I agree with you that it is administration signaling. It is performative to the highest degree. If I was defending them, I would say, look, you're getting somebody to say something about what they can bring diversity wise. And of course, people are going to make stuff up and they're going to try to game it or they'll be coached. They're doing that for like a large percentage of their application anyway. Doing it for another thing is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. But that's my view on that.
A VBW exclusive report! For years David and Tamler have been a little dismissive of fears about cancel culture in academia but now the SJWs have come for one of our own! We welcome back Yoel Inbar to talk about his experience applying for a position at UCLA psychology only to have his candidacy pulled at the last minute because of remarks he made on his podcast (!) about diversity statements. What does this mean for freedom of expression in academia? Should we advise our students and younger faculty to watch what they say when it comes to politically charged topics? Are they really going to start combing through podcast episodes now – is nothing sacred?
Plus another case of fraud in psychology comes to light courtesy of the Data Colada guys.
Data Colada post about Gino fraud
Sponsored by: