WHAT IF THE CONCLUSIONS AREN'T FAVORABLE? At Durham-in-Wonderland, some clear thinking about the genuine tradeoffs that hiring for "diversity" entail.

“Diversity” is a prized commodity on contemporary college campuses. In recent years, some institutions have used the concept to mask redefining quality away from standard measurements and toward ideological conformity—of the type that we saw from the Duke faculty last spring.

Take, for example, a program for “diversity” cluster hiring at the University of Arizona. A campus “diversity committee” proposed “recruiting not just one or even two diverse faculty members as isolated ‘targets of opportunity,’ but rather a critical mass of diverse professors who have shared intellectual interests.” “Diversity,” therefore, became little more than a mask to ensure ideological conformity among the new faculty.

The plan, part of a broader emphasis on diversity in hiring at Arizona, envisions a university in which “diversity” rather than academic quality becomes the primary motive for hiring, promotion, and tenure. According to the campus diversity plan, in faculty personnel matters, “In order to make significant progress in creating a more diverse faculty and a campus that truly embraces diversity, the advancement of diversity must be established as a primary indicator of quality.” Until diversity, the report concludes, “is included in the institutional family of primary indicators of quality, other indicators will continue to trump it – especially in the hiring of new faculty.” The U of A contends that “this does not mean lessening our commitment to excellence in research and teaching,” but such a claim is absurd: research and teaching, according to the “diversity” plan, will have to meet an ideological litmus test before being judged on their quality. Indeed, the plan argues, “Depending upon the discipline,” new faculty should be required to “conduct research and contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the importance of valuing diversity.”

Let's take that last sentence seriously. If "valuing diversity," whatever that means, makes universities that "value" diversity more productive, then administrators and hiring committees that fail to do so are leaving money on the table. On the other hand, if the research quantifies the opportunity costs (perhaps measured as lost output or reduced rates of productivity growth) of hiring for diversity rather than for teaching effectiveness or grant-getting or dissertation directing, do those negative findings invalidate the research.

The post goes on to note,

The U of A is one of three major universities (Virginia Tech and Kansas State are the others; the University of Oregon is considering the move) to implement the diversity theories of Harvard Education School researcher Cathy Trower. In a talk at Chicago summarizing her findings, Trower listed a variety of subtle developments in the academy that she contends undercut efforts at diversity, including the “single-minded devotion to professional pursuits” and excessive value placed on research. “To compound the problem,” she continued, “some members of the majority, for reasons of self-interest or self-defined notions of ‘quality,’ are reluctant to grant newcomers a toehold.” Arguing that “merit is socially constructed by the dominant coalition,” Trower has recommended requiring white male (and only white male) job candidates to demonstrate a commitment to diversity before being hired.

Trower’s proposals are extreme—but they illustrate how standard notions of quality have been displaced in the academy in recent years. Her analysis envisions a radically different type of university, one based on the promotion of a specific ideological agenda, and designed to train a generation of social activists rather than teach students knowledge from traditional academic disciplines.

Perhaps it's time for some guerrilla theater. Each spring, there's a day on which people are encouraged to wear pink triangles to show their support for the sexual underground. Per corollary, why not yellow elephants during diversity week?

And as far as that "reluctance to grant newcomers a toehold," come off it. Responsible and reliable people are too busy cleaning up after the shirkers and malingerers to spend a lot of time making life difficult for newcomers that are willing to pitch in. On the other hand, come in with a belly full of grievances and no initiative, and don't be surprised when you get lumped with the other shirkers and malingerers.