Just recently, Berkeley finally handed over information about its hiring criteria to FIRE revealing that faculty at the school are graded based on their commitment to DEI, which in many ways has become a religion. Viewpoints that should be protected by the First Amendment or academic privileges were used by the school to intimidate and punish faculty members who failed to meet certain DEI standards.
Back in 2018, for instance, the life sciences departments at Berkeley launched an initiative aimed at advancing faculty "diversity." This included requiring all candidates to submit statements about their "contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion," as well information about their "understanding of these topics," "records of activities to date," and "specific plans and goals for advancing equity and inclusion."
It is one thing to promote general diversity, meaning not just left-wing viewpoints but also right-wing viewpoints, but what Berkeley means by DEI can pretty much be summed up as anti-white, and possibly also anti-Asian, discrimination. Berkeley would grade its faculty members based on their agreement with specific viewpoints, which ironically enough constitutes anti-diversity.
If only left-wing, anti-white values are allowed to be espoused, then how can that in any way be considered, diverse, equitable, or inclusive? The answer is it cannot, and yet this is the standard to which Berkeley rates and grades its faculty members so as to foster a very specific and exclusive range of beliefs among its employees.
(Related: Last fall, Berkeley administrators ordered all students who refused to get vaccinated for the FLU to wear a face mask.)
We know from what FIRE recently received from Berkeley that faculty members at the school will be given lower scores if they in any way "discount the importance of diversity." Once again, what Berkeley means by "diversity" in this context is non-diversity when it comes to varying political and social viewpoints that deviate too far from extreme leftism.
Another scoring document at Berkeley was found to mandate lower scores for faculty members who do not "feel any personal responsibility for helping to eliminate barriers." Once again, what Berkeley means by "barriers," in this context, is pushing for more pro-leftist, pro-black, anti-white, and anti-Asian culture both on campus and in the classroom.
This type of thing is not exclusive to Berkeley, of course. Prof. Joshua Katz of Princeton University was punished by his school for questioning a proposed "anti-racism" program that offered benefits exclusively to "minorities," meaning non-whites. Princeton Pres. Christopher Eisgruber called for Katz to be fired simply for questions he had about the program.
Berkeley is engaged in similar bullying with its promotion of DEI, as well as promotion of the faculty members who embrace the school's version of it. Those who deviate from the accepted way of thinking will be punished or possibly fired, such as what Katz faced over at Princeton.
"The concern is that the rubric could be used to enforce an ideological litmus test," wrote Jonathan Turley on his blog about the matter. "The Berkeley rubric requires candidates to voice and demonstrate commitments to DEI measures that some may find personally or intellectually problematic."
The latest news about left-wing academic and the propaganda being spewed at institutions of "higher learning" can be found at CampusInsanity.com.
Sources for this article include: