Abigail Thompson: Diversity statements are not “political litmus tests”

Diversity statements reflect job applicants’s commitment to equal access to education

UC Students deserve professors, lecturers and other university professionals who understand who we are. We are a diverse student body, made up of people from myriad races, ethnicities, religions, nationalities, sexualities and genders. The people who are at this university, who teach us and guide us, should be vocally committed to advancing diversity at all levels.

Abigail Thompson, chair of the UC Davis Mathematics Department, sees things differently, as represented in two recent op-eds in American Mathematical Society Notices and the Wall Street Journal, in which she rallies against mandatory “Diversity Statements” in the UC’s hiring process. She amounted these diversity statements to nothing more than “a political test with teeth.”

The Editorial Board resoundingly objects to this argument.

There’s an issue here: Diversity should not be seen as political. The realities facing students because of their intersectional identities are only political because there has been a concerted effort for generations — conducted by politicians and other powerful individuals in this country and elsewhere — to systematically discriminate and subjugate us. 

As the UC Davis Principles of Community say, “We acknowledge that our society carries within it historical and deep-rooted injustices and biases.” The scourge of racism, gender-based violence, white nationalism and xenophobia are ever-present in our lives, especially in recent years. We have seen multiple incidents of overt racism and anti-Semitism on this campus, as white nationalist propoganda has been posted multiple times over the past two years.

In this environment, equal access to education is at risk. Mandatory statements that describe an applicant’s commitment to diversity help preserve and maintain access to a UC education for all.

The history of education in this country is replete with moments where a lack of understanding of diversity has prevented access to schooling. It was only in 1954 that the U.S. Supreme Court mandated public schools to desegregate, a process that continues to this day — such as in one town in Mississippi that was ordered to desegregate its schools in 2016.

To this end, we will admit that maybe diversity is political — but it is only political because the only way we can end discrimination is through our politicial systems. When we give equal weight to two different arguments — one saying that diversity is good and must be mandatorily advanced, and another one that says that it should be done passively — we are faced with a moral fallacy. 

A commitment to upholding diversity actively in the UC system is a moral good. “True commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion is active and not passive,” said Chancellor Gary May and Vice Chancellor Renetta Garrison Tull in a response to Thompson’s op-eds. We agree. Passive action won’t right the injustices that minorities and other marginalized populations have experienced throughout history, especially in the U.S. — a stance that Thompson advocated for by saying that “encouraging students from all backgrounds to enter the mathematics pipeline” would be enough to improve diversity in mathematics.

Thompson, hear it from students at your own university: Support diversity actively and brazenly. Contributing to diversity means that a candidate is intrinsically more qualified for a position at this university.