> Stuff happened and the instructors, provosts and other staff were able to deal with it based, again -- on their capacities for empathy, common sense and elementary decency. Without having to produce a lengthy statement of their "understanding of the dimensions of diversity", "organizing and speaking at workshops"

Do you really know this to be true, though? Faculty and admin are always organizing and speaking at workshops on these topics, they're always holding seminars for one another about best practices and new ideas. They've most certainly had pointed discussions in faculty meetings about these issues and how to handle them. And they've been doing these things well before "DEI" became a thing.

Also, unstated in your comment is the presumption that dedicated reflection and intentional effort can't improve one's empathy and decency. That a baseline, instinctual level is enough, even though you admit earlier you believe it's a given that instructors need to have above-average empathy. Okay well if that's true, how does one develop above-average empathy? How does one demonstrate above-average empathy?

> all the other positive signals candidates are supposed to generate to avoid coming under suspicion of being either deficient in their capacities for treating other people decently (or worse, perhaps secretly harboring bigoted attitudes).

I think this is an important point you make here. Because we agree that the job of professor requires above-average empathy. I believe that anyone can improve their empathy through practice and intentionality. I also believe that although everyone considers themself to be empathetic and decent, everyone also has the capacity to make mistakes. I believe intentional practice and reflection are the best way to use these mistakes to maximize one's empathetic ability.

In that light, a DEI statement should be seen as an opportunity for an applicant to demonstrate their practice of developing an above-average empathy. Then the statement is not about identifying deficient capacities or bigoted attitudes. Rather, it's about identifying candidates who have recognized that empathy is a skill that can be honed like any other, and who have developed and implemented an explicit practice for honing their own empathy.

> I know you're going to hate this term, but there's really no other term to use: virtuous awareness of the importance of these issues?

I have no feelings about this term.

> There really is something about the some of expectations in the UC rubric that is just ... weird, very weird

I will say again that the Berkeley rubric is the product of the Berkeley DEIB office, which is probably staffed by people who are very far from your position in the political spectrum. Most of what they say may seem quite weird to you. So the entire document has to be viewed through this lens, with the clear understanding that hiring committees, who I will state again are the ones with the power to derail your candidacy (not the DEI office), don't understand or agree with everything written in this document.

As far as the criterion you highlighted, it is a perfectly decent position for someone to have. The reason why it's seen as "wrong" by the DEIB office at Berkeley is because from experience we as a profession have found it leads to instructors with attitudes like "I don't care that Timmy has a learning disability, he has to take the test for the same 45 minutes as the other students!"

The idea isn't really to factor an individual's background into all of your interactions with them at all times, that would be exhausting. Instead, the idea is to recognize that someone's background can profoundly impact the way they experience your classroom, and sometimes that manifests itself in ways where you as an instructor have the opportunity to make conditions materially better. Sometimes these changes are very small and subtle, but can have a huge impact on students. The difficulty isn't making the change, it's in recognizing the need for one in the first place (this is really where the empathy skill is put to work).

Another way you can think about it is, it's less about particular students and individuals, and really more about the fact that there isn't one single archetypical student X that you can design a course around. Instead, there are different kinds of students -- X, Y, and Z -- and they all have competing and sometimes conflicting demands.

Let me give you some examples:

- Some instructors have a no laptops during class rule. But some students have trouble taking notes on paper due to any number of issues. A policy of treating everyone the same would lead to these students doing poorly in the class. Taking into account their needs can result in a policy that can be crafted to work for everyone.

- Most of my students are teenagers, but others are working parents. One of these parent-students had a sick child, and couldn't afford a sitter so that they could come to class. Some instructors would say this parent-student gets a zero and has to make up the work, because that's the policy for all students. On the other hand, I've already factored this reality into my course design, and the parent-student was able to take care of their child and also didn't miss a single minute of class. Experienced instructors do this as a matter of course and will be able to write about it in a DEI statement without a problem. Novice instructors don't even recognize the issue until it comes at them mid semester, where ad hoc changes to course policies can be problematic.

- I used to require some pretty involved software installation for one of my courses. Everyone has a laptop, so what's the big deal? Well, then I learned just how tenuous "having a laptop" can be. While some students had a brand new, state-of-the-art 16" Macbook Pro, others were using a 5 year-old family laptop shared between 4 siblings, and didn't have permission to install the required course material. Thus I adjusted my requirements here so that the software could be used from a browser, and required no installation at all.

> Otherwise, you are clearly lacking in empathy, and completely incapable of understanding the fact that other people have different backgrounds and different perspectives than your own.

Right, so if you say that you will "treat everyone the same", you have to square that with the "fact that other people have different backgrounds and different perspectives than your own." What follows from different backgrounds and perspectives is different needs and expectations. That's why "treat everyone the same" is problematic -- because it's hard to do that and also admit that you can fulfil all student needs and meet every expectation.

Finally I will say that I believe what the Berkeley DEIB office is really doing here with this particular criterion is cutting to the chase: "treat everyone the same" is one of those banal meaningless platitudes you will find in statements that are written as an afterthought. It's not often you will read a phrase that amounts to "treat everyone the same", and then what follows is a detailed, nuanced, well-reasoned discussion as to why this policy works in practice. Such a statement would be welcomed, although I think if you came to interview you may be challenged on your point of view.

Rather, it's typically just one platitude in a string of platitudes, which amount to a vague and ultimately meaningless DEI statement.

> And any class you teach will be "14 weeks of chaos and confusion", waiting to happen

Heh, I will say my students certainly are perpetually confused.