Jonathan Haidt is a professor at NYU, an acknowledged leader in the field of social psychology, and a champion of free speech. He recently faced a requirement that all scholars wishing to present research to the Society for Personality and Social Psychology were to submit a statement explaining “whether and how this submission advanced the equity, inclusion, and antiracism goals of SPSP.”
He resigned instead. This was no small sacrifice, but Haidt takes his principles seriously. Moreover, as he pointed out on his way out the door, “Most academic work has nothing to do with diversity.”
Scholars working, for example, on ultra-bright, nano-structured photo emission electron studies would be required to present their “anti-racist” bona fides. Academics in all disciplines, as well as administrators, would be forced to “betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity.”
This is not just another quibble among pointy-headed academics. Refusing jobs to dissenters is meant to quash the last remnant of open debate in American higher education.
Our universities, particularly the elite, were once celebrated as sanctuaries for unpopular ideas, where free discourse was sacrosanct and none need face fear of censure over doctrinal disputes.
But when the Left achieved numerical domination in the majority of universities over recent decades, their mindset evolved into rooting out the few dissenters in their midst, or, better yet, blocking them from getting a job in the first place.
The reason so-called anti-racists feel justified in forcing their views into unrelated disciplines, such as the hard sciences, is that they view the entire world through the lens of race. Ibram S. Kendi, the leading proponent of anti-racism, writes “there is no such thing as a non-racist or race-neutral policy.”
Their opinions on everything from raising taxes (good) to merit-based promotion in schools (bad) are race-based. It follows that if you disagree with their views, then you’re a racist.
The philosophy of anti-racism is profoundly anti-education and anti-merit. Colleges and universities are less and less committed to the search for truth or the transmission of knowledge. Instead, they are in thrall to the endless dictates of the ironically titled “social justice” bureaucracy.
DEI offices, larger than many academic departments (and better paid), are now sprouting in the halls of academia. 25% of all universities now mandate DEI statements from job applicants, and 40% more are considering jumping on the bandwagon.
DEI statements are loyalty oaths to race-based ideologies, similar to those required by authoritarian regimes throughout history. They often demand evidence of the applicant’s past support of such notions as Critical Race Theory, which holds that an individual’s tendency to racial bias can be reliably determined from their skin color.
To our state’s shame, Arizona’s universities have enthusiastically thrown themselves into the front lines of this movement. According to a Goldwater Institute report, Arizona State University last fall required DEI loyalty oaths for 81% of all job applicants. NAU was at 73% while the University of Arizona demanded 28% bend the knee to be considered for a job.
Such required ideological allegiance makes a mockery of the value of any research these aspiring scholars may do. The results are predetermined. In 2020, two major research organizations and 16 scientific societies issued a joint statement that researchers “must stand against the notion that systemic racism does not exist.” No research was cited.
Topics like urban crime, immigration, and welfare fraud are rarely studied when only the approved narrative is permitted anyway. Ignoring data inconsistent with the agenda gives us startling conclusions as when “scientists” proclaimed that family dinners and church services were COVID “superspreaders,” while massive racial protests and pro-abortion rallies were no problem.
The Left has a way with words. Diversity now means rigid conformity. Equity stands for unearned equal outcomes. Inclusion means exclusion of dissenters.
But Americans are starting to catch on. Outraged parents are protesting overt racism in school curricula. A growing number of universities and corporations are pulling back on DEI mandates. In Arizona, SCR 1024 is a proposed constitutional amendment that will hopefully be on the ballot next election. It would eliminate racist instruction in our public schools.
Take heart.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Racist policies have no business in Arizona. And in 2010, our state’s voters made that clear when they passed Proposition 107. This amendment to Arizona’s Constitution banned affirmative action programs in the state that were administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties, and school districts. But as we’ve become all too familiar with here in the U.S. and the state of Arizona, politicians and bureaucrats have figured out ways to skirt the language in our constitution. That’s led to where we are today.
Under the guise of words that sound harmless enough like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” (DEI), Critical Race Theory (CRT) and similar programs largely flew under the radar and have been used to indoctrinate our students. Floods of parents eventually caught on, making it their mission to stop the invasion of CRT and DEI in our school districts. And while the newly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, has already taken steps to stop such indoctrination in our schools, there’s more work to be done.
