Sure I'll be honest, and I'll appreciate if you take me at my word as opposed to the other poster, who straight up said that I was lying here.

You have to recognize that for educators, these topics go beyond a political nature and into a practical matter. We in academia are trying to sell a service (a college "experience"), and our students are customers of this service. The idea that "the customer is always right" applies here.

For instance, if you have the belief that men and women should not be educated in the same classroom together, or that women should not be educated at all, that's a political opinion. If you want to be a teacher, that opinion turned into practice could be problematic for our business because >50% of our customers are female. So that's what we are interested in -- actions, not beliefs. Your deepest opinion of their presence in the classroom is immaterial; what is important though, is how will you make our female students feel welcome in the classroom? Because they are our paying customers, and your political opinion of their presence in the classroom is irrelevant after they hand over their tuition dollars. They have a right to be there as much as anyone else, and we want you as a teacher to make our customers feel welcome, safe, and that they belong. It's not political, it's business. Customers who feel welcome and safe in our classrooms donate money to us and send their children to us. Customers who feel marginalized and antagonized transfer and don't send their kids to us. It's good business to be inclusive.

Same goes for black students. You may have the political opinion that black students should not be in the classroom with white students. Again, this political opinion does not matter to us, because we actually have black customers in our classrooms. What is the practical action you will take to make our black customers feel welcome and happy about the purchase of our services? The answer to this question usually would involve an empathetic view of what black students are looking for in education, the challenges they face, and the solutions that may overcome those challenges. Notice that your personal political opinion of their existence in the classroom doesn't factor into that discussion.

One more, maybe more contemporary example: you may have the political opinion that there are only two genders and that trans people are a made up concept. This opinion is immaterial, because we have actual trans students in our classrooms. You may think they are completely insane and that they are living in a fantasy and you refuse to address any trans person by their chosen pronoun. But as a practical matter they have put down a large sum of money to learn in our classrooms, and they would prefer to be addressed by their chosen pronouns. So as an employee, are you going to disrespect our customers, or will you treat them with the respect they are asking for and address them using the gendered pronoun they are most comfortable with? Again, your personal political opinion doesn't really factor into that answer.

> (Isn't that the job of campus security? What kind of safety do you expect professors to provide?).

Intellectual safety. Learning new ideas can make people feel vulnerable and uncomfortable, which is expected. But learning in an antagonistic environment is difficult: imagine trying to learn the intricacies of e.g. functional programming when your peers and instructors are telling you that you don't matter and your idea of your own personhood is a delusion. Suddenly your homework assignments and exams don't mean that much when you're not sure if you're insane or sick. So to get the course content across, we first have to provide a safe environment where the things we say get heard instead of drowned out by lower-level needs like personal safety, a sense of belonging, and sense of self esteem. Only then does actual learning occur.

So the job of a teacher is not just to put on power points and talk about a topic for an hour twice a week. It is also to create an ideal learning environment for all our customers. This also includes managing interpersonal conflicts. Campus police don't really manage that either.

> From the open letter of Abigail Thompson, professor of mathematics at UC Davis:

Prof. Thompson's letter is problematic in a couple ways. For starters, she tries to liken the current diversity statements to anti-communist hysteria in the 1950s. The issue with this is that the anti-communist movement asked professors to sign letters disavowing an ideology and association with a group. Setting aside this is obviously in violation of the first amendment, that's not even close to what's happening with DEI statements. They are essentially saying "We have a diverse student population. What concrete experience do you have working with a diverse student population?" This is completely different from the Red Scare because,
I will reiterate again, teaching a diverse student body is part of the job description for a professor. Community service is also part of the job description for a professor. Therefore if you're applying for a job, you have to show you are qualified irrespective of your personal beliefs. No one is asking you to disavow your group membership and personal beliefs. No one is checking if you're a card carrying member of the Republican party or that you watch Fox News or associate with other conservatives.

Secondly, she's really overstating how these statements are used in the selection process. I mean, maybe it's different at the Math department at UC Davis, but where I'm from there's really only two kinds of candidates: entry level assistant professors and already tenured senior professors. Entry level assistant professors are fresh out of gradschool, newly minted Ph.Ds. They have been in the higher ed. system anywhere from 8 to 15+ years. If they don't have anything to demonstrate community service, and if they haven't put any thought into the emotional needs of their students, that's a problem. Not because of their political ideology or group membership, but because that's the job description. Moreover, the bar is pretty low at that point. It's really not a high hurdle to talk about your community service experience. If you really have nothing to say here along the lines of "Here's some evidence that I can work well with others in my community to make it a better place", that's a red flag. Senior professors will be chosen based on their research record first and foremost. I can't think of any situation where a senior researcher with a stellar publication track record would be filtered out of a search due to a lackluster DEI statement. Our number 1 question for these people is, what is your H-index? Seriously, there's way too much weight placed on this thing.

Finally, she says that this is a political filter because it is a reification of the classical liberal ideology. I think the implication here is that it will filter out anyone who isn't a classical liberal. She says that the DEI statements require candidates to "demonstrate their knowledge and experience" as part of their professional life, but then pivots very quickly to the idea that the DEI statements require certain beliefs. What one believes and what one is required to do professionally are completely different things. The Red Scare was about what one believes. DEI statements are about one's professional record on issues of DEI in a profession that requires such interactions. So in practice you can believe whatever you want, which means that this isn't really a filter of ideologies but of experience. For instance, in my department I know of 0 classical liberals including me. I don't know everyone's political leanings, but of the ones I do know they span the political spectrum. It's not much of an ideological filter, in my experience, is what I'm saying.

At the end of the day, the DEI statement is answering the question: what will you do for our necessarily diverse student body? It's not asking if you believe a diverse student body is a good thing. It's not asking you about your personal beliefs or political leanings. It's not asking you to sign a pledge. It's one aspect of a job application intended to make sure you are qualified to discharge a critical duty of the job to which you're applying. That's it.

I hope you've read this far an you find this post insightful. It's my honest opinion. One thing I'd be interested in knowing from you is: how many DEI statements have you actually personally read? I'm just wondering because you made a statement about what's involved in those statements, so I was curious if you had any first-hand experience, or if you're going by what Prof. Thompson wrote in the link you provided.