Do University Diversity Statement Requirements Violate the Constitution?

Here's an article they wrote, to refute the allegation that they were pro-apartheid:

https://reason.com/2014/07/19/reason-spuriously-accused-by-c...

They say, that as well as all the pro-apartheid things they wrote (the more recent of which didn't count because they were just knowingly lying for political motives) they also wrote lots of articles about how apartheid was terrible.

But if you read those articles, they all basically follow the pattern of "apartheid is terrible, but the thing that people are doing to combat apartheid is worse". They suggest that boycotting apartheid regimes would lead to more apartheid, and the best way to get rid of apartheid is to mostly do nothing.

The opening quote that they deny, literally says they attacked anti-apartheid sanctions. They say that's a lie, but it's obviously true from their own article in defence.

I suppose you could still argue they were correct in what they argued (even if they are a bit coy about admitting it now), but other people disagree:

> The African National Congress, which was the leading anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, has published extensive documentation to support their assertion that the boycott campaign [...] was, indeed, instrumental in ending apartheid.

A very strong echo.

edit to add this quote because it's right at the bottom after all the denials:

> the biggest category I left out were the Reaganite proxy-war correspondetry of Jack Wheeler, which had much less to do with South Africa's domestic policies, and more with its role in the Cold War (which, as I argued in my Nelson Mandela obituary this year, had the effect of warping America's policy and values toward apartheid)

So it wasn't their fault, it was America that was wrong about Apartheid and had warped values.

Suppose universities, as in Volokh's example, required candidates to show what they did to support the war, or required membership in the Party. Later, those universities produce research concluding that the war is justified, and the Party is good. Should we trust those conclusions?

Someone says "universities are overwhelmingly pro-war/Party because those things are true, and smart people are better at finding the truth" - should we find that inference justified?

- diversity statements are an intrusive ideological test forced upon fields that are entirely unrelated, under pain of ostracization by a mob of students, taught to do so by activist professors who don't teach how to think but what to think.

- the kinds of colleges that demand them are insanely expensive, have a bloated administration, and offer value nowhere near what they cost, demonstrating that true inclusion and equity is the last thing they care about.

- the people who support them are intolerant, not interested in open inquiry, and do not understand the first thing about the principles they are claiming to uphold.

- the grievances they are obsessed about are situated in a very narrow, american-centric, pampered point of view, which treats history as a fairy tale where only white men had agency, and are responsible for all the ills of the world.

Whether or not it violates the constitution is entirely immaterial seeing as it simply violates common sense, and ticks every box of totalitarian conformism... the kind of thing universities are supposed to protect enlightened societies from.

Insane that people don't see this, but here we are.

Proponents are arguing they are mundane statements aligned with the goals of the institution. But opponents are skeptical--they see it as a motte and bailey. They are, in reality, a test of politico-ideological adherence. The institutions only use the 'we just want to ensure we have fairness and equality' as a fallback, according to detractors.

What they are actually asking is not what is being asked. Following up on their war analogy, it is as if the university asked 'How have you contributed to your society and neighbourhood?' but in reality, only accepting contributions related to the war effort. Writing about generic charitable efforts does not count--and definitely don't mention any anti-war contributions.

Allegedly of course--I have no particular knowledge in this area.

Yes, the message is quite clear. Universities want people who appreciate diversity. I'm not sure the war analogy is the amazing argument the author thinks it is. Like the author is saying, "wouldn't it be wrong if universities asked a leading question about war? Then why is ok to ask for DEI statements?" But what the author misses is that, if being pro-war aligned with the university's goals, then yes, the university would be right to ask a leading, pro-war question. I'm sure departments ask plenty of leading questions on more mundane, less contentious topics. There's a reason why individual universities gain reputations for having specific "schools of thought." There is always an element of self-selection.

The next thing to ask is how do you rectify decades of explicit discrimination against a variety of groups, and then the subsequent less overt discrimination following the passage of the CRA?

Given that every piece of evidence shows bias in people from X recommending and/or hiring from X and X adjacent universities and facilities - including getting into labs at other universities if you’re looking at some form of postgrad - how do you compensate for unintentional biases? Eg someone isn’t intentionally racist but they prefer recommendations from people they went to school with, and none of them work at/with HBCUs.

Universities with hereditary enrollment are inherently racist, as many explicitly did not allow black Americans to be students until relatively recently, and even when the CRA passed continued a variety of explicitly discriminatory policies. The result of which is that the hereditary enrollments have a huge bias against PoC.

I am not saying diversity statements are what has to happen - I think such are largely puffery that is easier than working out how to actually fix things - just that the problem is not trivial, and the seeming alternative people propose is simply to say “just keep doing what we are doing now” as we aren’t being explicitly biased anymore, which is actively harmful BS.