[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-585085-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-585085-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","issue-brief-an-ideological-screening-tool-dei-statements-do-matter-for-faculty-hiring-evaluations","Issue Brief - An Ideological Screening Tool? DEI Statements Do Matter for Faculty Hiring, Evaluations","","An issue brief dated March 2025 examines how diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements influence faculty hiring and evaluations in modern universities. Drawing on data from seven survey experiments with 4,953 tenured/tenure-track faculty, it evaluates whether DEI statements function as an additive hiring criterion or as a political screening tool enforcing ideological conformity. Findings show faculty prefer DEI statements discussing race/ethnicity and gender and score lower statements that do not, prompting calls for reevaluating the stated purpose and use of DEI materials.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/issue-brief-an-ideological-screening-tool-dei-statements-do-matter-for-faculty-hiring-evaluations/585085/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/issue-brief-an-ideological-screening-tool-dei-statements-do-matter-for-faculty-hiring-evaluations/585085.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Maya Linwood","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-09","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the main question addressed in the issue brief?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Whether DEI statements used in academic hiring operate as an additive, supporting criterion or as an ideological screening tool that filters out faculty with dissenting views.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What evidence does the brief use to evaluate faculty responses to DEI statements?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It summarizes results from seven survey experiments involving 4,953 tenured/tenure-track university faculty.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What do the results show about faculty preferences for DEI statements?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Faculty show a clear preference for DEI statements that discuss race/ethnicity and gender, and they rate lower statements that do not.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},585085,1792189810,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":127,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},962084928432,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Issue Brief  \nAbout Us  \nThe Manhattan Institute is a community of scholars, journalists, activists, and civic leaders committed to advancing economic opportunity, individual liberty, and the rule of law in America and its great cities.  \nMarch 2025  \nAn Ideological Screening Tool?  \nDEI Statements Do Matter for Faculty Hiring, Evaluations  \nNathan Honeycutt  \nResearch Fellow  \nFoundation for Individual Rights and Expression  \nIntroduction 1  \nDiversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements have become a popular additional criterion for academic hiring and promotion, with large numbers of universities or departments requesting or mandating their use for faculty hiring.2 Yet little to no empirical research has assessed how university faculty actually evaluate these statements. As such, to date it has been unclear whether DEI statements (as styled by their proponents) operate as a supporting, additive component for faculty hiring or whether they are political litmus tests (as their critics argue) operating as a screening tool to reinforce ideological conformity, easily deployed to sift out academics holding dissenting views.  \nIn this issue brief, data from seven survey experiments involving 4,953 tenured/tenure-track university faculty will be summarized. These studies stand as a robust, high-powered experimental assessment of how faculty evaluate DEI statements and what faculty think about them. These are the first experimental studies to investigate this topic. The results demonstrate that faculty exhibit a clear preference for DEI statements discussing race/ethnicity and gender and rate lower those that do not. Such outcomes suggest that DEI statements in this context are likely operating asan ideological screening device. The results from the present studies should prompt colleges and universities to reevaluate the purported goal, function, and use of DEI statements.  \nAn Ideological Screening Tool? DEI Statements Do Matter for Faculty Hiring, Evaluations  \nBackground  \nThe modern university’s increased focus on diversity has led to the use of DEI statements in the academy, most notably for faculty hiring and promotion. Styled as a way to “dismantle privilege”that perpetuates racial and ethnic disparities3 or signal that a “department genuinely values equity, diversity, and inclusion,”4 DEI statements are frequently marketed as a way for faculty applicants to be given credit for “invisible work”that previously would have been overlooked, ignored, or underappreciated.5 In other words, they are purported to serve as an additive component in an application. Some proponents have also described DEI statements as a beneficial recruitment strategy for hiring faculty when affirmative action is prohibited.6 7  \nThe University of California (UC) system has been a pioneer in the use and implementation of DEI statements for faculty hiring and promotion, and its leaders have been vocal in defense of the practice.8 In 2015, system leaders decided that faculty achievement and efforts related to diversity should be recognized in academic personnel processes.9 Many other institutions quickly followed suit, such that 22% of institutions surveyed in 2022 by the American Association of University Professors reported that DEI criteria were included in tenure standards, and an additional 39% had DEI criteria under consideration.10  \nUse and Application of DEI Statements  \nDespite the rising prevalence of DEI statements in academic hiring, some evidence suggests that universities do not always provide guidance on how to use DEI statements in hiring processes.11 Additionally, it is generally ambiguous what types or combinations of diversity hiring committees are looking for: Do hiring committees desire broad and varied diversity actions and efforts from applicants or specific types of diversity actions and efforts? UC Berkeley, for example, articulateshow the conceptualization of diversity can itself be quite diverse, stating that the institutio","cbCaiqXbIlyxRV1d","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqXbIlyxRV1d","pdf",1454710,"English","# Introduction\n## Use and Application of DEI Statements\n## DEI Statements as Screening Devices\n## Concerns About DEI Statements","[{\"question\":\"What is the main question addressed in the issue brief?\",\"answer\":\"Whether DEI statements used in academic hiring operate as an additive, supporting criterion or as an ideological screening tool that filters out faculty with dissenting views.\"},{\"question\":\"What evidence does the brief use to evaluate faculty responses to DEI statements?\",\"answer\":\"It summarizes results from seven survey experiments involving 4,953 tenured/tenure-track university faculty.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the results show about faculty preferences for DEI statements?\",\"answer\":\"Faculty show a clear preference for DEI statements that discuss race/ethnicity and gender, and they rate lower statements that do not.\"}]","Issue Brief - An Ideological Screening Tool? DEI Statements Do Matter for Faculty Hiring, Evaluations | PDF",1792053608,48]