FIRE sent a letter to administrators objecting to the policy on behalf of a disgruntled professor.
The University of Oregon is imposing a DEI mandate on current and prospective faculty requiring them to submit statements in which they are expected to showcase their commitment to rectifying systemic disadvantages facing minority students in their research, teaching, and service.
Faculty applicants have the option of either discussing their past contributions to DEI in previous professional capacities or writing a DEI statement pledging to take certain action once hired by the school.
Past equity contributions “may include efforts to address and remove barriers to allow Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), people with disabilities, women, and people with the full range of gender and sexual to contribute fully to our institutional success,” the policy, obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), states.
Past inclusion contributions that the college looks for include restructuring systems, protocols, and processes to expand access to allegedly beleaguered minority groups.
For applicants that choose to write a DEI statement, it will be judged by a faculty search committee, which will refer to a rubric.
Candidates who demonstrate strong commitment to DEI are awarded high scores and vice versa. High scores accrue to a candidate who “discusses diversity, equity, and inclusion as core values that every faculty member should actively contribute to to advancing,” FIRE reported.
If a candidate’s ideas are deemed too unoriginal or not dramatic enough, they will be given a low score. Such a low-performer might “only mention activities that are already the expectation of faculty as evidence of commitment and involvement.” A professor’s nodding to equal opportunity and equal treatment in pedagogy or attempts to bridge distrust among underrepresented students with outreach would presumably be deemed insufficient.
For instance, the committee would view the following DEI statement as lackluster and unacceptable, according to documents obtained by FIRE: “I always invite and welcome students from all backgrounds to participate in my research lab, and in fact have mentored several women.”
Low scores will also be given to applicants who oppose “outreach or affinity groups aimed at underrepresented individuals because it keeps them separate from everyone else, or will make them feel less valued.” In other words, faculty that don’t believe students should be segregated for learning or community building on the basis of race or identity will be dinged for it.
It is unclear whether an individual’s failure to meet all of the rubric’s criteria or to impress the hiring personnel with a proven history of implementing DEI initiatives would immediately disqualify them from joining the faculty. However, the university confirmed that DEI statements are “now part of (a) recruitment and (b) the promotion and tenure process” and that “faculty contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion receive consideration in the academic review process.”
The college’s policy, in effect, creates a kind of spoils system that rewards wokeness and punishes faculty who aren’t up to the standard. It establishes a means for the school to discriminate against faculty who may have a record of low DEI activism, FIRE argues.
“The criteria that the university is using to evaluate faculty strongly suggests that if DEI is not a central feature of your academic activities then you’re going to be penalized in the evaluation or hiring process,” Aaron Terr, a lawyer for FIRE, tells National Review.
Current professors will be tested when being considered for tenure or a promotion and in regular post-tenure assessments. The test consists of a three to six page personal statement explaining how they’ve weaved DEI themes into their academic research, courses, or local and/or statewide committees.
Even if you’ve achieved tenure, which provides a higher salary, prestige, and some protection from arbitrary removal, your tenure status could still be in jeopardy, Terr surmises.
The DEI policy applies beyond the classroom, undermining meritocracy further by selectively rewarding faculty who engage in DEI-related activism, such as “[e]mbedding equity, inclusion and diversity into a professional organization’s mission, programming, fundraising, etc.”
“We have seen a huge surge in these types of policies in schools around the country,” Terr adds. On Wednesday, he sent a letter to University of Oregon President Michael Schill demanding a reversal in the DEI mandate.
A disgruntled anonymous faculty member originally brought the policy to the organization’s attention, wondering whether it violated constitutional liberties.
“These types of policies haven’t yet been challenged in court but it is our position that there is a constitutional protection against compelling individuals to affirm and conform to certain ideological beliefs,” Terr says.
The letter cited a number of Supreme Court precedents in arguing that the university is in the wrong on free-speech grounds.
For instance, the letter notes that the Supreme Court has repeatedly “invalidated or recognized as invalid government action that inhibits belief and association through the conditioning of public employment on political faith,” referencing Elrod v. Burns. This would include a government employer’s decision not to hire a candidate based on the candidate’s political associations or beliefs, the justification for which comes from Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill. The University of Oregon is a progressive public institution that is federally funded.
FIRE gave the college two weeks to respond to the petition, Terr says. “The hope is that we can come to a mutually agreeable resolution without having to take it to the next level,” or litigation, which they haven’t yet resorted to with this type of case, he notes.
Terr expects the policy will have a chilling effect on academic freedom, rigor, and quality. “Faculty are going to feel pressure to do as much as they can because they’re going to be evaluated against their peers,” he says.