Colleges and universities are supposed to be places where divergent ideas can thrive. But too many now require applicants for faculty positions to agree to support diversity, equity and inclusion (“The University’s New Loyalty Oath,” The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20).
Using a scoring system called a rubric, they rate applicants, in the process bypassing the judgment of hiring committees. A low score disqualifies a candidate regardless of their other qualifications. This is a disturbing trend reminiscent of the loyalty oath that the University of California required seventy years ago. After 31 faculty were fired for refusing to sign, the Standing Order of the Regents 101.1 (d) was put in place and remains.
The irony is that diversity apparently applies only to race and ethnicity – not to ideas. Faculty who don’t toe the party line are named and shamed, which makes a mockery of the free exchange of ideas.
(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)
theedhed.com 
Would have to know what “diversity, equity and inclusion” mean. If it means “obey civil rights laws and don’t hit sexually on your students”, then no problem. Doubt that it’s that limited. (WSJ is behind a paywall and I do not want to give any $ to the WSJ.)
LikeLike
Labor Lawyer: The use of a scoring system known as a rubric implies that conformity to diversity, equity and inclusion is essentially a loyalty oath. I remember when professors were required to sign an oath that they are not Communists and had never been. The major difference between then and now is that the new scoring system if more nuanced. But in the final analysis, there is little difference.
LikeLike