@vu72 As a long-time tenured professor and one who has served on numerous hiring, promotion, and tenure granting committees, I sympathize with the intentions of the new law, especially in the current academic atmosphere.
The details of the bill are separated into two distinctive sections: the hiring or pre-tenure stage and the post-tenure stage. I can see the first part passing muster because there already are many ways in which political considerations and in-class practices impact hiring and granting or denying tenure. Unfortunately, the reality is that professors are subjected to political litmus tests from the application requirements through to the peer tenure review process. The post-tenure stage would be more difficult to police and enforce since tenure naturally carries greater freedom from exterior restrictions and influences.
I feel like one would have a difficult time attempting to prove that they were fired because of political beliefs, and even then most people I know would prefer to keep their political affiliations private. I cannot speak for everyone, but I feel like you would have a breach of privacy issue before an issue of being fired because you like red over blue.
I feel like one would have a difficult time attempting to prove that they were fired because of political beliefs, and even then most people I know would prefer to keep their political affiliations private. I cannot speak for everyone, but I feel like you would have a breach of privacy issue before an issue of being fired because you like red over blue.
It happens all the time. To begin, at many universities, including VU, applicants for teaching positions are required to provide a DEI statement in which they express support and offer evidence of activity advocating DEI policies inside the classroom or outside through social justice and political actions. If a candidate cannot or does not include such a statement, the application is discarded.
I was on a hiring panel where a good friend and one of the most respected professors at VU actually warned committee members that he thought one of the interviewed candidates "might be a Republican." I can't imagine the predicament of someone undergoing the promotion or tenure process who has openly acknowledged voting for Trump. Also, remember that being denied tenure is the equivalent of being fired.
That is absolutely absurd that someone has to advocate through prior actions, in regards to DEI. I fully get and understand that Professors need to be on the lookout for discrimination that might occur in their classrooms, but advocating is a completely different beast. In my role, I am on board with our enterprise DEI objectives, to make sure that our hiring is representative of the talent communities and locations that we hire, as well as how it impacts our end product in providing a more diverse selection of channels for folks to listen, but that doesn't mean I need to be out there advocating in my personal time.
Here is an example of DEI expectations from academic job applicants in required diversity statements by colleges as outlined by the University of Pennsylvania:
DEI is another nail in the coffin of what used to be a great academic system. As with many other historical endeavors it started on a glorious path of good intentions and slowly and steadily steered toward intellectual Hell. I myself am guilty for not seeing the writing on the wall decades ago.
And then came the revelation. I found myself one day thinking: this person was pushed back on the candidate lists for the job because of a certain biological organ. And from that moment I committed to never be in a hiring committee ever again (not that will there be a need for one anytime soon, the way things go here)
Very interesting story from The Torch on cost cutting and future campus changes:
https://www.valpotorch.com/news/article_391fcf90-0920-11ef-8323-53edda1cf043.html
It's pushing my nostalgia buttons to read that Lankenau, Scheele, and Meier Halls will be demolished. I had more classes in Meier than any other VU building.
