The University of California revives Cold War loyalty oaths as DEI statements 

Dr. J.D. Haltigan is a development psychology professor whose research in adolescent psychopathology—mental health disorders—spans more than a decade and includes over 60 publications. Today, he is the height of his career, and with climbing rates of anxiety, isolation, and suicide among today’s youth, J.D. Feels his work has never been more crucial.

Instead of embracing his skills and merits, however, universities are giving him the Cold War treatment, with modern-day loyalty oaths, cloaked as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statements.

In practice, J.D. must choose between a political ideology he disagrees with and his free speech rights—just to apply for a professorship.

“It’s appalling to me,” J.D. says. “Shouldn’t we be judged on our professional accomplishments and merits rather than our ability to regurgitate their strictures?”

From 2016 until earlier this year, J.D. was a University of Toronto faculty member. His position was fulfilling but non-tenured, and he had been working remotely from his home in Pittsburgh, so he began applying elsewhere.

“Positions in academia are hard to come by,” says J.D. “Many of the skills I’ve developed are now coming to fruition. I just want the opportunity to continue to make a living doing what I’ve been trained to do.”

As J.D. searched for positions that suited his work advancing mental health research and nurturing psychopathology’s next generation, an opening at the University of California–Santa Cruz looked like an ideal fit. Until he saw the application requirements.

Like all schools in California’s university system, UC–Santa Cruz requires written DEI statements to identify applicants who are committed to the administration’s favored perspective on racial justice and share its political ideology.

J.D. was not surprised. He had previously run into many similar requirements at other universities and was disgusted to the point that he drafted his own statement and posted it on his Substack newsletter.

His statement, titled “Against the Use of DEI Statements in Faculty Job Searches,” declares his commitment to colorblind inclusivity, viewpoint diversity, and merit-based evaluation. It also explains how teaching and mentoring students from all backgrounds for more than a decade has cultivated his “deep appreciation of the importance of a sensitivity to the social and cultural factors that shape human development.”

Nevertheless, J.D.’s hand-crafted DEI statement would never pass muster under UC–Santa Cruz’s explicit writing guidelines and recommended opinions to espouse. Applicants must agree that treating people differently based on their race or sex is desirable, for example, and low scores are specifically promised for applicants who believe race and sex should not be used to judge individuals.

In other words, job prospects must agree—or pretend to agree—with the university’s DEI positions having nothing to do with the university’s mission, academic standards, or the job itself just to pass an initial screening.

J.D. refuses to swear false fealty to a preferred viewpoint on race just to be vetted for a job. Nor will he recant or muzzle his views to conform to the university’s dictates. But he won’t give up his career without a fight.

“I will push back, and I have no apologies for doing so,” he says. “This is forced speech, and it’s ridiculous.”

It’s also unconstitutional. Public universities cannot prioritize political ideologies over the principles of free speech through the hiring process. No one should have to forfeit their right to free expression to apply for a government job.

Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, J.D. is fighting back with a federal lawsuit to restore his right to seek a university job based on his merits, not illegal application conditions.

“The use of DEI statements in hiring sends a clear message to applicants: those who reject DEI orthodoxy will not be considered for a position at UC–Santa Cruz,” explains PLF attorney Wilson Freeman. “The Supreme Court repeatedly struck down similar forms of unconstitutional compelled speech based on Cold War fears in previous years. Courts should recognize that UC’s hiring process poses the exact same threat to liberty.”

J.D. adds that the stakes in his fight stretch far beyond his own job prospects. He believes universities are no longer invested in discovering the truth, and he has seen too many colleagues fired or forced to resign because their personal views differed from those of their employers. Then there are the students.

“I have students of all identities and backgrounds who just want to be in merit-based environments where they can compete. That’s what’s keeping me in the game,” declares J.D. “Our institutions are being lost completely. You can either just passively sit by, or you can push back.”