Earlier this month, I published an article in the Wall Street Journal exposing how Texas Tech University’s Department of Biological Sciences evaluated job candidates’ contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The department’s evaluations—which I uncovered through a public records request—showed how candidates were penalized for failing to adopt the language of contemporary identity politics. To its credit, the university quickly responded by saying it would stop requiring diversity statements and conduct a review of its hiring practices. Although that decision led to some grumbling from DEI advocates, no one has come forward to give a real defense of how the biology department evaluated its job candidates. 

Through another records request, I have uncovered documents showing how the University of Missouri (Mizzou) has implemented the same policy.

As it turns out, Mizzou routinely uses and encourages diversity statements for faculty hiring. Its 2017 Inclusive Excellence Plan, for example, notes that the College of Arts and Science planned to expand its “use of required diversity statements,” and that the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources planned to require them for “all faculty applications.” The university training on “Best Practice for Inclusive Excellence in Faculty Hiring” encourages hiring committees to assess job candidates’ contributions to DEI using a pre-established rubric. 

[Related: “An Open Letter to Texas Governor Abbott on Illegal DEI Practices: Where’s the Beef?”]

On its “Diversity Initiatives” webpage, Mizzou’s Division of Biological Sciences notes that it, too, requires candidates to “submit a statement addressing their past and/or proposed future contributions to inclusion and equity.” The department weighs these contributions heavily, noting that “our hiring practices use a ‘blinded’ review in the early stages to reduce unintentional bias with equal weighting of the research, teaching, and inclusion and equity statements” (emphasis mine). For some reason, biology departments across the country seem especially eager to value DEI on par with basic academic ability. 

I have obtained Mizzou’s “Inclusion, Diversity and Equity (IDE) Evaluation Tool.” This rubric—which readers can examine for themselves below—demonstrates, once again, the basic issue with the practice of mandatory diversity statements.

The Mizzou rubric shows that DEI evaluations invite viewpoint discrimination. It dictates a low score for candidates who say “that it’s better not to have affinity groups aimed at underrepresented individuals because it keeps them separate from everyone else.” “Affinity groups” refer to groups separated by race or other demographic characteristics—a practice that has grown more popular in recent years as institutions have embraced explicitly “race-conscious” policies. The practice has been widely criticized for obvious reasons. It is a prime example of what some have called “neo-segregation.” But for Mizzou, voicing that objection could derail a scholar’s job prospects.

[Related: “Research, Teaching, and DEI”]

The rubric also requires faculty to embrace DEI as core values. It dictates a low score for candidates who appear to be insufficiently enthusiastic, whether through “[discussing] diversity in vague terms” or “expect[ing] the university or IDE to invite or assign them to activities.” High-scoring activities, meanwhile, include organizing or speaking “at multiple workshops or other events aimed at increasing others’ understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion as one aspect of their track record” and “Intend[ing] to be a strong advocate for diversity, equity and inclusion within the department/school/college and also their field.”

Though it might sound innocuous, the phrase “diversity, equity, and inclusion” does not merely connote a set of neutral and uncontroversial values. In practice, it implies a set of controversial views about race, gender, racism, and social justice. Again and again, this fact is demonstrated by higher education DEI initiatives. By now, it should be obvious that diversity statements will inevitably function as ideological litmus tests—and huge failures of priority. Unfortunately, they’re alive and well at the University of Missouri.

To download and view the University of Missouri’s Inclusion, Diversity and Equity (IDE) Evaluation Tool, click here.

Editor’s Note, February 23, 2023: Shortly after this article was published, the president of the University of Missouri issued a response, stating in part that the university’s IDE evaluation tool “does not define diversity as only one or two factors of a person’s background. In fact, that rubric specifically states that a candidate’s understanding of diversity ‘can result from personal experiences as well as an investment in learning about the experiences of those with identities different from their own.’” (Read the full statement here.)

This response ignores the main issues raised in the article, and the core problem with diversity statement policies more broadly. Put simply, these policies almost inevitably lead to viewpoint discrimination, and the Mizzou rubric illustrates how. Again, the rubric goes so far as to penalize candidates who express skepticism about “affinity groups,” a skepticism that is shared by many on principled grounds. More broadly, given the ideological connotations of the terms “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” any assessment of job candidates’ commitment to the cause will almost by definition turn into an ideological test. This is why organizations like the National Association of Scholars, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the Academic Freedom Alliance have called for an end to the use of diversity statements. If Mizzou, as its president states, is “always reviewing [its] policies,” it should heed the words of these organizations.

Image: Adobe Stock