Exclusion by Inclusion: HigherEdJobs.com
Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius “The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.”
by Mark Ousley, June 11, 2022
Recently, I’ve been working on a project to prove or disprove the existence of politically motivated discrimination in higher education and whether or not such practices are result of the relatively new incursion of Critical Race Theory devoted offices of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. When I started this project, there was one fact I had to contend with:
Fact: Higher Education has an overwhelming left of center, “critical social justice” oriented bias.1
This fact gave way to a few questions:
Question 1: Since Higher Education is already overwhelmingly biased toward one political viewpoint, is there even a need for CRT/DEI motivated discrimination in Higher Ed? If the answer to this question is no, then I could probably assume that my efforts are the inverse of the CRT requirement to find racism in every situation, no matter the situation, and just call it a day and move on.
But as we have seen in cases like that of Professor Charles Negy, out of The University of Central Florida, holding a “left of center bias” does not offer protection against the onslaught of the ever expanding power of the higher ed., Critical Social Justice Inquisition. Dr. Negy was a tenured, liberal, gay man of part-Hispanic decent, and despite these presumed intersectional protections, he was quickly fired for stepping outside of the recently approved lines of academic freedom and discourse.
Cases like Dr. Negy’s made clear to anyone employed in higher education that there are two choices — toe the line or walk the plank — and given the relatively low number of tenured professors who have been willing to stand up to similar DEI motivated mandates in the last two years, it would appear that this message was clearly received. Those who might have a “left of center” bias but also disagree with DEI’s attack on academic freedom have been forced to toe the line and are doing so.
Which brings me to my next two questions…
Question 2: If there is CRT/DEI motivated discrimination against those who like Dr. Negy, might dissent, where would it live?
Question 3: Where could I find proof of it?
Surprisingly, the answers to these questions were easier to find then you would think.
The Algorithm Giveth… “Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius”
One day, after listening to a YouTube video I had selected to play in the background while doing some research, a video of a question and answer session of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia popped up. I had barely noticed the change until he uttered the Latin phrase “Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius” and recited it’s legal definition:
Thanks to months of the looped narrative spouted by CRT apologists and leftist talking heads, I had no choice but to remember that Critical Race Theory is an outgrowth of Critical Legal Studies, studied by “graduate law students.” With this insight into the legal definition of the word “Inclusion,” I could see the answer right in plain sight: Diversity, Equity, and INCLUSION.
This revelation led me to the source of where one finds themselves either included or excluded in any official organization:
Hiring.
Given my own experiences applying for jobs in higher education, I knew that the ‘inclusion” of a DEI statement in the application process had become common practice. But due to the ambiguity of the results that come from hiring processes, especially in higher education, I thought finding proof of discrimination in hiring would be next to impossible. Little did I know that I would be both pleasantly and unpleasantly surprised with how easy the it would be to find that proof.
HigherEdJobs.com
For well over a year i’ve used the website HigherEdJobs.com to search for university positions in my field. Although I had seen the ominous circled “D” that indicated a DEI focused position, there was no indication that this designation came directly from the institution itself (as opposed to the website) or that the designation applied to any position outside of DEI offices. But then I made a fortuitous decision: I clicked the “receive DEI emails option” in my account preferences tab and low and behold, the well spring of evidence of explicit discrimination in job marketing and hiring practices was unleashed.
Every day I am now treated to a host of jobs listings, representing nearly every academic field, in every state, and area of higher education, from public and private institutions alike, that explicitly exclude in the name of “inclusion” anyone who will not accept CRT/DEI as unquestionable moral law in their teaching or work practices.
The emails from HigherEdJobs.com also go the extra mile to make sure we all know who is responsible for the DEI designation:
“The colleges and universities that posted these jobs want you to know that they are seeking a diverse workforce and are actively recruiting candidates in accordance with diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity offices.”
It must be noted that instead of employing the word “Equity,” the emails use the term “equal opportunity,” despite the fact that most, if not all of the institutions posting positions have “Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion” offices, not the inverse as noted by the website. The reason for this cannot be more transparent. “Equity” and “Equal Opportunity” have proved to have diametrically opposed definitions, regardless of the fact that the word “equity” still graces the doors and ethos of every DEI office. Because of this, universities and HigherEdJobs.com are now leaning hard on the word “inclusion” hoping that we won’t notice that the legal definition and inherent exclusion of that word is in full force in these job postings.
The simple designation of a job posting as “inclusive” of one group, designates that job posting as exclusionary of another group, whether or not the out-group is clearly defined. Professor Negy’s situation illustrates perfectly that despite the insistence that these colleges and universities are claiming to seek “diversity” of skin color, sexual preference, or sex, they are explicitly seeking to exclude diversity of thought, viewpoint, and discourse in favor of those who share DEI’s predetermined and politically defined ideology.
Exclusion via Inclusion as a practice in job postings is a preemptive strike on equal opportunity. If we wish to have a truly free and open society, we must all decry this purposeful manipulation as morally reprehensible and demand the courts call it what it is: illegal discrimination in higher education hiring practices.
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_faculty