��֭����

Bates College in Maine took a step in the right direction this summer when, following a letter from ��֭����, it made DEI statements optional rather than required for faculty job-seekers. Required DEI statements can function as litmus tests to weed out applicants who may hold dissenting views on vital political issues, threatening academic freedom and faculty rights.

FIRE wrote to Bates after we became aware of two job postings that contained language that applicants “should” submit a statement that, in part, “” or contains “evidence” of “.” We have articulated to several universities how such requirements can become “loyalty tests” that chill dissent or debate on contentious issues.

As we told the college in a July 22 letter:

The requirement risks disfavoring applicants who do not adopt university prescribed views on DEI or who demonstrate insufficient fealty to them. It further creates subjective criteria that Bates can easily abuse to punish applicants with minority, dissenting, or even nuanced views on DEI-related issues at odds with popular sentiment or evaluators’ views. Regardless of whether it is intended, such requirements risk turning institutions into echo chambers for only certain preferred views. 

While Bates did not directly respond to our letter, its response was nevertheless quite prompt. Bates’s  have removed the  requiring DEI statements, and instead now say that “candidates may choose to provide evidence of their skills and experience supporting a diverse student body either in a separate, additional document or integrated into the teaching and research statements.” This is exactly what we recommended, and we commend Bates for acting swiftly. Institutions of higher education may pursue their own diversity-related initiatives and may recognize voluntarily submitted work regarding DEI, but must refrain from imposing their own definitions on faculty applicants and current faculty members.

As we head into a new school year, FIREencourages institutions to be mindful of how their requirements may discourage dissent. 

While most would agree that diversity, equity, and inclusion are laudable values, Americans are hardly in universal agreement about what those words actually mean. This is an active societal debate, and colleges should be places where differing opinions on what those terms signify are welcome. That’s why ��֭���� has consistently opposed the use of mandatory DEI statements in hiring, promotion, or tenure determinations, arguing that requiring DEI statements from applicants or current faculty members can violate an institution’s commitments to free expression. Such statements often allow administrators to impose their own subjective view of what constitutes “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion,” when those terms are , casting a “pall of orthodoxy” over classrooms and campus. 

FIRE releases statement on the use of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ criteria in faculty hiring and evaluation

Read More

It’s also worth noting that diversity statements have proven polarizing among faculty members. A 2022 FIREsurvey found that faculty were split evenly on the matter. Half of the 1,491 university faculty respondents characterized a requirement to provide a diversity statement as “an ideological litmus test that violates academic freedom,” while the other half said such requirements are “a justifiable requirement for a job at a university.”

DEI became a  for universities in the wake of the events of the summer of 2020, and a November 2021 American Enterprise Institute  found that out of 999 faculty position postings, one in five contained a diversity statement requirement. But the tide appears to be turning against such statements. In May, for example, MIT became one of the highest-profile institutions to no longer require DEI statements. Towards the end of last year, UMass Boston , as did Ohio State in the middle of last year. 

As we head into a new school year, FIREencourages institutions to be mindful of how their requirements may discourage dissent. We commend Bates College for taking this important step to protect free inquiry on its campus.