An Ideological Screening Tool? DEI Statements 'Do' Matter for Faculty Hiring, Evaluations. Issue Brief
Saved in:
| Title: | An Ideological Screening Tool? DEI Statements 'Do' Matter for Faculty Hiring, Evaluations. Issue Brief |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Nathan Honeycutt, Manhattan Institute (MI) |
| Source: | Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 2025. |
| Availability: | Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Tel: 212-599-7000; Fax: 212-599-3494; Web site: http://www.manhattan-institute.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Diversity Equity and Inclusion, Higher Education, College Faculty, Tenure, Position Papers, Teacher Attitudes, Ideology, State Legislation, Teacher Selection, Diversity (Faculty), Screening Tests |
| Abstract: | Diversity, 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. 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. In 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 as an 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. |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | ED676151 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED676151 Name: ERIC Full Text Category: fullText Text: Full Text from ERIC |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED676151 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Report PubTypeId: report PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: An Ideological Screening Tool? DEI Statements 'Do' Matter for Faculty Hiring, Evaluations. Issue Brief – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nathan+Honeycutt%22">Nathan Honeycutt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Manhattan+Institute+%28MI%29%22">Manhattan Institute (MI)</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Manhattan+Institute+for+Policy+Research%22"><i>Manhattan Institute for Policy Research</i></searchLink>. 2025. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Tel: 212-599-7000; Fax: 212-599-3494; Web site: http://www.manhattan-institute.org – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: N – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Reports - Evaluative – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diversity+Equity+and+Inclusion%22">Diversity Equity and Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tenure%22">Tenure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Position+Papers%22">Position Papers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ideology%22">Ideology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Legislation%22">State Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Selection%22">Teacher Selection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diversity+%28Faculty%29%22">Diversity (Faculty)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Screening+Tests%22">Screening Tests</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Diversity, 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. 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. In 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 as an 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. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: ERIC – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED676151 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED676151 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Diversity Equity and Inclusion Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: College Faculty Type: general – SubjectFull: Tenure Type: general – SubjectFull: Position Papers Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Ideology Type: general – SubjectFull: State Legislation Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Selection Type: general – SubjectFull: Diversity (Faculty) Type: general – SubjectFull: Screening Tests Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: An Ideological Screening Tool? DEI Statements 'Do' Matter for Faculty Hiring, Evaluations. Issue Brief Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Manhattan Institute (MI) – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Nathan Honeycutt IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 03 Type: published Y: 2025 Titles: – TitleFull: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
