Universities now requiring loyalty oaths taken to ‘diversity’

I am so old that I can remember when Democrats and the progressive Left regarded forcing college faculty to sign loyalty oaths as abhorrent.  Of course, that was when Communist infiltration of colleges, the media, and government bureaucracy was both genuine and a real threat.  President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9835 requiring federal employees to sign a loyalty oath and the state of California passed a law, the “Levering Act,” requiring the same of state employees.

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.

Blind loyalty to "Mao Tse-tung thought" was elevated to the sole important criterion for judging the merit of anyone. Mobs of Red Gurads brandisihing the Little Red Book containing Mao's thoughts were used to intimidate skepticsinto conformity.

Photo credit: Pinterest

That worked out terribly for China, keeping its talented and hard-working population mired in poverty for decades that followed.

For American universities, it will also work out badly, as any diversion from the path of Truth and excellence undermines the legitimacy of the higher education project. It is more than clear to me that higher education in the United States is headed for a huge crash, dictated by over-expansion, tuition inflation, and ideological slavery.

I am so old that I can remember when Democrats and the progressive Left regarded forcing college faculty to sign loyalty oaths as abhorrent.  Of course, that was when Communist infiltration of colleges, the media, and government bureaucracy was both genuine and a real threat.  President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9835 requiring federal employees to sign a loyalty oath and the state of California passed a law, the “Levering Act,” requiring the same of state employees.

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.

Blind loyalty to "Mao Tse-tung thought" was elevated to the sole important criterion for judging the merit of anyone. Mobs of Red Gurads brandisihing the Little Red Book containing Mao's thoughts were used to intimidate skepticsinto conformity.

Photo credit: Pinterest

That worked out terribly for China, keeping its talented and hard-working population mired in poverty for decades that followed.

For American universities, it will also work out badly, as any diversion from the path of Truth and excellence undermines the legitimacy of the higher education project. It is more than clear to me that higher education in the United States is headed for a huge crash, dictated by over-expansion, tuition inflation, and ideological slavery.