The Chronicle of Higher Education has a commentary piece titled, “Want More Innovation? Get More Diversity.” As you would expect, it is a plea for universities to hire more African American faculty, in particular, because diversity in background and perspective will (according to some dubious data) result in more creative and innovative thinking. The piece concludes that since “even if people from different backgrounds have exactly the same skills and knowledge, diverse teams may still do better than more homogeneous ones,” therefore administrators should “[s]top hiring people who look like you.” My posted response:
Three obvious problems with this (there may be additional, methodological ones, too): (1) It assumes that skin color diversity should be used as a proxy for diversity of background and perspective. Of course, this is just stereotyping: Two people of different color may have very similar backgrounds and perspectives, and two people of the same color may have very different backgrounds and perspectives. (2) It assumes that skin color diversity can be achieved without sacrificing qualifications based on “skills and knowledge.” That’s not true either: If you weigh race in addition to merit, then you are going to be weighing merit less. (3) It ignores the fact that it’s illegal to “Stop hiring people who look like you.” The courts have, alas, allowed a limited amount of race discrimination in student admissions, but they have not done so (thankfully) for faculty hiring. More here.
* * *
Along the same lines, I was interviewed by a reporter recently who was doing a story on a new faculty diversity initiative at the University of Texas. Here’s the first part of that article (I’ve embedded a couple of links where I’m quoted to document what I say):
A hiring policy announced last week by Chancellor Bill McRaven of the University of Texas System is racially discriminatory and may well violate federal civil rights law, two experts told Watchdog.org.
The new policy would apply to hiring for deans and above at all 14 campuses in the system. “No senior position can be filled without allowing a qualified woman or minority candidate to be interviewed all the way to the last round of the process,” McRaven said.
This sort of policy is known as a “Rooney rule” after the National Football League team owner who first proposed the requirement for all head coach job openings.
“The Rooney rule is illegal, and I think that the McRaven application of it to UT is even more illegal, since it violates not only Title VII but also the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution,” according to Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank dedicated to issues of race and ethnicity.
While the Supreme Court has interpreted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a way that allows race for the sake of diversity to be used in university admissions, university hiring is covered by Title VII of the act.
“The federal courts have never recognized a ‘diversity’ exception to Title VII,” Clegg said.
During a Board of Regents meeting last week, McRaven pointed out in a slide show 32 percent of the System’s students and 62 percent of the faculty were white. While 39 percent of the students were Hispanic, just 11 percent of the faculty is Hispanic.
“This slide makes it very clear that we are not doing the job we ought to be doing in driving equal opportunity and fairness in our hiring and promotion processes,” McRaven said. “Making sure our faculty and staff reflect the changing look of Texas is not just about fairness. It’s also about effectiveness. We need faculty, administrators, and campus leaders who understand the people they’re serving, who come from the same kinds of places.”
McRaven’s statement undermines the policy’s legality, Clegg said.
In two cases, the Supreme Court has rejected the idea that schools can discriminate in hiring and firing so that the faculty better reflects the student body.
Former Gov. Ann Richards tried to do the same thing McRaven is doing now, directing state agencies in 1991 to “produce a workforce that reflects the ethnic and gender diversity of the state’s population.”
That got the Texas Education Agency sued. The federal Court of Appeals for the region ruled affirmative action in government hiring was unconstitutional unless there was some “past provable discrimination.”
“This is a dubious argument as a policy matter, but what is amazing is that the argument continues to be made even though the Supreme Court rejected it, as a legal matter, over 20 years ago,” Clegg said.
* * *
Two other quick notes on the ongoing campus madness.
First, I just have to note this recent headline: “School Study Finds Racial Gap in Salad Bar Use”! You can’t make this stuff up, folks.
Second, and very much on the other hand, there are some sane voices at Princeton: “A group of sensible Princeton students is standing up to the mob, and demanding that Princeton’s president Eisgruber do the same.” Read their letter here.
* * *
A short note on an important case that has not gotten a lot of publicity, Akina v. Hawaii: The plaintiffs, and now conservative amicus American Civil Rights Union, have successfully asked Justice Kennedy to enjoin a racially exclusive (Native Hawaiians only) election that is being held in Hawaii. Christian Adams, the lawyer for the ACRU, says, “Hawaii held such an election once before, and it shouldn’t be allowed to hold one again.” The key precedent for the plaintiffs here is Rice v. Cayetano, which struck down (after the fact) a similar racially exclusive election; the opinion was written by Justice Kennedy. The Center for Equal Opportunity filed an amicus brief in that case, and is supporting the plaintiffs in the current case as well, in their challenge to this latest example of political correctness run amok.
* * *
The Federalist Society’s annual national lawyers’ convention was held recently, and of particular interest was the Civil Rights Practice Group’s panel on “Ferguson, Baltimore, and Criminal Justice Reform.” I’m on the executive committee of that group, and we were all very pleased with the lively and informative discussion that ensued, which you can watch here. “Discussion” might be an understatement, though; “fireworks” would be better. Just about every conceivable point of view was represented: traditional conservative (one of the panelists was a former Philadelphia cop, another a Heritage Foundation policy wonk), libertarian, and flat-out liberal. And receiving a standing ovation was Robert L. Woodson, Sr., Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise: a pro–law enforcement, pro–personal responsibility community organizer (!).
* * *
One last campus-related item. I’ll be debating the issue of racial preferences in university admissions in New York on Thursday evening this week, and you can read all about that (and watch it) here.
Related posts:
Politicized external review panels as unguided “diversity” missiles: California university administrators remain ultra-slow learnersTESTIMONY OF ROGER CLEGG, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACTDid Juan Williams libel LU’s Hans Bader?
Some Advice for University Officials — and Happy Thanksgiving!