Remember when the idea of a university requiring a loyalty oath would have been abhorrent to… well, almost everyone? Well, not any more. Excerpt:
The University of California has published a loving, celebratory timeline describing the reaction among faculty and the ultimate repeal of the loyalty oath. Loyalty oaths were very, very bad, back then.
But loyalty oaths are back again, and this time, according to the progressive deep thinkers, they are good. Because it is not loyalty to the United States, but rather loyalty to the ideology of “diversity” that is being demanded. Christian Schneider writes in the New York Post:
Consider the University of California, Los Angeles. To be considered for tenure-track positions, applicants are required to write a full statement outlining their commitment to diversity. According to UCLA guidelines, the extent to which a professor promotes equity, diversity and inclusion is a key factor in making progress on the tenure track.
Promoting these ideals “is inseparable from how the University of California conceives of ‘merit,’ ” the school says. UC Riverside, UC San Diego and UC Berkeley all require similar diversity statements.
I cannot interpret this as anything other than an elevation of loyalty to the same or higher level than merit in making decisions about faculty careers. “Diversity” as an ideology requires subordinating excellence to identity group status in making decisions about a person’s fate. This is why Asian-American organizations are suing Harvard.
China, under Mao Tse-tung, faced exactly this question, phrased at the time as “Red vs. expert.” In the Cultural Revolution, it was decreed that “Red” – meaning ideological loyalty to Mao’s Little Red Book – was more important than expertise, in other words, actual professional competence, in appointing officials to be in charge of important public matters.
My initial reaction to this is simply “fuck off, slavers” but the very fact that this is happening should be horrifying to anyone with any capacity for independent thought, which is apparently no longer a requirement for tenure-track positions at UCLA.
One of the worst things about this particular species of idiocy is the shallow falseness of their commitment to “diversity.” What UCLA is looking for is not “diversity” in any meaningful sense; the very concept of a loyalty oath illustrates that very plainly. They are looking for diversity in melanin content and sexual preference, but what they absolutely will not tolerate under any circumstances is the one thing a university should take great pains to provide: Intellectual diversity.
No instructor with any self-awareness should accept this requirement. No professor worthy of the title should take this oath. “Go to hell” is the only appropriate response to such a demand.