University of Michigan Nixes Diversity Statements in Faculty Hiring, Promotion By David Zimmermann
The University of Michigan will no longer use diversity statements in faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure, joining a number of elite universities that are moving away from progressive identity politics in an effort to expand diversity of thought and free expression on campus.
Provost Laurie McCauley announced the decision Thursday after an eight-member faculty working group recommended the university abolish diversity statements. While there was no institutional requirement for such statements, UM did implement the practice in its hiring decisions.
“Diversity, equity and inclusion are three of our core values at the university. Our collective efforts in this area have produced important strides in opening opportunities for all people,” McCauley said in the University Record, an internal faculty publication. “As we pursue this challenging and complex work, we will continuously refine our approach.”
In June, the provost charged the faculty working group with examining the university’s use of diversity statements. The group published its report on October 31 after reviewing literature on the topic and considering DEI policies at other universities and colleges.
The group also conducted a survey of nearly 2,000 faculty, most of whom believe diversity statements “put pressure on faculty to express specific positions on moral, political or social issues,” per the University Record. Furthermore, a slight majority of respondents said soliciting diversity statements for hiring purposes does not demonstrate an institutional commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“Critics of diversity statements perceive them as expressions of personal identity traits, support of specific ideology or opinions on socially-relevant issues, and serve as a ‘litmus test’ of whether a faculty member’s views are politically acceptable,” the working group concluded in its report. “Thus, as currently enacted, diversity statements have the potential to limit viewpoints and reduce diversity of thought among faculty members.”
The group’s eight members also recommended the university incorporate DEI content into teaching, research, and service statements, as well as train faculty on how how to write and evaluate such content. UM did not enact those recommendations.
The provost thanked the faculty working group for its comprehensive report.
“I’m grateful for this faculty committee, which spent months soliciting feedback from across campus, evaluating our methods and determining the best course forward,” McCauley added.
UM is the latest university to abandon diversity statements. Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, both of which previously required job candidates to submit DEI statements, did the same this summer.
The new policy follows the UM Board of Regents’ adoption of a policy on institutional neutrality that prevents university officials from making public statements on political and social issues unrelated to internal matters. The move prompted UM’s Faculty Senate to censure the regents for hastily committing to institutional neutrality before it could be reviewed by the Senate Assembly.
“The Regents have little inclination to engage in shared governance and are increasingly exhibiting authoritarian tendencies antithetical to a public university in a democratic nation,” the faculty body wrote in its censure motion.
The regents are scheduled to convene Thursday afternoon to discuss the university’s DEI spending and programs, Republican regent Sarah Hubbard told Fox & Friends on Sunday. The Board of Regents is not expected to vote on the provost’s decision regarding the end of diversity statements.
The DEI ideology has become entrenched at UM in recent years, causing students and faculty to censor themselves for fear of offending others. National Review reported on the university’s DEI bureaucracy in 2022, investigating how certain speech is suppressed and punished for being politically incorrect.
In one instance, members of a student veterans’ group joked about a female student’s sexual proclivity, which she joked about herself. Despite profuse apologies, the young woman approached the university with her concerns. A formal discrimination complaint followed, leading to a trial with witnesses and charges of misogyny and victim blaming.
Comments are closed.
