College alumni groups spread nationally to counter ‘cancel culture’ (WaPo)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's not really "academic freedom" though. Maybe he should leave his politics out of the workplace.

And maybe student to keep her sign out of the world heritage site.

It is a living, functioning site and she is the customer. She owns that site.

Head to Monticello if you want a Jeffersonian circle jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with this:

Bacon’s bottom line: Banning discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is a worthy goal. Taking extra pains to reach out to underrepresented groups for recruitment is a worthy goal (as long as standards are upheld). Making all students, of whatever background, feel welcome and comfortable is a worthy goal.

However, giving 20% weight to a professor’s personal commitment to DEI amounts to an ideological litmus test that only left-leaning professors or spineless sycophants can pass. These guidelines will drive away professors and job seekers who don’t enthusiastically embrace social-justice orthodoxy. Diversity statements are a recipe for intellectual stultification and mediocrity[b], and they have no place in a free society.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/enforcing-the-new-diversity-dogma/

On the contrary. Any professors who are driven away by allocating a fraction of their effort to DEI were probably too closed-minded and ineffectual anyway. By encouraging alternate perspectives we will end up stronger.

^ and Bacon is an idiot. It’s not 20% default weighting for DEI.

Did these dipshits actually graduate from UVA? They can’t seem to read or do basic math.

20% was for “service”. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

These whiners are crying over a small change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These groups are not actually in favor of free speech. They just don’t want anyone learning anything accurate about the history of slavery. It’s Orwellian for them to describe themselves as in favor of free speech when their only goal is to subvert free speech.

Straight up gaslighting 101.

It’s true. These cancel culture groups are trying to get courses that teach about the history of racism and slavery actually cancelled. That’s straight up Orwellian. You cannot advocate that you support free speech and try to get courses cancelled at the same time without people noticing you are basically just a fascist group trying to shut dissent.

Hint: people who truly support free speech on campus don’t spend all their time trying to suppress it.

Happens on both sides, but you know that already.

Only one side is starting cancel culture groups while simultaneously trying to cancel courses so no, it’s not both sides.

DP. Talk about disingenuous. Liberal groups refuse to even allow conservative speakers to speak, and you’re calling yourselves the “party of free speech”? What a joke. A really terrible joke.

You can “speak” and spew your idiocy all you like. No one whatsoever owes you a platform or a microphone. Next!

Right back atcha - in spades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. These MAGAs are planning to trash UVA.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/year-end-uva-update-from-bert-ellis/

I’m so glad you posted this - if this is what you think of as “trashing,” there is really nothing to discuss. Everything he says is common sense, especially this:

“I just found copies of the 2021-2022 Peer Evaluation Forms and Process for University of Virginia professors. I have attached copies here and here. Please note the prominence of DEI issues within the evaluations. There is even a special appendix on DEI examples to use in the evaluation. It is readily apparent that no professor can possibly get a good evaluation and obtain tenure or even a raise in salary if he/she does not pledge total allegiance to DEI and can itemize a large number of DEI initiatives on his/her part. This should not have anything to do with teaching math, science, business or other social science courses. Every Dean or Department Head now has a DEI officer who has co-oversight on the peer review process.”

He is absolutely correct. I hope this DEI nonsense which has infected all aspects of college (and corporate) life is reined in. That you seem to want to see everything through the DEI lens only identifies exactly who you are.

Lies. DEI is one bullet point under a whole list of criteria for each section.

Sounds like the old, white professors are worried that they might need to enter the 21st century.

And there are tons of TRASH ideas:
>Spouting idiotic campaign propaganda about Youngkin "not brainwashing them with the Woke/CRT/DEI mantras".
>Pushing to replace the Board with MAGA losers to "reverse the path to Wokeness".
>Denigrating courses in race/gender as "courses that exist for no other purpose but to make a big deal about race and gender and other issues that can only create more oppressed parties trying to tear down anything and everything and everyone that helped create our University" - WTAF?

I'm appalled that this MAGA loser is on the board of UVA.

Speaking of losers... you seem to have issues. Deep issues. You've spammed this thread over and over with your unhinged rants... move along. Find a hobby.
DP

Sad. Can’t address any of the points I made so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

Fact: Ellis and Youngkin plan to trash UVA with their bigoted agenda.

Yes, there it is, that delicious angst! It's like you wallowed in your misery all night and rose to the day bitter and looking to denigrate any and all not in your miserable echo chamber. Hopefully it didn't ruin your $6.00 cup of Starbucks but looking forward to poking your miserable arse all day for pure amusement! Thanks in advance.

Oh, sweetie, just stop. No libs we’re owned. We are laughing at you.

Nerves were struck!
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with this:

Bacon’s bottom line: Banning discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is a worthy goal. Taking extra pains to reach out to underrepresented groups for recruitment is a worthy goal (as long as standards are upheld). Making all students, of whatever background, feel welcome and comfortable is a worthy goal.

However, giving 20% weight to a professor’s personal commitment to DEI amounts to an ideological litmus test that only left-leaning professors or spineless sycophants can pass. These guidelines will drive away professors and job seekers who don’t enthusiastically embrace social-justice orthodoxy. Diversity statements are a recipe for intellectual stultification and mediocrity, and they have no place in a free society.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/enforcing-the-new-diversity-dogma/

On the contrary. Any professors who are driven away by allocating a fraction of their effort to DEI were probably too closed-minded and ineffectual anyway. By encouraging alternate perspectives we will end up stronger.

^ and Bacon is an idiot. It’s not 20% default weighting for DEI.

Did these dipshits actually graduate from UVA? They can’t seem to read or do basic math.

20% was for “service”. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

These whiners are crying over a small change.

Speaking of not being able to read or do basic math ^^^:

Evaluations of each faculty member’s “performance” will be shared with other faculty members. There is no uniform standard for weighting the scores, but if departmental reports don’t specify otherwise, the “default” mode is [b]40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% DEI.

The College’s guidance spells out what the DEI category should include. “The 2021 Faculty Annual reporting form asks all faculty to share their contributions to DEI in the following categories: teaching, advising, publications and presentations, research and grants, service, consulting, honors and awards.”

An Appendix to the guidance document delves into detail. DEI activities may include “efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service, inclusive teaching practices, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. … Recognizing that these contributions can take a variety of forms in different fields, departments need to develop discipline-appropriate expectations in each category.”

As an example, the Appendix provides an extract from a Psychology Department document. Contributions might include:

Attending town halls, serving on diversity committees, and participating in DEI workshops.
Supporting the Diversifying Psychology Visit Day.
Recruiting underrepresented minority students.
Facilitating inclusion in the classroom “with particular attention to students who hold marginalized identities.”
Designing courses that facilitate inclusion.
Creating syllabi that highlight the contributions of underrepresented groups and offer multicultural perspective.
Bringing in outside speakers to advance discussions of DEI.
Community activism.

“This list is by no means exhaustive,” states the Psychology Department guidelines.

The Appendix gives other examples. Contributions include teaching practices that “allow all students to see their demographic group positively represented in the coursework”; embedding DEI in research/scholarship practices — “methods, results, etc.”; and embedding DEI in outside service activities.

That’s the guidance. The dean’s office also put into place measures to ensure that the guidelines are followed. The first business of the peer evaluation committees, says the guidance, should be to discuss how participants deal with conflicts of interest and to “review possible biases that could affect the review.”

What kind of biases might the document be referring to? “The departmental DDEI (director of diversity, equity & inclusion) should be called upon to direct this discussion.”

[Anonymous]

This is interesting (and sickening). Good for this librarian for speaking up.

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/how-not-to-create-a-diverse-welcoming-workplace/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with this:

Bacon’s bottom line: Banning discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is a worthy goal. Taking extra pains to reach out to underrepresented groups for recruitment is a worthy goal (as long as standards are upheld). Making all students, of whatever background, feel welcome and comfortable is a worthy goal.

However, giving 20% weight to a professor’s personal commitment to DEI amounts to an ideological litmus test that only left-leaning professors or spineless sycophants can pass. These guidelines will drive away professors and job seekers who don’t enthusiastically embrace social-justice orthodoxy. Diversity statements are a recipe for intellectual stultification and mediocrity, and they have no place in a free society.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/enforcing-the-new-diversity-dogma/

On the contrary. Any professors who are driven away by allocating a fraction of their effort to DEI were probably too closed-minded and ineffectual anyway. By encouraging alternate perspectives we will end up stronger.

^ and Bacon is an idiot. It’s not 20% default weighting for DEI.

Did these dipshits actually graduate from UVA? They can’t seem to read or do basic math.

20% was for “service”. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

These whiners are crying over a small change.

Speaking of not being able to read or do basic math ^^^:

Evaluations of each faculty member’s “performance” will be shared with other faculty members. There is no uniform standard for weighting the scores, but if departmental reports don’t specify otherwise, the “default” mode is 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% DEI.

The College’s guidance spells out what the DEI category should include. “The 2021 Faculty Annual reporting form asks all faculty to share their contributions to DEI in the following categories: teaching, advising, publications and presentations, research and grants, service, consulting, honors and awards.”

An Appendix to the guidance document delves into detail. DEI activities may include “efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service, inclusive teaching practices, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. … Recognizing that these contributions can take a variety of forms in different fields, departments need to develop discipline-appropriate expectations in each category.”

As an example, the Appendix provides an extract from a Psychology Department document. Contributions might include:

Attending town halls, serving on diversity committees, and participating in DEI workshops.
Supporting the Diversifying Psychology Visit Day.
Recruiting underrepresented minority students.
Facilitating inclusion in the classroom “with particular attention to students who hold marginalized identities.”
Designing courses that facilitate inclusion.
Creating syllabi that highlight the contributions of underrepresented groups and offer multicultural perspective.
Bringing in outside speakers to advance discussions of DEI.
Community activism.

“This list is by no means exhaustive,” states the Psychology Department guidelines.

The Appendix gives other examples. Contributions include teaching practices that “allow all students to see their demographic group positively represented in the coursework”; embedding DEI in research/scholarship practices — “methods, results, etc.”; and embedding DEI in outside service activities.

That’s the guidance. The dean’s office also put into place measures to ensure that the guidelines are followed. The first business of the peer evaluation committees, says the guidance, should be to discuss how participants deal with conflicts of interest and to “review possible biases that could affect the review.”

What kind of biases might the document be referring to? “The departmental DDEI (director of diversity, equity & inclusion) should be called upon to direct this discussion.”

You quoted that idiot Bacon and didn't actually look at the actual guidelines that Ellis posted:
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/2021-Peer-Review1.pdf
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Departmental-Peer-Evaluation-Guidance_2021-20221.pdf

"An explanation of the weights given to teaching, research, and service for each of your faculty members. There is no
A&S standard for weights, but if no weights are included in the report the following defaults will be used for
teaching, research, and service, respectively:
• TTT faculty: 40/40/20 "


And go look at the sample rubric. The third section is SERVICE, not DEI. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

SERVICE
Good
· Productive participation on assigned departmental
committees
· Appropriate service to the college and university
· Attendance and productive participation at department
meetings
· Normal service to the profession
· Advising
· Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion

Very good to excellent
· Chairing major departmental committees (e.g. Search or
P&T)
· Important service to the discipline (e.g. Editing journals,
MLA, ACLS committees, outside review of tenure cases,
judge for major grants, conference organization,
departmental reviews, reading for journals and presses).
· Significant contributions that help others deepen their
understanding of and find new ways to enhance diversity,
equity, and inclusion in our discipline

Fair to poor:
· Unsatisfactory performance on committees
· Uncommonly low service record for rank
· Active refusal to accept committee service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with this:

Bacon’s bottom line: Banning discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is a worthy goal. Taking extra pains to reach out to underrepresented groups for recruitment is a worthy goal (as long as standards are upheld). Making all students, of whatever background, feel welcome and comfortable is a worthy goal.

However, giving 20% weight to a professor’s personal commitment to DEI amounts to an ideological litmus test that only left-leaning professors or spineless sycophants can pass. These guidelines will drive away professors and job seekers who don’t enthusiastically embrace social-justice orthodoxy. Diversity statements are a recipe for intellectual stultification and mediocrity, and they have no place in a free society.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/enforcing-the-new-diversity-dogma/

On the contrary. Any professors who are driven away by allocating a fraction of their effort to DEI were probably too closed-minded and ineffectual anyway. By encouraging alternate perspectives we will end up stronger.

^ and Bacon is an idiot. It’s not 20% default weighting for DEI.

Did these dipshits actually graduate from UVA? They can’t seem to read or do basic math.

20% was for “service”. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

These whiners are crying over a small change.

Speaking of not being able to read or do basic math ^^^:

Evaluations of each faculty member’s “performance” will be shared with other faculty members. There is no uniform standard for weighting the scores, but if departmental reports don’t specify otherwise, the “default” mode is 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% DEI.

The College’s guidance spells out what the DEI category should include. “The 2021 Faculty Annual reporting form asks all faculty to share their contributions to DEI in the following categories: teaching, advising, publications and presentations, research and grants, service, consulting, honors and awards.”

An Appendix to the guidance document delves into detail. DEI activities may include “efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service, inclusive teaching practices, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. … Recognizing that these contributions can take a variety of forms in different fields, departments need to develop discipline-appropriate expectations in each category.”

As an example, the Appendix provides an extract from a Psychology Department document. Contributions might include:

Attending town halls, serving on diversity committees, and participating in DEI workshops.
Supporting the Diversifying Psychology Visit Day.
Recruiting underrepresented minority students.
Facilitating inclusion in the classroom “with particular attention to students who hold marginalized identities.”
Designing courses that facilitate inclusion.
Creating syllabi that highlight the contributions of underrepresented groups and offer multicultural perspective.
Bringing in outside speakers to advance discussions of DEI.
Community activism.

“This list is by no means exhaustive,” states the Psychology Department guidelines.

The Appendix gives other examples. Contributions include teaching practices that “allow all students to see their demographic group positively represented in the coursework”; embedding DEI in research/scholarship practices — “methods, results, etc.”; and embedding DEI in outside service activities.

That’s the guidance. The dean’s office also put into place measures to ensure that the guidelines are followed. The first business of the peer evaluation committees, says the guidance, should be to discuss how participants deal with conflicts of interest and to “review possible biases that could affect the review.”

What kind of biases might the document be referring to? “The departmental DDEI (director of diversity, equity & inclusion) should be called upon to direct this discussion.”

You quoted that idiot Bacon and didn't actually look at the actual guidelines that Ellis posted:
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/2021-Peer-Review1.pdf
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Departmental-Peer-Evaluation-Guidance_2021-20221.pdf

"An explanation of the weights given to teaching, research, and service for each of your faculty members. There is no
A&S standard for weights, but if no weights are included in the report the following defaults will be used for
teaching, research, and service, respectively:
• TTT faculty: 40/40/20 "


And go look at the sample rubric. The third section is SERVICE, not DEI. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

SERVICE
Good
· Productive participation on assigned departmental
committees
· Appropriate service to the college and university
· Attendance and productive participation at department
meetings
· Normal service to the profession
· Advising
· Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion

Very good to excellent
· Chairing major departmental committees (e.g. Search or
P&T)
· Important service to the discipline (e.g. Editing journals,
MLA, ACLS committees, outside review of tenure cases,
judge for major grants, conference organization,
departmental reviews, reading for journals and presses).
· Significant contributions that help others deepen their
understanding of and find new ways to enhance diversity,
equity, and inclusion in our discipline

Fair to poor:
· Unsatisfactory performance on committees
· Uncommonly low service record for rank
· Active refusal to accept committee service

Service - Leadership on DEI committees and initiatives; worked to embed DEI in service activities outside of
those identified as DEI service; new and/or sustained outreach to marginalized communities.

[Anonymous]

APPENDIX: DEI ASSESSMENT EXAMPLES
DEI activities may, for example, include efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service, inclusive
teaching practices, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. Starting in 2021 faculty will
report their DEI contributions in each of the primary areas of the faculty annual report: teaching, advising, publications
and presentation, research and grants, service, consulting, honors and awards. Recognizing that these contributions can
take a variety of forms in different fields, departments need to develop discipline-appropriate expectations in each
category.
Text adapted from the Psychology Department: These may include, but not limited to, contributing to the Department
and DDEI initiatives (attending town halls, serving on committees that advance diversity, equity, and inclusion,
supporting the Diversifying Psychology Visit Day, supporting the Diversifying Scholarship Conference, recruiting or
supporting recruitment efforts of underrepresented minority students); outreach activities with underrepresented
minority students such as mentoring (e.g., participating in the Leadership Alliance Program) or presenting at events in
the community; intentional efforts to facilitate inclusion in the classroom environment, with particular attention to
students who hold marginalized identities; acting on course evaluation comments related to classroom environment in
an effort to enhance inclusivity; designing courses that cultivate inclusion; attending trainings or workshops about
enhancing diversity, inclusion, and equity in the academy (including a focus on teaching and classroom settings);
creating/employing syllabi that highlight the research of scholars from underrepresented groups, incorporate
multicultural perspectives and content, or foster critical thinking about issues of diversity, inclusion, and equity;
supporting efforts to recruit and retain underrepresented graduate students and faculty; bringing in outside speakers for
lunch talks or colloquium to advance discussions of diversity, equity and inclusion; community activism to advance
diversity, equity, and inclusion; being a role model as a member of an underrepresented group. This list is by no means
exhaustive; these examples are included to highlight that we believe DEI engagement should be defined broadly. Our
goal is to ensure this important work, which is often invisible, is both recognized and shared across the department.
Additional examples include
• Teaching - use of inclusive teaching practices and materials that allow all students to see their demographic
group positively represented in the coursework. Positive response to DEI questions on student evaluations or
other departmental methods to evaluate teaching. Engaged in work to decrease any performance or experience
gaps in the classroom.
• Advising - list of advisees includes a diverse group of students, especially those underrepresented in the field.
Students respond positively when interactions/advising is evaluated, differences are not seen among
demographic groups.
• Publications and presentation - If applicable, not only the work that is presented but the venues to ensure
material is accessible to diverse audiences, especially those impacted by work.
• Research and grants - If applicable, actively seeks to ensure DEI broadly defined is embedded in
research/scholarship practices- methods, results, etc. Grants include DEI and broader impacts contributions.
• Service - Leadership on DEI committees and initiatives; worked to embed DEI in service activities outside of
those identified as DEI service; new and/or sustained outreach to marginalized communities.
• Consulting - collaborated with diverse groups or provided professional services to groups marginalized in your
field.
• Honors and awards - If applicable, was nominated for or received awards based on DEI work and contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with this:

Bacon’s bottom line: Banning discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is a worthy goal. Taking extra pains to reach out to underrepresented groups for recruitment is a worthy goal (as long as standards are upheld). Making all students, of whatever background, feel welcome and comfortable is a worthy goal.

However, giving 20% weight to a professor’s personal commitment to DEI amounts to an ideological litmus test that only left-leaning professors or spineless sycophants can pass. These guidelines will drive away professors and job seekers who don’t enthusiastically embrace social-justice orthodoxy. Diversity statements are a recipe for intellectual stultification and mediocrity, and they have no place in a free society.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/enforcing-the-new-diversity-dogma/

On the contrary. Any professors who are driven away by allocating a fraction of their effort to DEI were probably too closed-minded and ineffectual anyway. By encouraging alternate perspectives we will end up stronger.

^ and Bacon is an idiot. It’s not 20% default weighting for DEI.

Did these dipshits actually graduate from UVA? They can’t seem to read or do basic math.

20% was for “service”. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

These whiners are crying over a small change.

Speaking of not being able to read or do basic math ^^^:

Evaluations of each faculty member’s “performance” will be shared with other faculty members. There is no uniform standard for weighting the scores, but if departmental reports don’t specify otherwise, the “default” mode is 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% DEI.

The College’s guidance spells out what the DEI category should include. “The 2021 Faculty Annual reporting form asks all faculty to share their contributions to DEI in the following categories: teaching, advising, publications and presentations, research and grants, service, consulting, honors and awards.”

An Appendix to the guidance document delves into detail. DEI activities may include “efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service, inclusive teaching practices, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. … Recognizing that these contributions can take a variety of forms in different fields, departments need to develop discipline-appropriate expectations in each category.”

