if for whatever reason they don't uphold "diversity as a value", whatever that means. If committing to a duty you believe they ought to have is sufficient for the statement, and stating "i value diversity" unnecessary, then why do you view requiring a diversity statement as onerous?

The pro-segregation academic who is decent to their diverse students because they believe god commands it or whatever examples it is you have in mind can still faithfully articulate their commitments to equal treatment and be hired. But this scenario is pretty unlikely regardless.

My view is that as a matter of academic freedom public universities generally shouldn't require personal commitments to political/social values such as diversity. As an analytical matter, a commitment to diversity is different from a commitment to treating your students with dignity and respect. But if a diversity statement doesn't require such a commitment, then I don't have a problem with it. I'm less sanguine than you are that expressing an intention to treat all your students equally would be viewed as an adequate diversity statement, but insofar as it is, then whatever, I don't care.

Not caring about or valuing diversity doesn't equal being anti-diversity (although my comments would apply to pro-segregationists as well). And I knew several people in philosophy who didn't view diversity as valuable.

I take it as granted that there are philosophers who object to just about anything, including your view as you phrased it that academics have a "duty" to treat diverse students equally. And if a philosopher says they do or do not "value diversity" I'm not going to pretend to know what exactly they mean by that, as it is probably something relatively long and sophisticated. I simply don't read diversity statements as a requirement to assent to a particular philosophical position, much like how a "teaching philosophy" as they are sometimes called isn't about espousing a particular philosophical view either.

Obviously you have to flush it out beyond one sentence, but at least in the math ones I've read (and admittedly mathematicians probably have their head in the sand on these issues and would write "weak" diversity statements in general) I don't see any obstacles.

I'll give an example. I've done work for a summer bridge program designed to help first generation college students transition into university level classes, specifically math for me. This is a great thing to talk about in a diversity statement. Maybe I don't understand the substance of your philosopher friends views that don't value diversity but nevertheless uphold a duty to treat diverse students well, but my guess at least is that this is something they could have (faithfully to their views) taken part in and spoken about in a diversity statement.

Yeah this is what I was expecting

This is basically asking you to declare your approval of SJW ideology and commitment to activism

Equity is equality of outcome. As I indicated before, let's think about what that means to google. They had more male than female engineers and asked their staff for feedback. James Damore then presented a research backed explanation that men are different than women, something the average 8 year old understands before the woke get their hands on them. In the face of common sense and mainstream research produced by the relevant experts, google decided to call him a sexist and fire him. There's no shortage of fools that get so woke they have less understanding of human nature than a robot, but this was a disgrace. Damore even offered potential solutions to promote women in tech. The root of this situation was "equity". Equality of outcome. More men bad. less women bad. Uneven = foul play. That's what equity means to them. Look at googles training material. This is SJW trash and activism. It's not some coincidence or parallel thinking

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2SuWqqXgAIW-yb.jpg


In Ontario law as I mentioned before, equity is equality of outcome as that's what the term means. They want every level of seniority in law firms to match population demographics. They want you to write your commitment to that as a condition to holding a license to practice

At Harvard equity means if you have too many Asians, you alter the admission process to get less Asians

This is equity ideology, not competence
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...obs-just-women

Right wing nut jobs over at vox are reporting that advertising gender stereotypes is against the law. Since men are different than women and have different consumer behavior, what exactly is just a "stereotype" and what isn't? What is perpetuating a "stereotype" and what is perpetuating common behavior? Again ideology is built in to this. Is this just parallel thinking? Obviously not

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6...tising-history

This isn't just extreme or rare stuff, it's actually common. Back to google, they control, share, filter, rank, and organize more information than anyone in the history of the world. They are doing so with a clear ideological lens. Education is becoming completely imbalanced. There are countless examples of this gaining prominence in the real world. It's not a step forward. This isn't progress. These misconceptions aren't growing naturally, they are implementing them by force. In the case of UCLA, the government shouldn't be subsidizing this

There's a guy at Vox that tweets out "there are real biological differences between men and women" every six months or so"and makes a point that no one raises a fuss because everyone agrees with it.

Thanks for sharing

Why is that relevant or interesting?

Seems pretty self explanatory. Everyone accepts that there are real biological differences between men and women. So it's not some big taboo to acknowledge that men and women are different.

I'm probably sensitive to this because my undergraduate education was at a Christian college that had a required faculty statement of faith. My objection is to a requiring a personal commitment to diversity understood as a statement of your personal beliefs. But I'm not very bothered by the UCLA policy on diversity, which asks instead that you describe your contributions to promoting diversity, etc. As Huehuecoyotl pointed out, many jobs require mission-based activities that employees might not themselves be committed to. As long as it is not a requirement that you be committed to that mission in order to be hired, then it seems acceptable to me.

No it isn't.

Let's go to the tape:

I see nothing here about equality of outcome. Instead, it says it means treating likes alike.