> To be clear I already admitted I was wrong about this after checking the other faculty signatures. The call to put pronouns in signatures wasn't mandatory.
I was referring to prospective faculty, not current faculty. I saw your correction wrt current faculty, but this discussion is about hiring processes and how they act as political filters in the current climate.
> Yes, and I don't see why that's a problem, because it wouldn't be tolerable in any other workplace to bring your personal political opinion into the interview.
If you don't want to hear personal political opinion, don't require a personal statement on a contentious political issue as part of the application. It's as simple as that.
If you ask for a statement, but reject perspectives associated with the other side, then you have made it a political litmus test.
> Some communities can arrive at a different norm than others, and it's not "picking winners and losers" if that community starts rejecting outsiders who violate the community's norms.
If those norms are illiberal, then rejecting outsiders who violate those norms is also illiberal. Even if you debated and voted on them.
> it's not a coincidence that a furor of a thousand+ comments bubbled up here about DEI statements in academia at the same exact time the right wing media sphere also was very concerned about DEI statements in academia.
This is a site where people comment on current news stories. That said, diversity policy in business and academia is by no means a new or unusual topic of conversation here. In any case, it seems like some good evidence that this is actually a contentious issue that many people have genuinely strong feelings about.
I was referring to prospective faculty, not current faculty. I saw your correction wrt current faculty, but this discussion is about hiring processes and how they act as political filters in the current climate.
> Yes, and I don't see why that's a problem, because it wouldn't be tolerable in any other workplace to bring your personal political opinion into the interview.
If you don't want to hear personal political opinion, don't require a personal statement on a contentious political issue as part of the application. It's as simple as that.
If you ask for a statement, but reject perspectives associated with the other side, then you have made it a political litmus test.
> Some communities can arrive at a different norm than others, and it's not "picking winners and losers" if that community starts rejecting outsiders who violate the community's norms.
If those norms are illiberal, then rejecting outsiders who violate those norms is also illiberal. Even if you debated and voted on them.
> it's not a coincidence that a furor of a thousand+ comments bubbled up here about DEI statements in academia at the same exact time the right wing media sphere also was very concerned about DEI statements in academia.
This is a site where people comment on current news stories. That said, diversity policy in business and academia is by no means a new or unusual topic of conversation here. In any case, it seems like some good evidence that this is actually a contentious issue that many people have genuinely strong feelings about.