As an example, the Appendix provides an extract from a Psychology Department document. Contributions might include:

Attending town halls, serving on diversity committees, and participating in DEI workshops.
Supporting the Diversifying Psychology Visit Day.
Recruiting underrepresented minority students.
Facilitating inclusion in the classroom “with particular attention to students who hold marginalized identities.”
Designing courses that facilitate inclusion.
Creating syllabi that highlight the contributions of underrepresented groups and offer multicultural perspective.
Bringing in outside speakers to advance discussions of DEI.
Community activism.

“This list is by no means exhaustive,” states the Psychology Department guidelines.

The Appendix gives other examples. Contributions include teaching practices that “allow all students to see their demographic group positively represented in the coursework”; embedding DEI in research/scholarship practices — “methods, results, etc.”; and embedding DEI in outside service activities.

That’s the guidance. The dean’s office also put into place measures to ensure that the guidelines are followed. The first business of the peer evaluation committees, says the guidance, should be to discuss how participants deal with conflicts of interest and to “review possible biases that could affect the review.”

What kind of biases might the document be referring to? “The departmental DDEI (director of diversity, equity & inclusion) should be called upon to direct this discussion.”

You quoted that idiot Bacon and didn't actually look at the actual guidelines that Ellis posted:
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/2021-Peer-Review1.pdf
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Departmental-Peer-Evaluation-Guidance_2021-20221.pdf

"An explanation of the weights given to teaching, research, and service for each of your faculty members. There is no
A&S standard for weights, but if no weights are included in the report the following defaults will be used for
teaching, research, and service, respectively:
• TTT faculty: 40/40/20 "


And go look at the sample rubric. The third section is SERVICE, not DEI. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

SERVICE
Good
· Productive participation on assigned departmental
committees
· Appropriate service to the college and university
· Attendance and productive participation at department
meetings
· Normal service to the profession
· Advising
· Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion

Very good to excellent
· Chairing major departmental committees (e.g. Search or
P&T)
· Important service to the discipline (e.g. Editing journals,
MLA, ACLS committees, outside review of tenure cases,
judge for major grants, conference organization,
departmental reviews, reading for journals and presses).
· Significant contributions that help others deepen their
understanding of and find new ways to enhance diversity,
equity, and inclusion in our discipline

Fair to poor:
· Unsatisfactory performance on committees
· Uncommonly low service record for rank
· Active refusal to accept committee service

Service - Leadership on DEI committees and initiatives; worked to embed DEI in service activities outside of
those identified as DEI service; new and/or sustained outreach to marginalized communities.

Can't you read? DEI is one bullet point.

Here is the SERVICE section from the actual document:
3. Service. Each member of the department has a professional obligation to perform service to the department, college,
university, profession and public. Merit pay will apply to performance that exceeds normal expectations. Evaluation of
merit should be based on objective criteria including, but not limited to:
(i) the importance and time commitment required of service commitment, (ii) time given on professional obligations
including review of manuscripts, editorial board memberships and editorships, (iii) public lectures and significant pro
bono contributions to government at all levels, and (iv) awards and recognition for service.



They also added new instructions for assessing teaching performance as well as an appeals process. Are the old farts complaining about those too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with this:

Bacon’s bottom line: Banning discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is a worthy goal. Taking extra pains to reach out to underrepresented groups for recruitment is a worthy goal (as long as standards are upheld). Making all students, of whatever background, feel welcome and comfortable is a worthy goal.

However, giving 20% weight to a professor’s personal commitment to DEI amounts to an ideological litmus test that only left-leaning professors or spineless sycophants can pass. These guidelines will drive away professors and job seekers who don’t enthusiastically embrace social-justice orthodoxy. Diversity statements are a recipe for intellectual stultification and mediocrity, and they have no place in a free society.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/enforcing-the-new-diversity-dogma/

On the contrary. Any professors who are driven away by allocating a fraction of their effort to DEI were probably too closed-minded and ineffectual anyway. By encouraging alternate perspectives we will end up stronger.

^ and Bacon is an idiot. It’s not 20% default weighting for DEI.

Did these dipshits actually graduate from UVA? They can’t seem to read or do basic math.

20% was for “service”. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

These whiners are crying over a small change.

Speaking of not being able to read or do basic math ^^^:

Evaluations of each faculty member’s “performance” will be shared with other faculty members. There is no uniform standard for weighting the scores, but if departmental reports don’t specify otherwise, the “default” mode is 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% DEI.

The College’s guidance spells out what the DEI category should include. “The 2021 Faculty Annual reporting form asks all faculty to share their contributions to DEI in the following categories: teaching, advising, publications and presentations, research and grants, service, consulting, honors and awards.”

An Appendix to the guidance document delves into detail. DEI activities may include “efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service, inclusive teaching practices, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. … Recognizing that these contributions can take a variety of forms in different fields, departments need to develop discipline-appropriate expectations in each category.”

As an example, the Appendix provides an extract from a Psychology Department document. Contributions might include:

Attending town halls, serving on diversity committees, and participating in DEI workshops.
Supporting the Diversifying Psychology Visit Day.
Recruiting underrepresented minority students.
Facilitating inclusion in the classroom “with particular attention to students who hold marginalized identities.”
Designing courses that facilitate inclusion.
Creating syllabi that highlight the contributions of underrepresented groups and offer multicultural perspective.
Bringing in outside speakers to advance discussions of DEI.
Community activism.

