[garden_hermit]

I have written what you would likely call "DEI" statements for grants and job applications, and I have reviewed them as well.

The absolutely worst statements are the people who believe that the statement is an ideological litmus test. It never was, and it isn't.

These statements, to a one, are basic HR stuff: discuss your strategies and experiences to not be an asshole and ensure that the diverse people you manage (and they almost certainly are diverse) will be able to get along and work effectively under your management. Boring stuff.

People think its some sort of ideological purity test, write it as such, and get surprised when the statement is evaluated poorly.

[whatshisface]

The requests are worded in a way that makes people think they're ideological because (as far as I can tell) the people who added it to the requirements were heavily influenced by their ideological commitments. The statements are then reviewed by volunteers taken from the broader community, who aren't going to rate "contributions to diversity" too highly if they're described with an extreme degree of force.

If the people writing the calls wanted the same things as the people reviewing the submissions, they would say, "tell us about your experiences with normal HR tasks."

[garden_hermit]

In almost every case I've seen, the statements are in fact worded in terms of specific contributions. The most general terminology I've seen is requesting the candidate to explain their role "advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion"—to which the best statements respond with (1) their experiences with diverse classrooms/staff, and (2) their specific strategies for approaching these issues.

I have not really encountered instructions that I would misconstrue to be an ideological litmus test, and the majority of submissions that I have reviewed do not in fact talk about the candidate's ideological priors.

[greentxt]

So you defend it on the grounds, specifically, correct me if I am misinterpreting, that it is nothong beyond a rebranding of typical HR legal speak? You either think it is important and meaningful or you don't-- ie it is a litmus test. I think it is useful as such frankly, but could be minimized. I am totally happy to pledge allegiance to non-racism or something like that. Some arcane limus test where only people like you can evaluate the true merit of a DEI statement is likely to be unfair, widely abused and ironically probably reinforces institutional racism more than it ameliotates it. Not calling you a hard racist, just saying you are contributing to it and sustaining it rather than reducing it.

[garden_hermit]

I defend it on the grounds that it is basic human management. The scientific workforce is diverse, and this diversity introduces potential conflicts. Money spent on researchers who cannot effectively keep the peace among their students and staff—whether through negligence, naiveté, or outright malice—is likely to go to waste. It is not entirely a re-tooling of HR legal speak, but rather an extension given what we know about how to manage a diverse workforce.

The rubric I use to judge diversity statements, and which is often formalized in rubrics, is: "has the applicant thought about this at all to the point that they have specific experiences and strategies that lead us to trust that they could effectively manage a diverse population of students and staff".

There is nothing arcane about this. To the extent that diversity statements even factor in review, this is the same criteria that everyone I know follows.

In my own applications, I, as a white guy, have been very successful in getting jobs and funding. This is despite never making ideological commitments and barely talking about gender or race, and instead focusing on first-generation students. Just showing that I have put in a minimal amount of thought into working with diverse students and colleagues seems to be enough.

[nxobject]

Having been on a few hiring committees, both in academia, industry, and state: no, it is not arcane; scoring people fairly and literally against interview questions, that form a fraction of the whole candidate ranking process, are literally exactly what “DEI initiatives” in HR were meant to do.

I have had mandatory trainings about this ad nauseam before I have been allowed to sit on hiring committees. One of the biases “DEI initiatives” warn against is being impressed by people who spew jargon without having done the work, and supporting people who have done the work (and give examples) without spewing jargon.

If the interpretation is “arcane”, that’s an institutional problem that goes far beyond interpreting an interview question that forms a fraction of the interview process. But claiming that’s inherent to organizations that mention diversity in an interview question is setting up a strawman, and HR will have it ground into your head that it is “inequitable”.