DEI statements are just one factor in the hiring process for faculty. Generally they'll get scored by the hiring committee on some numeric scale (like everything else in the application). A low DEI score might not tank your application if you're in a field where everyone else has a low DEI score, or if you are absolutely outstanding in your field but have middling DEI because you're a white, male scientist from an affluent background who hasn't done much in that sense, you might still prevail. But it's a way of allowing the hiring committee to factor in diversity so that other things being equal (equal experience, equal credentials, equal letters of rec, teaching demo, etc) they can use diversity to distinguish candidates. The fuss about it is overblown.
> A low DEI score might not tank your application if you're in a field where everyone else has a low DEI score, or if you are absolutely outstanding in your field but have middling DEI because you're a white, male scientist from an affluent background who hasn't done much in that sense, you might still prevail.
How can you write something like that, which shows that you 100% understand that this is racism, and then finish with:
My DEI statement was exclusively about helping students who arrived at college without sufficient academic preparation to succeed: helping first-gen students navigate their freshman year, making sure naive students know how to think about weeder courses, volunteering at high schools to help with college prep, etc.
I'm a white straight male and my DEI statement did not mention ethnicity or gender.
I was consistently told it was one of the best DEI statements the faculty had ever read.
I have no doubt that DEI statements get used in ridiculous and stupid ways; Academia is full of ridiculous and stupid things and that's why I left. But they do get used well at some institutions.
the key question is not your race but whether you've had involvement in issues related to dei. white people can get high dei scores. black people can get low dei scores. it's not racism?
> white, male scientist from an affluent background
Instead of "white people can get high dei scores". Anyway this discussion always end with a Motte-and-bailey fallacy. You say something obviously racist, I call you out on it and then you retreat to a defensible argument. The only real way to fix it is to vote for people willing to fix it. Not to argue with Internet strangers about it.
It's a wonder how some people manage to get out of their bed every day without taking issue with their sheets, and the pillows, and the mattress, and the sunlight, and the noise from outside...
They were just responding to the parent comment when they said that, which really did make it sound like your dei score was based on your demographic. I am kind of with you on being skeptical about how demographic-based it really is, since if rich kids at Harvard couldn't max out their score by doing the right after school activities the system would never be allowed to operate.
What you described is insane and illegal. Hiring on the basis of race is illegal. Demanding a pledge to offset some perceived original sin because of your immutable attributes is abhorrent.
This is ridiculous and also one of the reasons why Asians absolutely blow everyone else out of the water when it comes to academics and careers.
"Yes, you can still theoretically have a shot, you just have to be XXX% better than a {non-white-non-asian}{non-male}"
When you make it so one demographic has to grind a lot harder to get the same opportunities, you're only going to increase the gap between them.
Also this:
>so that other things being equal
Comical. So yes, all things being equal, you will not get a job vs another candidate strictly because they have the "correct" race and you don't. This is literally institutional racism. I'm supposed to tell my son that he has to study 10x harder, work 10x harder just to make sure he doesn't fall in the threshold where this DEI score won't hurt him?
If you are absolutely outstanding in your field you should always prevail. Also, if you didn't know, hiring candidates based on race is explicitly forbidden by federal law (Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964). The fuss is absolutely not overblown.
I would argue you shouldn’t always prevail in your field if your academics are outstanding. For example consider the paper-approval scandal in computer science a few years ago, leading to the suicide of a phd student. All those professors involved are outstanding on paper, and I don’t think any of them should prevail. Similarly if an otherwise outstanding academic drives a student to suicide they need to gtfo academia.
they're not hiring based on race, they're hiring based on the way they score a statement about one's commitment to, history with, and future plans for advancing diversity, equity and inclusion in the university setting. you can be black and have a terrible dei statement. it just happens that minorities are more likely to have had involvement with these issues for most of their academic lives.
If the scoring on the DEI statement is correlated to race of the applicant, and I would bet every dollar I have that it is, then it is considered de facto racial discrimination by law. Google "disparate impact." Same issue as Harvard giving low "personality scores" to the Asian applicants. You can't get around anti-discrimination laws that easily.