“This list is by no means exhaustive,” states the Psychology Department guidelines.

The Appendix gives other examples. Contributions include teaching practices that “allow all students to see their demographic group positively represented in the coursework”; embedding DEI in research/scholarship practices — “methods, results, etc.”; and embedding DEI in outside service activities.

That’s the guidance. The dean’s office also put into place measures to ensure that the guidelines are followed. The first business of the peer evaluation committees, says the guidance, should be to discuss how participants deal with conflicts of interest and to “review possible biases that could affect the review.”

What kind of biases might the document be referring to? “The departmental DDEI (director of diversity, equity & inclusion) should be called upon to direct this discussion.”

You quoted that idiot Bacon and didn't actually look at the actual guidelines that Ellis posted:
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/2021-Peer-Review1.pdf
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Departmental-Peer-Evaluation-Guidance_2021-20221.pdf

"An explanation of the weights given to teaching, research, and service for each of your faculty members. There is no
A&S standard for weights, but if no weights are included in the report the following defaults will be used for
teaching, research, and service, respectively:
• TTT faculty: 40/40/20 "


And go look at the sample rubric. The third section is SERVICE, not DEI. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

SERVICE
Good
· Productive participation on assigned departmental
committees
· Appropriate service to the college and university
· Attendance and productive participation at department
meetings
· Normal service to the profession
· Advising
· Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion

Very good to excellent
· Chairing major departmental committees (e.g. Search or
P&T)
· Important service to the discipline (e.g. Editing journals,
MLA, ACLS committees, outside review of tenure cases,
judge for major grants, conference organization,
departmental reviews, reading for journals and presses).
· Significant contributions that help others deepen their
understanding of and find new ways to enhance diversity,
equity, and inclusion in our discipline

Fair to poor:
· Unsatisfactory performance on committees
· Uncommonly low service record for rank
· Active refusal to accept committee service

Service - Leadership on DEI committees and initiatives; worked to embed DEI in service activities outside of
those identified as DEI service; new and/or sustained outreach to marginalized communities.

Can't you read? DEI is one bullet point.

Here is the SERVICE section from the actual document:
3. Service. Each member of the department has a professional obligation to perform service to the department, college,
university, profession and public. Merit pay will apply to performance that exceeds normal expectations. Evaluation of
merit should be based on objective criteria including, but not limited to:
(i) the importance and time commitment required of service commitment, (ii) time given on professional obligations
including review of manuscripts, editorial board memberships and editorships, (iii) public lectures and significant pro
bono contributions to government at all levels, and (iv) awards and recognition for service.



They also added new instructions for assessing teaching performance as well as an appeals process. Are the old farts complaining about those too?

I'm thinking it's you who can't read. I posted a long and exhaustive list of what DEI comprises (within the "service" component) and what they're looking for. You chose to ignore it. Not surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is interesting (and sickening). Good for this librarian for speaking up.

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/how-not-to-create-a-diverse-welcoming-workplace/

Interesting. Sounds like what they’re pushing in our local K-12 school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with this:

Bacon’s bottom line: Banning discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is a worthy goal. Taking extra pains to reach out to underrepresented groups for recruitment is a worthy goal (as long as standards are upheld). Making all students, of whatever background, feel welcome and comfortable is a worthy goal.

However, giving 20% weight to a professor’s personal commitment to DEI amounts to an ideological litmus test that only left-leaning professors or spineless sycophants can pass. These guidelines will drive away professors and job seekers who don’t enthusiastically embrace social-justice orthodoxy. Diversity statements are a recipe for intellectual stultification and mediocrity, and they have no place in a free society.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/enforcing-the-new-diversity-dogma/

On the contrary. Any professors who are driven away by allocating a fraction of their effort to DEI were probably too closed-minded and ineffectual anyway. By encouraging alternate perspectives we will end up stronger.

^ and Bacon is an idiot. It’s not 20% default weighting for DEI.

Did these dipshits actually graduate from UVA? They can’t seem to read or do basic math.

20% was for “service”. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

These whiners are crying over a small change.

Speaking of not being able to read or do basic math ^^^:

Evaluations of each faculty member’s “performance” will be shared with other faculty members. There is no uniform standard for weighting the scores, but if departmental reports don’t specify otherwise, the “default” mode is 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% DEI.

The College’s guidance spells out what the DEI category should include. “The 2021 Faculty Annual reporting form asks all faculty to share their contributions to DEI in the following categories: teaching, advising, publications and presentations, research and grants, service, consulting, honors and awards.”

An Appendix to the guidance document delves into detail. DEI activities may include “efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service, inclusive teaching practices, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. … Recognizing that these contributions can take a variety of forms in different fields, departments need to develop discipline-appropriate expectations in each category.”

As an example, the Appendix provides an extract from a Psychology Department document. Contributions might include:

Attending town halls, serving on diversity committees, and participating in DEI workshops.
Supporting the Diversifying Psychology Visit Day.
Recruiting underrepresented minority students.
Facilitating inclusion in the classroom “with particular attention to students who hold marginalized identities.”
Designing courses that facilitate inclusion.
Creating syllabi that highlight the contributions of underrepresented groups and offer multicultural perspective.
Bringing in outside speakers to advance discussions of DEI.
Community activism.

