For years, conservatives have condemned universities’ use of diversity statements, which ask applicants to outline their commitment to improving opportunities for marginalized and underrepresented groups.
Critics called such statements dogmatic, coercive and in one respect court case in an effort to end the practice in California, “a modern loyalty oath” reminiscent of the days when professors were required to denounce the Communist Party.
But the use of diversity statements continued to increase, eventually becoming a requirement when applying for teaching positions at many of the nation’s most selective universities. That seems to be changing.
Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently announced that they will no longer require diversity statements as part of their hiring processes for faculty positions.
The decisions by two of the country’s leading higher education institutions could influence others to follow suit.
“As of now, the switch has been turned,” said Jeffrey S. Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School. Many professors on hiring committees, he said, may have been reluctant to express concerns about mandatory diversity statements until now. “But I think the vast, silent majority of educators who are questioning the implementation of these programs and especially these diversity statements — these people are being heard.”
The University of California system was the first to require diversity statements, starting about a decade ago. To proponents of the requirement, such declarations were necessary if colleges wanted to create a welcoming environment for a diverse student population.
Today, some universities use the statements early in the application process to screen applicants before they even get an interview. Others review the statements later, as applicants reach the final rounds.
When Harvard and MIT asked their faculties about the value of diversity statements, they found little support.
Even some of the most ardent proponents of diversity initiatives seem lukewarm at best when it comes to requiring applicants to submit a statement.
“While it is valuable, I also believe its value is limited,” said Paulette Granberry Russell, president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.
Ms. Granberry Russell said that while she thinks conservatives have misrepresented diversity statements to indict all diversity programs, she thinks the way to ensure a diverse pool of applicants is to identify candidates with diverse backgrounds early in the hiring process.
“I don’t think a diversity statement is a substitute for a search process,” Ms. Granberry Russell added.
At Harvard, there’s still room for applicants to write about their commitment to diversity — within a broader framework. Finalists for teaching positions are asked to describe their “efforts to strengthen academic communities” and discuss how they would promote a “learning environment in which students are encouraged to ask questions and share their ideas.”
The decisions by Harvard and MIT come amid a broader rethink of initiatives — commonly known as diversity, equity and inclusion programs — that seek to make institutions reflect the country’s diversity. More than two dozen states — including Texas, Florida, Arizona and Ohio — have passed laws limiting diversity programs in education. The American business community has also started to reconsider diversity policies.
Harvard and MIT have faced continued external pressure on the issue, including from angry donors and alumni. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education and the House Committee on Education are investigating the universities over allegations that they have not done enough to combat anti-Semitism on their campuses.
Other schools have faced legal action over their mandatory diversity statements. One lawsuit in California challenges their use in the University of California system on the grounds that they force applicants to adopt a certain political position before they can be considered for a job.
“It was pretty much a political litmus test of what you had to say to get your foot in the door,” said Joshua P. Thompson, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is suing the University of California over its diversity. statement of mandate. “The Constitution prohibits that.”
He said he was hopeful that the Harvard and MIT decisions would lead to a different approach in academia. Mr. Thompson noted the outsized influence of universities: “Harvard and MIT are two Goliaths in this area. And where they go, many universities will follow.”
