��֭����

Over the past decade, efforts to boost diversity, equity, and inclusion on college campuses and in the workplace have escalated rapidly. To this end, some schools require job applicants to submit a written statement demonstrating their commitment to promoting DEI and their past experiences doing so. 

At many colleges and universities, such statements are also required for decisions involving promotion or tenure. Although it is clear that some view requiring DEI statements in hiring, promotion, or tenure decisions as justifiable, others — including FIRE— consider this requirement a political litmus test that chills speech on campus and violates a scholar’s academic freedom.

Our recent survey of 1,491 faculty members across the United States reveals that faculty surveyed are split evenly on whether colleges should require job applicants to submit a DEI statement as a prerequisite for being hired. Half of faculty said DEI statements are “a justifiable requirement for a job at a university,” while the other half said they are “an ideological litmus test that violates academic freedom.” 

DEI statements: A justifiable requirement?

Among the half of faculty who believe DEI statements are justifiable requirements, roughly half of them (52%) endorsed the broadest conceptualization of academic freedom for a professor — that they should be free to express any of their ideas or convictions on any subject. Yet, roughly two-thirds (68%) were willing to restrict speech considered hateful, and one-quarter said they would restrict speech even if this also meant censoring non-hateful speech. 

Faculty were also randomly presented with different examples of controversial expression by other professors and asked what consequences, if any, are appropriate for the controversial expression. Among those who consider requiring a DEI statement justifiable, support for an administrative investigation into the professor who sparked the controversy ranged from 27% (among the 703 faculty who were asked about a gay Hispanic professor who tweets: “Black privilege is real . . .”) to 50% (among the 801 faculty who were asked about a professor who tells the class that all white people are racist). 

Faculty who consider DEI statement requirements justifiable are also more likely to support the college or university administration investigating colleagues for controversial expression, and less likely to think the administration should actively defend a colleague’s free speech rights.

In contrast, among faculty who consider DEI statements a justifiable requirement, the percentage who said the administration should defend the professor’s free speech rights ranged from 15% (among the 801 faculty who were asked about a professor who tells the class that all white people are racist) to 33% (among the 690 faculty who were asked about a professor who tells the class that it’s racist to say all white people are racist). 

Additionally, some of the faculty were asked about specific professors, by name, who had been embroiled in controversy over their expression in the classroom (Phillip Adamo and Charles Negy). Among faculty who consider DEI a justifiable requirement in hiring, 12% said Adamo should be suspended for repeating a racial slur after a student directly quoted James Baldwin in class, 23% said he should not be suspended, and 65% said they did not know enough to make a decision. When it came to Negy, who tweeted that “Black privilege is real,” 3% of faculty who consider DEI requirements justifiable said he should be fired, 48% said he should not be, and 48% said they did not know enough to make a decision.

Or a political litmus test?

Views among the half of faculty who do not see requiring DEI statements during hiring as justifiable were quite different from their counterparts. Almost three-quarters of faculty who consider DEI statements political litmus tests (72%) endorsed the broadest conceptualization of academic freedom for a professor — that they should be free to express any of their ideas or convictions on any subject. Roughly the same proportion (73%) also said speech should only be restricted when it is certain to incite physical violence.

Furthermore, among faculty who consider DEI statements political litmus tests, the percentage who said the administration should defend the professor’s free speech rights ranged from 32% (among the 801 faculty who were asked about a professor who tells the class that all white people are racist) to 53% (among the 690 who were asked about a professor who tells the class that it’s racist to say all white people are racist). 

REPORT: Faculty members more likely to self-censor today than during McCarthy era

Press Release

Read More

When asked about Adamo and Negy, faculty who consider DEI statements political litmus tests strongly oppose administrative sanctions: 2% said Adamo should be suspended, 67% said he should not be, and 31% said they did not know enough to make a decision; 1% said Negy should be fired, 82% said he should not be, and 17% said they did not know enough to make a decision.

In sum, faculty are more likely to have restrictive conceptualizations of free speech and academic freedom when they consider requiring a DEI statement a justifiable requirement for a university job, compared to those who see such statements as political litmus tests. Faculty who consider DEI statement requirements justifiable are also more likely to support the college or university administration investigating colleagues for controversial expression, and less likely to think the administration should actively defend a colleague’s free speech rights.

Coupled with the knowledge that views on the acceptability of requiring a DEI statement as a precursor for university employment are split primarily along ideological lines — 74% of liberal faculty considered them justifiable, while 90% of conservative faculty and 56% of moderate faculty considered them political litmus tests — the findings above suggest that, over time, instituting such requirements will increase the ideological homogeneity of the professoriate. This could further exacerbate partisan divisions over the role and value of a university education and encourage more attempts at top-down control from politicians already critical of academia’s liberal skew.

A large and rich dataset forms the foundation for these findings and our full report. It is available on request by emailing data@thefire.org. 

If you haven’t already, check out the full report from our 2022 faculty survey. Stay tuned for additional follow-ups, and if you are a faculty member consider joining FIRE’s faculty network!

Check out between Professors Brian Leiter and Brian Soucek, in which they explore mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in hiring, promotion, and tenure.