June 28, 2023 - 6:15pm
The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) has decided against hiring psychology professor Yoel Inbar after receiving a letter from 65 students (at the time of writing) at the institution, accusing him of taking “a strong stance against promoting DEI initiatives”. Dr Inbar, an academic at Toronto University, was set to be appointed as a tenured faculty member in the UCLA psychology department, before historic comments made on his podcast, Two Psychologists Four Beers, were highlighted by students as a reason not to hire him.
Inbar’s offending remarks were made in two episodes of his podcast, which covers topics such as free speech and anti-racism in academia. In the first of these episodes, recorded in 2018, the professor claimed that his “scepticism about [diversity statements] is that they seem like administrator value signalling. It is not clear what good they do, how they’re going to be used.” In the same episode, he stated that the Left fails to acknowledge that these statements signal “an allegiance to a certain set of beliefs”.
The other highlighted comments were made in episode 92 of Two Psychologists Four Beers, recorded last year, in which Inbar expressed support for some forms of affirmative action while cautioning against “this other stuff” which uses “certain methodologies based on critical theory […] I don’t think it’s the job of the organisation to be promoting certain subdisciplines”. Inbar also discussed the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP)’s stance against Georgia’s decision to outlaw all abortions after six weeks following the overturning of Roe vs. Wade last year, describing its position as “quite extreme” and suggesting that “when we align ourselves with a political side or faction it’s bad for our science”.
In response to these statements, the letter’s signatories claim that “serious consideration of Dr. Inbar directly conflicts with the values and standards we uphold as an institution and department committed to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”. Moreover, they “believe that Dr. Inbar would not enter the Social Area as a member committed to creating a safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment, and that his hiring would threaten ongoing efforts to protect and uplift individuals of marginalized backgrounds”.
The letter also cites a meeting between Inbar and graduate students on 22nd January this year, in which the professor “initially prioritized asking us questions about the Psychology Department and life as graduate students”. The UCLA students then “interjected to reframe the discussion and ask pointed questions about his past and prospective efforts in advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts both in mentorship and in his line of research”. His responses were deemed “less than satisfactory”, and in some cases “outright disconcerting”. For instance, the letter states, he pointed out that his “work does not really deal with identity, so these issues don’t come up for [him] in a research context”.
Because Inbar’s research specialism is morality and social values, the signatories insisted that “considerations of identity cannot accurately be disentangled from the study of prejudice and moral behavior”, and that his indifference to DEI initiatives therefore constituted fair grounds for not hiring him. Inbar also reportedly attended a dinner with faculty during which he labelled “a graduate student who is a woman of color as ‘intense’ in response to her questions about DEI efforts”. Speaking to UnHerd, Inbar claimed that this interpretation “mischaracterize[d]” the interaction between him and the student in question, who was one of the authors of the letter.
The mission statement of UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion says that it “leads and advances strategies for enhancing equity, diversity and inclusion; protecting civil rights; and upholding dignity for all in our community”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI know what I find “outright disconcerting”. UCLA does not appear to be a “safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment”. Just a place where students who think they know it all can avoid learning anything while paying handsomely for the privilege.
Yes, the last thing a real University is, or should be, is a “safe” space. A real University exposes students to thinkers who will rip their worlds asunder. Plato’s Republic. Aristotle’s Poetics. And so many others. These poor little bunnies who attend UCLA are not students. They are numbskulls. And if they keep it up, they always will be.
The students don’t want education merely an affirmation of their own prejudices and the University is too cowardly to offer them professors that will challenge their beliefs. Rather pathetic unless all you want to do is churn out pseudoscientific papers in support of academically prevailing theories. Being a secular Jesuit stamping out deviations from the creed is I suppose well paid but intellectually stultifying.
Yet universities have no problem ignoring students’ concerns when it suits them, for example in curtailing services during Covid. In truth university authorities frequently use student protests as a smokescreen when imposing their own ideological agenda. This letter had 65 signatories out of a student body of almost 50,000. So UCLA management are either spectacularly gutless, or are being disingenuous.
Why assume cowardice? More likely the admins agree with the students and they are working in coordination.
Yet universities have no problem ignoring students’ concerns when it suits them, for example in curtailing services during Covid. In truth university authorities frequently use student protests as a smokescreen when imposing their own ideological agenda. This letter had 65 signatories out of a student body of almost 50,000. So UCLA management are either spectacularly gutless, or are being disingenuous.
Why assume cowardice? More likely the admins agree with the students and they are working in coordination.
Most universities stop being educational establishments decades ago and became credentialing machines. American higher education is running on inertia, and I suspect they have a few more decades before the lack of actual competence begins to matter, but by then it will be too late. Other countries will have overtaken us.
