Want to be a molecular biologist at Yale? Well, make sure you have a ten-step plan for dismantling systemic racism. When making hires at Yale’s department of molecular biophysics and biochemistry, faculty are told to place “DEI at the center of every decision,” according to a document tucked away on its website.
Meanwhile, every job advertised on the site links to a DEI “rubric” that tests candidates’ “knowledge of DEI and commitment to promoting DEI,” their “past DEI experiences and activities,” and their “future DEI goals and plans.”
The questions are designed to find out how they would infuse diversity, equity, and inclusion—a focus on race, gender, sexual orientation, and other categories of “marginalization”—into their work.
Applicants for professor and lecturer jobs, currently advertised on the site, will get “zero” points if they:
Have “no knowledge or awareness about DEI issues”
Do “not feel personal responsibility for helping to create an equitable and inclusive environment”
Were “not involved in activities that promote DEI”
Have “no goals or plans for promoting DEI”
But they are marked “exceptional” if they:
Have “clear knowledge of DEI issues”
Can demonstrate “strong interest in contributing to promoting DEI in teaching”
Have a “sustained track record of multiple efforts in promoting DEI”
Show a “clear and detailed plan for promoting DEI through teaching”
The assessment puts the thumb on the scale for those with progressive sensibilities. Scientists earn a high score in the category of “DEI knowledge” by showing they understand the “specific challenges faced by underrepresented minorities”—a criterion likely to favor those with a strong faith in the concepts of microaggressions, implicit bias, and systemic racism.
Diversity statements raise serious issues about free expression, and they also signal an ill-advised shift in priority—away from disciplinary excellence and toward social activism.
As one of the world’s most influential universities, Yale has popularized diversity statements. But they are finally past their expiration date. Yale should wield its influence and join MIT in putting an end to this misguided experiment.
John Sailer is a senior fellow at the National Association of Scholars. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) @JohnDSailer, and read his Free Press piece “John Sailer: The DEI Rollback.”
Become a Free Press subscriber today:
Not only is this not merit-based, it is anti-science. Literally, there is no proof that DEI = better science.
DEI is a disaster and forcing people, especially those in science to buy into this pseudo-junk, is absurd.
As someone who worked in computer chips, I can say with certainty, those electrons don't care about you race or ethnicity or religion or gender, etc. If you want to make them work for you, better know your science.
Like most progressive ideas, DEI is a bad one--confused, dishonest, irrational--just to name a few of its failings. It is a bad idea in itself--first-order bad, we might say.
But there's a second-order, meta-level kind of badness that overlays DEI--and the rest of first-order progressivism: to wit, totalitarianism. The totalitarian impulses of the left make DEI not just ordinarily bad. It's turned into something catastrophic when conjoined with the demand that it be injected into every aspect, every nook and cranny, of every institution. It's not just a policy; it's part of a worldview, a way of life, a religion. It must not only be implemented, it must be injected into science--in fact, it must be "at the center of every decision." Which would seem to mean, *inter alia*: what to research, what conclusions to draw...and what results to report... Even scientists qua scientists must place its considerations foremost. And, of course, since "the personal is political," it isn't enough that it be put at the core of the discipline and the institution--you must "feel personal responsibility for it." Students must learn it along side history, mathematics, even medicine. Everything else is secondary, everything must be studied in its light. It is the Marxist-Leninism of the contemporary left.
This is all Lysenkoism, of course--ergo abject madness.