Dei in universities will continue despite respect for Trump policies – the County Orange register

After the executive orders and the threats of President Trump aimed at putting an end to the policies of diversity, equity and inclusion in universities across the country, many institutions have apparently fallen online. Among them are among the most prestigious and famous liberals, notably Columbia, Rutgers, the University of Michigan and the University of California.

Many has been said about how these universities and institutions “fold the knee” in the power of submission of Trump. For those who do not know the functioning of the academic world, it may seem that Dei is quickly rubbed from our colleges – Trump keeps his promise to end the madness generated by the liberal fixation on diversity and social justice.

I have either good news or bad news depending on the type of reaction that you have to see Snow White transformed into a person of the Chief person: Dei in most universities is not going.

Despite what the presidents of universities say in their press releases, their faculty will not stop using hiring and admission practices. It has been shown in the past that attempts to stop diversity policies simply lead to job and admission committees to find bypass.

After positive action has become illegal in California in the 1990s, the UC system and other universities simply adopted policies such as the elimination of standardized test requirements and taking into account the performance of the applicant’s original high school.

Returning to this current wave of anti-divide initiatives established by the administration, even if universities do not have DEI hiring policies and even if they explicitly prohibit the considerations of IT during hiring or admissions, Dei will almost certainly remain a consideration.

Existing teachers and hiring committees do not need to entrust a DEI hiring policy to adopt theirs. It is not necessary that they discuss their diversity program between them or expressly plan to hire a person of particular origin. They already know what they want and they will hire and admit accordingly.

Could this be resolved by holding universities responsible for their inability to comply? Potential teachers should be encouraged to continue perhaps, like a case last year which quoted Eugene Volokh, a white man, transmitted by Northwestern in favor of Destiny Peery, a black woman.

Prosecutions like these often fail because it is extremely difficult to prove that discrimination based on breed has played a role in not receiving a job offer. In fact, it may be even more difficult to prove whether universities have no explicit practices such as asking candidates for diversity, which Trump policies suppress.

The departments receive hundreds if not thousands of requests. At the university professors level, candidates are often difficult to distinguish in terms of qualifications where it would be quite difficult for someone to maintain that their history distinguishes them very clearly, in particular whose quality of the publications of a candidate and Alma Mater are not considered.

They take into account anything about how the person seems to meet the specialization needs of the department to expect that he expects the candidate to be poache by another university how much someone seems “nice” during an interview. These are all perfectly acceptable reasons that can be cited in court.