Arizona’s three public universities have this to say to potential employees: those opposed to modern diversity ideology need not apply.
As of last fall, Arizona State University (ASU) required diversity statements from approximately 81 percent of job applicants; Northern Arizona University (NAU) required diversity statements from 73 percent of job applicants; and the University of Arizona (UArizona) required diversity statements from 28 percent of job applicants. This data comes from a report issued earlier this month by the Goldwater Institute, a right-leaning public policy think tank.
The Goldwater Institute noted that universities both in Arizona and nationwide have even gone so far as to swap the traditional cover letter requirement with a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statement. The universities also encouraged applicants to incorporate critical race theory (CRT) terminology in written portions of their applications.
Though diversity efforts were long underway at these universities, the death of George Floyd in 2020 accelerated their progress at the urging of students, activists, and community members.
For UArizona and NAU, these diversity commitment disclosures are part of their Diversity Strategic Plan (DSP); ASU also implements a diversity plan, though they don’t refer to it as a “DSP.” These diversity plans are executed through independent administrative offices. For UArizona, it’s the Office of Diversity & Inclusion (ODI). For NAU, it’s the Center for University Access and Inclusion; they also have a dedicated “Diversity Fellow” or “Diversity Commission” to oversee various units at the university, which they call a larger effort to make NAU a “True Diversity University.” For ASU, it’s the Office of Inclusive Excellence.
UArizona asked applicants to issue a 500-word minimum personal statement describing their personal philosophy and future commitment to inclusivity.
Last September, NAU advanced its DEI efforts by requiring applicants to issue a “diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice” (DEIJ) statement. As part of this statement, applicants had to express comprehension of intersectionality, a commitment incorporating diversity ideology in the classroom and in research, and diversity-related community service and activities.
At NAU, we are committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive community. Beginning on June 19, 2023, NAU will observe #Juneteenth as a paid university holiday. pic.twitter.com/JzK21ILFBx
In one example given concerning ASU, the university asked postdoctoral fellow applicants to write a “diversity statement”: how their past or potential contributions to DEI efforts would advance the university’s diversity plan.
Research from @Forbes has found ASU to be the top employer in the state of Arizona.
70,000 U.S. employees were surveyed on topics such as working conditions, salary, the potential for growth and diversity.https://t.co/91ankShlde
The universities’ push for commitment to diversity ideology extends beyond faculty. As AZ Free News reported earlier this month, the UArizona College of Medicine requires students to complete diversity training, in addition to faculty and staff. UArizona is also attempting to make law school admissions more equitable by pushing for an alternative to the LSAT.
UArizona has consistently ranked high for most DEI staff.
The University of Arizona's new spaceflight training programs aim to develop classes that will enable the future of inclusive space travel. https://t.co/UQbajOrrJ7
Last May, NAU proposed that students take a 12-credit general studies program focused on diversity. Backlash prompted the university to hide the proposal behind a login page.
“The 12 credits of diversity requirements are unprecedented and puts [sic] NAU at the forefront of higher education,” stated NAU.
In 2021, ASU launched a DEI curriculum for K-5 students through its K-12 online school, ASU Prep Digital.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) doesn’t believe that traditional law school entry tests are equitable enough, bolstering their push for an LSAT alternative.
UArizona James E. Rogers College of Law wants law school applicants to take JD-Next, an online prep course that concludes with an exam. UArizona issued a study in defense of their proposed LSAT replacement, claiming that it wouldn’t be “picking winners and losers through testing” but rather providing a way to “recognize and produce capability” — namely, for racial minorities.
“Especially for underrepresented students, the goal is to measure not just the accumulated knowledge and skills that they would bring to a new academic program, but also their ability to grow and learn through the program,” read the study. “[T]he JD-Next exam holds promise as a new law school admissions pathway, both to better predict success in law school and to help diversify the populations of students in law school.
The @NationalJurist article in support of increasing diversity in the legal profession suggests aspiring law students enroll in Arizona Law's online JD-Next Program to develop skills and experience.
The study tracked incoming students across dozens of law schools to determine whether the JD-Next exam was predictive of student performance. The study included data from two separate cohorts in 2019 and 2020.