In 2050, the children of American elites will go to India for university, and they will congratulate themselves for being so broad-minded and multicultural to do so. What they won’t admit (perhaps even to themselves) is that they’re only going there because they’ve run the finest university system in the world into the ground.
Yes, the last thing a real University is, or should be, is a “safe” space. A real University exposes students to thinkers who will rip their worlds asunder. Plato’s Republic. Aristotle’s Poetics. And so many others. These poor little bunnies who attend UCLA are not students. They are numbskulls. And if they keep it up, they always will be.
The students don’t want education merely an affirmation of their own prejudices and the University is too cowardly to offer them professors that will challenge their beliefs. Rather pathetic unless all you want to do is churn out pseudoscientific papers in support of academically prevailing theories. Being a secular Jesuit stamping out deviations from the creed is I suppose well paid but intellectually stultifying.
Most universities stop being educational establishments decades ago and became credentialing machines. American higher education is running on inertia, and I suspect they have a few more decades before the lack of actual competence begins to matter, but by then it will be too late. Other countries will have overtaken us.
In 2050, the children of American elites will go to India for university, and they will congratulate themselves for being so broad-minded and multicultural to do so. What they won’t admit (perhaps even to themselves) is that they’re only going there because they’ve run the finest university system in the world into the ground.
I know what I find “outright disconcerting”. UCLA does not appear to be a “safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment”. Just a place where students who think they know it all can avoid learning anything while paying handsomely for the privilege.
Are we supposed to be surprised by any of this? My only surprise is he was still working at the U of T with such radical beliefs.
Are we supposed to be surprised by any of this? My only surprise is he was still working at the U of T with such radical beliefs.
Sounds like he dodged a bullet.
Sounds like he dodged a bullet.
I can’t see the brightest scientists and academics queuing up to join the faculty of UCLA after this. When it comes to hiring in hot areas like Data Science the universties struggle to compete with industry at the best of times. This will make such hiring all the more difficult in UCLA. It’s an own goal.
I can’t see the brightest scientists and academics queuing up to join the faculty of UCLA after this. When it comes to hiring in hot areas like Data Science the universties struggle to compete with industry at the best of times. This will make such hiring all the more difficult in UCLA. It’s an own goal.
It’s DIE. Much more apt.
It’s DIE. Much more apt.
I’m obviously a bit dim but when did students get to have a say in who a university chooses to hire? As for the university – grow a pair!
I’m obviously a bit dim but when did students get to have a say in who a university chooses to hire? As for the university – grow a pair!
Hmmmm. I wonder if there is another ‘more hidden’ reason for the students’ distaste….
Hmmmm. I wonder if there is another ‘more hidden’ reason for the students’ distaste….
The names of all those 65 students should be made public. BTW the list of 24 them who presumably wrote the letter (with their chosen pronoms) can be find here…
https://twitter.com/JohnDSailer/status/1673886820600299520?t=MeYYMGPWB0I5YR9m1WNPxg&s=19
Add these to your list of people to never hire under any circumstances, folks. Having someone on your staff who values skin color or political beliefs over competence is bad for your business. Go woke, go broke.
Add these to your list of people to never hire under any circumstances, folks. Having someone on your staff who values skin color or political beliefs over competence is bad for your business. Go woke, go broke.
The names of all those 65 students should be made public. BTW the list of 24 them who presumably wrote the letter (with their chosen pronoms) can be find here…
https://twitter.com/JohnDSailer/status/1673886820600299520?t=MeYYMGPWB0I5YR9m1WNPxg&s=19
Oh dear. I can see this one coming. “Wokery gone mad…”
Well, hang on a moment. Universities these days take their global rankings very seriously indeed. UCLA certainly does (https://www.ucla.edu/about/rankings), and a component of the rankings is in the gift of the students. So a thumbs down from the students can hurt a university, especially in the fiercely competitive leaderboards where UCLA wants to be.
OK, it was only 65 students who objected. But if you were in the senior management of the university, would you want to take the chance that the 65 were not speaking for the majority, or even a significant minority, of students?
It’s quite simple. Irrespective of league tables and economic incentives.
Academic institutions have a duty and responsibility to uphold high standards of rigour and probity. This includes resisting tawdry and trendy biases. And especially not being swayed by the I’ll considered and faddy opinions of the children… I mean students who attend.
“Oh dear. I can see this one coming. “Wokery gone mad…”
We all did, and yes, you have indeed gone mad.