“This list is by no means exhaustive,” states the Psychology Department guidelines.

The Appendix gives other examples. Contributions include teaching practices that “allow all students to see their demographic group positively represented in the coursework”; embedding DEI in research/scholarship practices — “methods, results, etc.”; and embedding DEI in outside service activities.

That’s the guidance. The dean’s office also put into place measures to ensure that the guidelines are followed. The first business of the peer evaluation committees, says the guidance, should be to discuss how participants deal with conflicts of interest and to “review possible biases that could affect the review.”

What kind of biases might the document be referring to? “The departmental DDEI (director of diversity, equity & inclusion) should be called upon to direct this discussion.”

You quoted that idiot Bacon and didn't actually look at the actual guidelines that Ellis posted:
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/2021-Peer-Review1.pdf
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Departmental-Peer-Evaluation-Guidance_2021-20221.pdf

"An explanation of the weights given to teaching, research, and service for each of your faculty members. There is no
A&S standard for weights, but if no weights are included in the report the following defaults will be used for
teaching, research, and service, respectively:
• TTT faculty: 40/40/20 "


And go look at the sample rubric. The third section is SERVICE, not DEI. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

SERVICE
Good
· Productive participation on assigned departmental
committees
· Appropriate service to the college and university
· Attendance and productive participation at department
meetings
· Normal service to the profession
· Advising
· Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion

Very good to excellent
· Chairing major departmental committees (e.g. Search or
P&T)
· Important service to the discipline (e.g. Editing journals,
MLA, ACLS committees, outside review of tenure cases,
judge for major grants, conference organization,
departmental reviews, reading for journals and presses).
· Significant contributions that help others deepen their
understanding of and find new ways to enhance diversity,
equity, and inclusion in our discipline

Fair to poor:
· Unsatisfactory performance on committees
· Uncommonly low service record for rank
· Active refusal to accept committee service

Service - Leadership on DEI committees and initiatives; worked to embed DEI in service activities outside of
those identified as DEI service; new and/or sustained outreach to marginalized communities.

Can't you read? DEI is one bullet point.

Here is the SERVICE section from the actual document:
3. Service. Each member of the department has a professional obligation to perform service to the department, college,
university, profession and public. Merit pay will apply to performance that exceeds normal expectations. Evaluation of
merit should be based on objective criteria including, but not limited to:
(i) the importance and time commitment required of service commitment, (ii) time given on professional obligations
including review of manuscripts, editorial board memberships and editorships, (iii) public lectures and significant pro
bono contributions to government at all levels, and (iv) awards and recognition for service.



They also added new instructions for assessing teaching performance as well as an appeals process. Are the old farts complaining about those too?

I'm thinking it's you who can't read. I posted a long and exhaustive list of what DEI comprises (within the "service" component) and what they're looking for. You chose to ignore it. Not surprised.

You mean the appendix list? Those are just examples that they included because it's a new component. That's not a list of what is required. That is a list of EXAMPLES.

I posted the actual rubric for SERVICE. DEI is one bullet point. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out as a concern under "poor" performance.


SERVICE
Good
· Productive participation on assigned departmental
committees
· Appropriate service to the college and university
· Attendance and productive participation at department
meetings
· Normal service to the profession
· Advising
· Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion

Very good to excellent
· Chairing major departmental committees (e.g. Search or
P&T)
· Important service to the discipline (e.g. Editing journals,
MLA, ACLS committees, outside review of tenure cases,
judge for major grants, conference organization,
departmental reviews, reading for journals and presses).
· Significant contributions that help others deepen their
understanding of and find new ways to enhance diversity,
equity, and inclusion in our discipline

Fair to poor:
· Unsatisfactory performance on committees
· Uncommonly low service record for rank
· Active refusal to accept committee service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with this:

Bacon’s bottom line: Banning discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is a worthy goal. Taking extra pains to reach out to underrepresented groups for recruitment is a worthy goal (as long as standards are upheld). Making all students, of whatever background, feel welcome and comfortable is a worthy goal.

However, giving 20% weight to a professor’s personal commitment to DEI amounts to an ideological litmus test that only left-leaning professors or spineless sycophants can pass. These guidelines will drive away professors and job seekers who don’t enthusiastically embrace social-justice orthodoxy. Diversity statements are a recipe for intellectual stultification and mediocrity, and they have no place in a free society.

https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/enforcing-the-new-diversity-dogma/

On the contrary. Any professors who are driven away by allocating a fraction of their effort to DEI were probably too closed-minded and ineffectual anyway. By encouraging alternate perspectives we will end up stronger.

^ and Bacon is an idiot. It’s not 20% default weighting for DEI.

Did these dipshits actually graduate from UVA? They can’t seem to read or do basic math.

20% was for “service”. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

These whiners are crying over a small change.

Speaking of not being able to read or do basic math ^^^:

Evaluations of each faculty member’s “performance” will be shared with other faculty members. There is no uniform standard for weighting the scores, but if departmental reports don’t specify otherwise, the “default” mode is 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% DEI.

