Mandatory DEI statements are becoming the norm in academic hiring

This is exactly what a lot of supporters of Desantis would probably say about gender affirmation care for people with gender dysphoria. My point here is it just seems unlikely Desantis is the only governor that would ban books in schools. Conversion therapy is illegal in multiple states so putting those books in a student library would break the law so one might call that a ban. I would be shocked if you could convince me there is a governor who would always decline to sign bills that ban material from schools.

For a long time that was the case; Women and black people weren't allowed on campus for over a hundred years after the University's founding, but that all changed as generations churned.

> Suppose the next cohort of students was against this pronoun protocol: not only do they eschew pronouns, they prefer for nobody else to specify them either, and they vote accordingly with their feet.

I think changes like these happen at a longer timescale than cohorts. More like generations. We millennials are now teaching gen Z, and so obviously things are going to be very different from when boomers were teaching us. It will probably change again when Gen Z start getting faculty positions and gen "Alpha" (I had to look it up, who comes up with these?) start taking college classes.

> Are you saying that you and your department would be prepared to reverse course on this issue and ask any faculty (including trans faculty, if there were any) not to specify their pronouns anywhere?

I could see this happening, sure. Likely what would happen is people would complain, students would complain louder, and in the end they would get their way. Faculty would grumble, and then probably let their contracts lapse, while others who wouldn't find the situation so vexing would take their places and do their jobs.

> But there must be a limit to how far customer focus can or should go. What if all of the students demand to get As?

Grade inflation is a thing, so this is a real concern. Fortunately it's semi-checked by competing interests from our customers who appreciate that we maintain standards so that an A means something. But we're not immune from it, that's for sure. Squeaky wheels do often get grease when it comes to grades.

> What if they demand that a math professor teach 2+2=5 or that a biology professor teach that biological sex is not a concept that has any basis in reality?

Tenure and academic freedom play an important role here. Lord knows there's all kind of nonsense being taught on college campuses across the country. People can have different opinions on what constitutes nonsense; I'm sure there are topics I wish they'd shut up about that other people want taught, and topics I want taught that others would prefer be defunded and shut down. But you know what, I shrug and don't pay too much mind. I certainly don't go on about the "conservative bias" I see in many departments here. If people want to teach nonsense that's fine. If it has any utility or merit, they will attract funding, and students, and it will make our community better. We have people teaching things here that I consider to be actually far less coherent than 2+2=5. But I say, whatever, go for it. Teach away.

> At some point the faculty need to stand up for what is right and what is true.

We all are. Every single one of us. But that's why we have a marketplace, because not all of us can be right and true.

> Public universities take public funds and are therefore accountable to the public, while private universities depend on alumni and donors.

Private universities rely on all kinds of public funding to operate, not the least being public grant money. None of us are immune from public scrutiny, but in general the public better know what they are talking about if they want to leverage a criticism. If they want to open a dialogue, that can happen, but so far it seems like political and media firebrands are leading the charge, so a dialogue doesn't seem to be possible in this climate.

> All of these people are entitled to have an opinion about whether they want to support this kind of behavior.

Sure, and if they want a louder opinion so that they may be heard, they can spend more dollars. In the meantime, there are thousands of schools out there, and especially among the top schools, we are competing for the top students. And as it turns out, you can find the top students from almost any background. So when word gets out that school X is a welcoming and diverse environment, then it becomes easier to recruit top talent. If state schools get a reputation for being political playgrounds for whatever state governors or political parties, they will fall behind because they will fail to attract top talent from the new generation.

> I see it as a much needed check on institutions who have abdicated their responsibility to resist illiberal trends within their walls.

Respectfully, you've made it pretty clear you don't really know what's going on in the walls, so any assessment on how illiberal or not the activities are must be incomplete. The level of discourse in this entire thread is generally stunted because the HN commentariat is talking out of its depth. Software developers, web devs, people who have never been in academia aside from being a student, or haven't been in decades, are voicing their thoughts on what they think is happening in academia. These opinions seem to be fueled mostly by chatter in the right-wing media sphere, especially Tucker Carlson in recent days.

Absent from the entire conversation here seems to be people with first-hand experience reading and evaluating these DEI statements. I think I've noticed 2 other posters in the thousands of comments generated in the past 3 or so HN threads that hit the front page, who I would say have an accurate read on what goes on within academic walls. Everyone else seems to have somehow made up their minds about how these statements are used and what's in them, without reading a single one or asking anyone how they are actually used in practice. Instead you get people claiming as confidently and baselessly as ChatGPT that the whole practice is abjectly racist, illegal, unconstitutional - I've heard it all. You yourself said that you are dismissive of positive first-hand accounts because you assume they are just politically biased. There is zero curious inquiry going on surrounding this topic, and that should sound warning bells that this is just a political tornado.

I don't listen to Tucker Carlson, but I have been listening to what you have been telling me in this thread. From your own first-hand testimony I have learned:

- You have first-hand knowledge of faculty applicants who have been rejected on the basis of their belief that universal pronoun protocols are not necessary, or that they personally prefer not to volunteer their own pronouns.

- You do not count this as a political litmus test, instead you accuse the applicant of being political by having an opinion that is different from what students are demanding.

- You acknowledge that the institution is extending asymmetric affordances, and picking winners and losers on a charged topic, but rationalize this by citing market forces and a philosophy that the customer is always right.

Even if I had heard nothing else, that right there is the case for an illiberal trend. Some opinions are endorsed while others are rejected in the hiring process, and this is not based on any appeal to truth, fairness, or equal protection, but rather the arbitrary demands of the customer.

Respectfully, the fact that you would tell me all of this openly, but then think that I need right-wing agitation to consider this an illiberal trend, just reinforces to me how much of an echo chamber academia must have become. I'm sorry, but no amount of condescension on your part will convince me that this is ok.

> You yourself said that you are dismissive of positive first-hand accounts because you assume they are just politically biased.

I told you that I would credit such accounts if they came from someone who had significant disagreements with the dominant thinking on these subjects, and was able to be hired without hiding this.

It is little credit to the fairness of a process if the people who are aligned with the ruling school of thought find the process to be unburdensome.