Yes, this is an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal, but if you neglect all of their op-eds, which of course lean right, it will still be your loss. Click to read (it’s archived here). It shows that the NIH—and not for the first time—is requiring diversity statements to hire researchers, a requirement that may well be illegal.
Click to read:
Here are a few paragraphs on what’s happening at the NIH:
Thanks to a grant from the National Institutes of Health, Cornell University is able to support several professors in fields including genetics, computational biology and neurobiology. In its funding proposal, the university emphasizes a strange metric for evaluating hard scientists: Each applicant’s “statement on contribution to diversity” was to “receive significant weight in the evaluation.” [JAC: note that every applicant has to submit a DEI statement.]
It might seem counterintuitive to prioritize “diversity statements” while hiring neurobiologists—but not at the NIH. The agency for several years has pushed this practice across the country through its Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation program—First for short—which funds diversity-focused faculty hiring in the biomedical sciences.
Through dozens of public-records requests, I have acquired thousands of pages of documents related to the program—grant proposals, emails, hiring rubrics and more. The information reveals how the NIH enforces an ideological agenda, prompting universities and medical schools to vet potential biomedical scientists for wrongthink regarding diversity.
The First program requires all grant recipients to use “diversity statements” for their newly funded hires. Northwestern University suggests it will adapt a diversity-statement rubric created by the University of California, Berkeley. It isn’t alone. A year ago I acquired the rubrics used by the NIH First programs at the University of South Carolina and the University of New Mexico, which I discussed in these pages. Both used Berkeley’s rubric almost verbatim.
That rubric penalizes job candidates for espousing colorblind equality and gives low scores to those who say they intend to “treat everyone the same.” It likewise docks candidates who express skepticism about the practice of dividing students and faculty into racially segregated “affinity groups.”
Berkeley’s rubric is dire, and I’ve described it before (see also this statement by FIRE). It requires you first to give your understanding of what diversity is and your philosophy of,it then your background in promoting diversity (Ceiling Cat help you if you don’t have one), and then finally tell your you will promote diversity in your positions. You’re scored separately in each area, and the three scores added up to give a total. Remember, diversity is construed as racial or gender diversity, with race being most important, and if you start talking about “viewpoint diversity,” you might as well forget about the job. Likewise, you fail if you espouse Martin Luther King’s philosophy of “colorblindness.” King became passé a long time ago.
Here’s how Sailer described a similar rubric for USC and UNM in an earlier piece:
The South Carolina and New Mexico rubrics call for punishing candidates who espouse race neutrality, dictating a low score for anyone who states an “intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and ‘treat everyone the same.’ ” Applicants who are skeptical of DEI programming might choose to describe their commitment to viewpoint diversity. This too runs afoul of the rubrics, which mandate a low score for any candidate who defines diversity “only in terms of different areas of study or different nationalities but doesn’t mention gender or ethnicity/race.”
The rubrics likewise punish candidates for failing to embrace controversial diversity practices. They recommend low scores for candidates who “state that it’s better not to have outreach or affinity groups aimed at underrepresented individuals because it keeps them separate from everyone else, or will make them feel less valued.” These affinity groups exemplify a new kind of segregation, but expressing that view could imperil an applicant’s career.
Because of a lower funding rate of black than of white or Asian scientists applying for grants, the NIH tried in 2021 to remedy this by boosting grant ratings of minorities by asking them to tick a box specifying their race. The plan was that even if a minority applicant’s grant score fell below the funding range, the ticked box would give them a boost, allowing program officers to leapfrog the minority grants back into the range where they might be funded. (This would be, of course, at the expense of researchers who had higher grant scores.)
But as Science reported just a month later, this plan failed and the NIH was forced to eliminate the magical box:
The National Institutes of Health has yanked a notice from three NIH institutes that aimed to encourage grant proposals from minority scientists. Researchers who saw the notice as a way to help bridge a funding success gap between Black and white scientists are dismayed by the move.
. . .Some observers hoped that if the notice were expanded across NIH, it could help raise success rates for Black scientists. But earlier this year, NIH’s Office of Extramural Research (OER) barred more institutes from joining the notice because it was “confusing” and institutes already had leeway to fund “outside the payline” to “bring in diverse scientific perspectives,” the agency said.
NIH rescinded the notice “for clarity in communications,” an OER spokesperson says. “We decided that issuing a general notice that encompassed all NIH better communicated our intent.” That new notice, issued 25 October, encourages applications from underrepresented groups, but won’t enable researchers to tag their applications.