The College’s guidance spells out what the DEI category should include. “The 2021 Faculty Annual reporting form asks all faculty to share their contributions to DEI in the following categories: teaching, advising, publications and presentations, research and grants, service, consulting, honors and awards.”

An Appendix to the guidance document delves into detail. DEI activities may include “efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service, inclusive teaching practices, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. … Recognizing that these contributions can take a variety of forms in different fields, departments need to develop discipline-appropriate expectations in each category.”

As an example, the Appendix provides an extract from a Psychology Department document. Contributions might include:

Attending town halls, serving on diversity committees, and participating in DEI workshops.
Supporting the Diversifying Psychology Visit Day.
Recruiting underrepresented minority students.
Facilitating inclusion in the classroom “with particular attention to students who hold marginalized identities.”
Designing courses that facilitate inclusion.
Creating syllabi that highlight the contributions of underrepresented groups and offer multicultural perspective.
Bringing in outside speakers to advance discussions of DEI.
Community activism.

“This list is by no means exhaustive,” states the Psychology Department guidelines.

The Appendix gives other examples. Contributions include teaching practices that “allow all students to see their demographic group positively represented in the coursework”; embedding DEI in research/scholarship practices — “methods, results, etc.”; and embedding DEI in outside service activities.

That’s the guidance. The dean’s office also put into place measures to ensure that the guidelines are followed. The first business of the peer evaluation committees, says the guidance, should be to discuss how participants deal with conflicts of interest and to “review possible biases that could affect the review.”

What kind of biases might the document be referring to? “The departmental DDEI (director of diversity, equity & inclusion) should be called upon to direct this discussion.”

You quoted that idiot Bacon and didn't actually look at the actual guidelines that Ellis posted:
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/2021-Peer-Review1.pdf
https://thejeffersoncouncil.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Departmental-Peer-Evaluation-Guidance_2021-20221.pdf

"An explanation of the weights given to teaching, research, and service for each of your faculty members. There is no
A&S standard for weights, but if no weights are included in the report the following defaults will be used for
teaching, research, and service, respectively:
• TTT faculty: 40/40/20 "


And go look at the sample rubric. The third section is SERVICE, not DEI. DEI was one of six categories for “service”. And lacking DEI efforts isn’t even called out under poor performance.

SERVICE
Good
· Productive participation on assigned departmental
committees
· Appropriate service to the college and university
· Attendance and productive participation at department
meetings
· Normal service to the profession
· Advising
· Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion

Very good to excellent
· Chairing major departmental committees (e.g. Search or
P&T)
· Important service to the discipline (e.g. Editing journals,
MLA, ACLS committees, outside review of tenure cases,
judge for major grants, conference organization,
departmental reviews, reading for journals and presses).
· Significant contributions that help others deepen their
understanding of and find new ways to enhance diversity,
equity, and inclusion in our discipline

Fair to poor:
· Unsatisfactory performance on committees
· Uncommonly low service record for rank
· Active refusal to accept committee service

Service - Leadership on DEI committees and initiatives; worked to embed DEI in service activities outside of
those identified as DEI service; new and/or sustained outreach to marginalized communities.

Can't you read? DEI is one bullet point.

Here is the SERVICE section from the actual document:
3. Service. Each member of the department has a professional obligation to perform service to the department, college,
university, profession and public. Merit pay will apply to performance that exceeds normal expectations. Evaluation of
merit should be based on objective criteria including, but not limited to:
(i) the importance and time commitment required of service commitment, (ii) time given on professional obligations
including review of manuscripts, editorial board memberships and editorships, (iii) public lectures and significant pro
bono contributions to government at all levels, and (iv) awards and recognition for service.



They also added new instructions for assessing teaching performance as well as an appeals process. Are the old farts complaining about those too?

I'm thinking it's you who can't read. I posted a long and exhaustive list of what DEI comprises (within the "service" component) and what they're looking for. You chose to ignore it. Not surprised.

The long list are examples of types of things you could demonstrate that you meet DEI aspect of the service requirement (which is a relatively small component of overall evaluation) not an exhaustive list of what you have to do. The variety is actually really refreshing and shows that DEI is just a part of providing service to your whole community--not some prescribed thing to do. I honestly can't see how a reasonable person who have a problem with the idea that a professor needs to show that they do some things that supports the inclusion of their diverse (paying!) students!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UVA person is the guy who drove down to the school to harass a kid at her door because he didn’t like that a sign she hung up with some grievances about the school. He had a box cutter and security told him he couldn’t cut down her sign because that would violate her free speech.

His letter about his issue with the sign was posted to the UVA parent Facebook and people were horrified. He and his friends seem to spend a lot of time writing about their own grievances.

The only “free speech” these people believe in is their own.

Yup, Bert Ellis. Attempted to intimidate a student and cut down her poster. Now appointed to UVA’s board.

You left out this part:

“Ellis has said the Jefferson Council supports the student’s right to say or post anything, but not on the Lawn that Thomas Jefferson designed, a part of U-Va. designated as a World Heritage Site.”

Why shouldn’t she be able to? It’s not like she was defacing it, it was a sign, not graffiti.

Should everyone be able to completely cover the Rotunda with their free speech post-it notes?