The 2019 cohort tweaked its representation of students by oversampling minorities: 60 percent of nearly 11,600 invited participants were a minority. 24 percent were Black or African American, 21 percent were Hispanic, 14 percent were Asian, and one percent were Native American or Native Hawaiian. As a result of the oversampling, only 43.5 percent of participants were white.
The study also disclosed that students who identified as both White and Asian were coded as multi-race, but not classified as “underrepresented groups,” or “URG.”
However, the 2020 cohort more similarly reflected the makeup of law schools across the country: 61 percent white.
Regents Professor of Law Rebecca Tsosie discusses the legal profession’s diversity challenges with @Reuters.
The study noted that it focused on race as a factor in testing in order to determine diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education. It claimed that the JD-Next exams resulted in smaller disparities in test results between different races than the LSAT.
“These questions about score disparities are important because admissions tests can impact efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in law schools,” stated the study. “If admissions officers rely on these tests to decide which applicants to reject, and lower test scores are associated with some races or ethnicities, then students with those identities are more likely to be rejected, and overall representation in law school and the legal profession is thereby reduced.”
"Unfortunately, the legal profession is one that hasn't been as diverse as we would like it to become, so increasing diversity is an important initiative for the University of Arizona law school," said @jessfin79.
This wouldn’t be UArizona’s first foray into modifying admissions test standards. The university successfully pushed for the acceptance of the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) General Test for law school admissions in 2021. Prior to that, the GRE General Test was used for admission to graduate schools.
The American Bar Association (ABA) mandates that law schools require an admission test in order to be accredited. However, the ABA Council voted last November to abolish this requirement beginning in the fall semester of 2025.
Authors of the UArizona study included Jessica Findley, a research scholar with UArizona Office of Diversity & Inclusion and an assistant clinical professor at the law school; Adriana Cimetta, associate educational psychology research professor in UArizona College of Education; Heidi Legg Burross, interim department head, educational psychology professor, and research assistant professor in the College of Education; Katherine C. Cheng, assistant educational psychology research professor in the College of Education; Matt Charles, designer of curriculum for the law school; Cayley Balser, Innovation for Justice post-graduate fellow; Ran Li, graduate student in educational psychology; Christopher Robertson, adjunct law professor.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
New year, new policy: the University of Arizona (UArizona) began paying for gender reassignment surgeries for both employees and their children on Jan. 1.
UArizona will cover up to $10,000 for these procedures through a newly established Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA): an employer-funded, tax-free health benefit that reimburses employees. Both employees and their dependents are eligible for the HRA.
The HRA would also cover fertility treatments, but only up to $2,500.
UArizona announced the reimbursement plan in the week after Thanksgiving. The HRA administrator is Navia Benefit Solutions, and offered through enrollment in the Arizona Department of Administration’s High-Deductible Health Plan or Triple Choice Plan.
The university has supported transgenderism openly over the past few decades. In 2013, UArizona lifted up a transgender former professor, Susan Stryker, who established their Transgender Studies Initiative.
Stryker retired, but is a visiting professor for Yale University, distinguished chair for Mills College, and co-editor for a Duke University Press book series on gender. Buzzfeed named Stryker as one of 24 individuals who radically reformed public perception of transgenderism.
The UA's Susan Stryker has been listed as an American who has changed the way we think about transgender rights: http://t.co/ciVVsElHgw.
UArizona also offers a “Gender Affirming Treatment” through their student health insurance plan, a benefit which is also available at Arizona State University (ASU) and Northern Arizona University (NAU). UArizona offers insurance through UnitedHealthcare.
The university also issues room assignments based on students’ preferred room gender through “open housing rooms” within “Gender Inclusive Housing” groups on certain floors or in certain dorms. Preferred names and pronouns are permitted to be changed for class rosters, emails, and other non-legal uses.
The university allows individuals to use restrooms corresponding with their gender identity, as well as offering restrooms that allow both genders.
UArizona received over $327.6 million from the state general fund in the last fiscal year. Current tuition rates are set at over $13,200 for residents, and over $39,500 for non-residents.
The university has a 50 percent four-year and 68 percent six-year graduation rate.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
