The University of California has stopped requiring diversity statements, earning mixed reactions
Administrators of the University of California higher educational system on Wednesday eliminated an element of its hiring process that required job applicants to submit diversity statements, reported the Los Angeles Times.
This change affects multiple campuses affiliated with the University of California, including UCLA, UC-Berkeley and UC-Irvine, among others.
Under the previous requirement, job seekers had to submit essays describing their commitment to and previous work supporting diversity in their fields, including in matters of race, gender and sexual orientation. The requirement dates back to the early 2000s, though it went mainstream in the 2010s.
'The requirement to submit a diversity statement may lead applicants to focus on an aspect of their candidacy that is outside their expertise or prior experience,' wrote Katherine Newman, UC provost, in a letter published Wednesday.
'Our values and commitment to our mission have not changed,' announced Janet Reilly, chair of the University of California Board of Regents. 'We can continue to effectively serve our communities from a variety of life experiences, backgrounds and points of view without requiring diversity statements.'
Reactions to the change have been mixed. The diversity statement requirement was controversial during its time, accumulating a great deal of negative media attention and even a lawsuit.
Some Californians are pleased by the change. The Hill reported that UC-Berkeley rejected 76% of qualified applicants solely because of their diversity statements in 2020. Professors disparaged the diversity statement as a political 'loyalty oath' or 'litmus test.'
'Rather than helping achieve inclusion, these DEI rubrics act as a filter for those with nonconforming views,' wrote UC-Davis mathematics professor Abigail Thompson.
Other Californians were upset by the change. Brian Soucek, a UC-Davis law professor and longtime diversity advocate, told the Los Angeles Times that he believes the removal of the statement is a capitulation to the Trump administration.
'It can only be explained as an attempt at advanced appeasement of the Trump administration's current threats,' Soucek said. 'There is nothing else that possibly motivates this change in general or this change being done in this particular way at the current moment.'
It is possible that financial tensions may underscore the University of California's decision. The state of California recently announced an 8% budget cut to the University of California school system, per the National Review.
This, combined with the federal government's new policy preventing federally funded schools from using racial preferences as a factor affecting admissions, students and faculty, may have played a role in ending the diversity statement requirement at the University of California.
'Schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools, may no longer make decisions or operate programs based on race or race stereotypes in any of these categories or they risk losing access to federal funds,' stated the Department of Education in a press release.
The University of California is not the first institution to comply with the Trump administration's effort to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion-based hiring and admissions.
Other universities have:
Scrubbed language like 'bias,' 'racism,' 'gender' and 'women' from their databases.
Eliminated DEI offices and programming, including centers for belonging, which are common at universities.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'You Wussed Out': David Mamet Reveals Trump's 20-Minute Call After He Committed A MAGA Sin
Pulitzer Prize-winning screenwriter David Mamet has recalled once receiving a lengthy phone call from Donald Trump after he dared not to go all in on the then-former president's 2020 election conspiracy theories. Trump loyalist Mamet, appearing on Bill Maher's 'Club Random Podcast' this week, remembered being 'kind of iffy' about whether the election had been stolen from Trump during an appearance on Maher's HBO show, 'Real Time.' At 8 a.m. the following day, the Hollywood veteran said he received a call from Trump who told him: 'I saw you on Bill Maher yesterday, you were great. But you wussed out on the question of the stolen election.' Trump then 'talked to me for like 20 minutes about how the election was stolen,' Mamet told Maher. 'But it wasn't,' Maher reminded him. Mamet, a yearslong vocal critic of progressive causes who has called former President Barack Obama a 'tyrant' and described diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as 'garbage,' responded: 'Well, I think it was.' Maher noted how the claim that the election was rigged for now-former President Joe Biden has fallen flat in dozens of court cases, been dismissed by Trump's own commissioners and analysts have described the 2020 vote as 'the most fair, honest election we've ever had.' Mamet argued Trump would have won by a majority had various issues not been suppressed. 'Oh, please. That's so ridiculous,' said Maher, who doubted they would have swung the result. Watch from the 5:30 point here: Critics Cackle Over Mike Johnson's Awkward Confession About Elon Musk Phone Call Cringe Karoline Leavitt Clip Perfectly Sums Up Trump's White House, Say Critics Critics Gasp At Trump Official's 'The Thing That Matters' Declaration

Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed U.S. automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidize their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double U.S. capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognizing its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it. ____ Ashley Nunes is a senior research associate at Harvard Law School. ___
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wastewater helping track spread of measles in GA
As measles cases continue to rise across the US, researchers are now using sewage wastewater to track the virus. It's testing similar to what scientists did during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sewage was tested for virus particles that helped identify early signs of increasing transmission. Measles cases could potentially be identified days before people show symptoms or have to go to a doctor. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] The new program is available for use at dozens of wastewater treatment plants in 40 states. In Georgia, they'll be testing in College Park and Columbus. In Fulton County, they'll be testing at Big Creek, Johns Creek, and Little River facilities. And in Atlanta, they'll be testing at R.M. Clayton, South River, and Utoy Creek facilities. As of Wednesday, nearly 1,100 measles cases have been reported in the US, with three deaths confirmed. In Georgia, there have not been any confirmed cases since May 19, and up until that date, there were four cases so far this year in Georgia. TRENDING STORIES: Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries set to go into effect Monday Case of mistaken identity ends with young mother killed in alleged Atlanta gang shooting Doorbell camera captures man dragging dog down street in Fulton County [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]