It wasn’t rescinded solely for “clarity in communications,” as you see, but likely because it was unfair and probably illegal. Yes, it’s great to encourage members of underrepresented groups to apply for grants, but handing out money preferentially to such groups prioritizes identity over merit—and in the crucial area of biomedical sciences. (Actually, two papers published in 2019 and 2020 in Science showed that there appeared to be no gender or racial bias in reviewers’ scores of NIH grants, and also that funding rates for minorities were lower largely because they applied in areas having lower funding rates (see also this 2020 paper).
At any rate, DEI statements, which may be a way to hire based on race, could be illegal for that reason alone (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits race-based hiring). They could also be illegal on First Amendment grounds, since the way they’re judged involves a form of compelled speech, which is also illegal. Finally, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against affirmative action in college admissions could and likely will also be applied to race-based hiring of faculty and race-based awarding of grants. There’s a note to this effect at the top of an NIH program statement from last July:
Note: Summarized here is the most recent NIH Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) discussion of UNITE. However, it is recognized that the recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision regarding affirmative action may be at the front of consciousness. NIH adheres to federal law and does not make funding decisions based on race. NIH awaits further evaluation and interpretation of the SCOTUS decision to determine whether there is the need to modify any current policies or practices.
“May be at the front of consciousness”? What does that mean? “We have to find ways around it?”
The only question is whether these DEI statements are used as a proxy for race, as they well could be. But even ifr they aren’t, they’re probably still illegal. To see why, read my colleague Brian Leiter’s article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “The legal problem with diversity statements,” which has the subtitle “Public universities can’t make hiring decisions based on political viewpoints,”
Bold added : “Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation”
Total Marxism. Brazen, in fact. It’s as if they think nobody reads their literature.
Like here :
“Transformation is the red thread running through all the Sustainable Development Goals […]”
Parr, et. al.
“Knowledge-driven actions: transforming higher education for global sustainability”
2022
UNESCO
https://doi.org/10.54675/YBTV1653
As plain as anything, this has strong parallels to the loyalty oaths required in academia during the McCarthy era, and one can find all manner of hair-raising stories about that such as here:
https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 (a relevant cartoon in that one). Interesting how history repeats itself. Or at least echos itself.
And the ACLU was fighting the good fight during those times, as they proudly point out: https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-history-rooting-out-subversives-paranoia-and-patriotism-mccarthy-era. They don’t even see the irony of that, of course.
The history of the loyalty oaths during the McCarthy era should be more widely cited as a cautionary tale in the current era of DEI controversies. Thanks for reminding me about that. Regarding ACLU, this morning my wife and I decided again to continue our monthly donation to the organization, the main reason being that it’s more effective to argue for change if the organization knows you’re a financial supporter. And much of what the organization does is still good.
And now a moment for our sponsors: “This ideological assault on science has been brought to you by your tax dollars and by your vote.”
We need better choices.
Question:
Does this mean that *all* potential hires to be paid with NIH grant funds must submit DEI statements, and that *all* such applications must be vetted based on DEI goals? Or, does this apply just to the “NIH First programs” (where NIH First programs are specifically called out in the WSJ piece). In other words, it may be that the stated requirements apply to just this one program, which may or may not be a large program. I’m just trying to get a handle on how broadly these DEI-determined hiring decisions extend.
Wild guess : stochastic entryism :
See newdiscourses.com/2024/01/dei-as-stochastic-entryism/
No http to avoid the hang up.
I’ve gone to the New Discources website a few times to better understand some of this stuff but often the term I’m wanting to learn about is only covered in a podcast. Or so it seems. Am I missing something? I do see some terms explained in the “encyclopedia” section but mostly this guy likes to talk. Any guidance, Thyroid? ( His podcasts are VERY LONG, too)
That seems right. Bear in mind a number of them are sort of journal clubs of literature. That presents issues, perhaps.
I’m trying some YouTube transcript things lately – clumsy, needs work.
Otherwise, I sort of take the job upon myself of listening to them all and taking notes to bring to WEIT when I recognize a connection like here (for better or worse)….
Actually, if anyone notices, I am not trying to hide that lots of the comments I leave are based on Lindsay’s stuff, I just can’t cite/link it all the time.
Thanks for response. I tend to overlook and/or screw things up on the internet and thought I was missing something. I’m a bit like our host in that I have limited patience with podcasts. Also, and more importantly, I only have a cellphone (no computer or wi-fi) and although my data is supposedly “unlimited” I don’t push it. Save my high speed data for more crucial things.
I think people know that you’re citing Lindsay.
The fact is that these statements end up favoring one group – American elite institution educated PhD’s. They’ve been trained with what you have to espouse (despite whatever views you may actually hold) in order to get over this hurdle. Others haven’t.
These scientists are primarily wealthy, white, and native born, by virtue of the above. Scientists trained in other countries don’t know the correct buzzwords. People of color often find the whole thing insulting. So it’s all counter productive to the goal of diversifying science anyway.
Even those who can “get over this hurdle” suffer when forced to issue statements contrary to their views in order to do the work they love. I expect some to get depressed.
The sad thing about DEI to me is that it seemed to have started off well, the simple motive on ensuring all get respected and given the option. The odds are someone spoke out then and was unreasonable but to compensate they added more, then others say something to balance it out again and then it keeps going until cynical guys like me are critical of it.
If you were really cynical, Michael, you would have seen through DEI right at the start. It never meant well.
Right – I mean, I don’t blame anyone and I count myself as falling for the linguistic gnostic temptation – which, in fact, is fraud, and an overtly Marxist one at that. For me, it turned upon the simple trick that I never read their stupid literature because it is Marxism, it is post modernist style, and did I mention stupid and a stupid waste of time.
But that’s how their cult religion works.
“… someone spoke out then and was unreasonable but to compensate they added more, then others say something to balance it out again and then it keeps going …”
“And so the dialectic continues.”
-Delgado and Stefancic
Critical Race Theory – An Introduction, p.66, 3rd Ed., 2017
DEI wasn’t terrible when it was a policy, not an industry, 20 years ago.
As well as cultural factors contributing to it and (arguably) the feminization of academia and H.R.
But it is the Money. They’ve established a HUGE industry devoted to finding witches. So they do.
“They mean well” is never an excuse in my book. THere are sooo few actual evil in conscience mustache twirling bad guys. Member of Hamas, ISIS and the Khmer Rouge – and many ordinary criminals – all feel they’re “doing the right thing” or “on the right side of history” with clean hands and big hearts.
The road to hell…
D.A.
NYC
In regard to the terrifying era of “McCarthyism” and loyalty oaths, it is worth recalling one aspect of that history. The NIH research grant program began in 1946. At no time in the late 1940s or 50s did NIH research grants require a “statement on contribution” to anti-communism, capitalism, Americanism, or to any other ideological doctrine. Today’s moves to inject the ideological into the scientific research system thus do not resemble the 1950s in the US. Rather, our DEIshchina resembles academic Biology in the early 50s in a different jurisdiction on a different continent.
I support your overall position regarding DEI, but differ in regard to merit.
We owe redress to Black Americans for 350 years of legalized slavery and racism, and we also owe them a colorblind society. If not now, when? There are several paths to achieving both, to declaring that only individual merit determine selection for advancement AND favoring Black Americans disadvantaged by racism. All routes go through measuring individual merit.
It’s naive to believe that measuring individual merit is a straightforward matter. It is possible for disadvantaged Blacks to show a lower measure but actually have greater merit than a person of privilege. SAT scores from low-SES schools provide an example. The Black student can have greater merit, can be more likely to succeed in college even with a lower SAT score. That’s because low-SES schools have fewer resources (e.g., competent teachers or modern science labs), which handicaps the academically gifted Black student and will be reflected in her SAT score.
This concept can be extended to many fields of endeavor, including business hiring and promotions.
You want a colorblind society but keep talking about advancing black students by giving them preferential admissions if they come from low SES schools. You can’t have both unless you admit that admissions will not take race into consideration at all–SES is the only thing that matters. If that’s what you mean, and there’s no “race” box to tick on the application, then I agree with you. At least that’s what the data show so far.
But you can’t have both a colorblind society and reparations for blacks. What you’re giving reparations to are people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, not to members of a given race. If that’s your position, and you’re admitting low=SES students with SAT scores that still presage the same success as that of students with higher SAT schores but from higher SES-status schools, then we pretty much agree.
Sorry for my poor wording. We are in agreement. Race is not considered at all. All SAT scores are effectively adjusted in all low-SES schools by favoring any student whose SAT score is higher than the low-SES school’s average. The SCOTUS has ruled this constitutional even if the intent is unconstitutional racial preference, and this has the effect of favoring Black students only because they dominate the population of low-SES schools.