Yes, but the validity of the rankings are hotly contested by many universities. Some of them have even removed themselves from the rankings because competing in them inevitably leads to mission drift. Although claiming to be anti-capitalist. ‘wokery’ plays neatly into the hands of corporations who align themselves with students’ misplaced idealism and moral approbation to further their own ends. Despite what it says on the box, ‘wokery’ is not at all about reducing inequality or ending social injustice. It’s about corporations, governments, and institutions appropriating it in order to perpetuate themselves and make unpopular and undemocratic decisions.
I would repeat the point I made above. The inputs to the rankings are research excellence and reputation. Without excellent faculty, you won’t get excellent research and reputation. Having an ideological purity test adminstered by students is an unnecessary barrier to recruiting excellent faculty.
If you said the inputs _should_ be research excellence and first-rate teaching, I would agree with you. The problem with the rankings is when students, as the paying customers, are allowed to put their oar in. The thing with students is that they don’t think like customers, they think like students. Odd, but there it is.
That puts the university authorities in a no-win situation. Disinviting Dr. Inbar is stupid, discourteous, and sends a chilling message to any academic who’s thinking of working in UCLA. On the other hand, enraged students who feel motivated to sabotage UCLA’s rankings can have substantial knock-on effects for funding, student applications and, well, reputation.
Some of the splendidly choleric contributors to this article might try to entertain the possibility that the UCLA authorities are acting rationally, rather than being a bunch of ideologically-driven idiots.
UCLA is California State funded…I dont belive that monetary consideration played a role in the UCLA decission. BTW What is “rational” in California’s citizens brains is debatable….
And “reputation” effects the tuition they can charge, the amount of alumni contributions they receive and, thus, the size of their endowment (28B! at UCLA). These schools care a lot more about money than than do education. And more about those rankings than they do about free speech.
With funding from California and, let’s imagine, 5% yearly from interest on that endowment, they have nothing to worry about. They could concentrate on excellence; but that’s not the way our system works. How to suck up more money next year is their primary focus.
Mr. McKee is correct.
UCLA is California State funded…I dont belive that monetary consideration played a role in the UCLA decission. BTW What is “rational” in California’s citizens brains is debatable….
And “reputation” effects the tuition they can charge, the amount of alumni contributions they receive and, thus, the size of their endowment (28B! at UCLA). These schools care a lot more about money than than do education. And more about those rankings than they do about free speech.
With funding from California and, let’s imagine, 5% yearly from interest on that endowment, they have nothing to worry about. They could concentrate on excellence; but that’s not the way our system works. How to suck up more money next year is their primary focus.
Mr. McKee is correct.
If you said the inputs _should_ be research excellence and first-rate teaching, I would agree with you. The problem with the rankings is when students, as the paying customers, are allowed to put their oar in. The thing with students is that they don’t think like customers, they think like students. Odd, but there it is.
That puts the university authorities in a no-win situation. Disinviting Dr. Inbar is stupid, discourteous, and sends a chilling message to any academic who’s thinking of working in UCLA. On the other hand, enraged students who feel motivated to sabotage UCLA’s rankings can have substantial knock-on effects for funding, student applications and, well, reputation.
Some of the splendidly choleric contributors to this article might try to entertain the possibility that the UCLA authorities are acting rationally, rather than being a bunch of ideologically-driven idiots.
That is like saying you aren’t going to follow sterile surgical procedures because patients find the process irritating.
It’s quite simple. Irrespective of league tables and economic incentives.
Academic institutions have a duty and responsibility to uphold high standards of rigour and probity. This includes resisting tawdry and trendy biases. And especially not being swayed by the I’ll considered and faddy opinions of the children… I mean students who attend.
“Oh dear. I can see this one coming. “Wokery gone mad…”
We all did, and yes, you have indeed gone mad.
Yes, but the validity of the rankings are hotly contested by many universities. Some of them have even removed themselves from the rankings because competing in them inevitably leads to mission drift. Although claiming to be anti-capitalist. ‘wokery’ plays neatly into the hands of corporations who align themselves with students’ misplaced idealism and moral approbation to further their own ends. Despite what it says on the box, ‘wokery’ is not at all about reducing inequality or ending social injustice. It’s about corporations, governments, and institutions appropriating it in order to perpetuate themselves and make unpopular and undemocratic decisions.
I would repeat the point I made above. The inputs to the rankings are research excellence and reputation. Without excellent faculty, you won’t get excellent research and reputation. Having an ideological purity test adminstered by students is an unnecessary barrier to recruiting excellent faculty.
That is like saying you aren’t going to follow sterile surgical procedures because patients find the process irritating.
Oh dear. I can see this one coming. “Wokery gone mad…”
Well, hang on a moment. Universities these days take their global rankings very seriously indeed. UCLA certainly does (https://www.ucla.edu/about/rankings), and a component of the rankings is in the gift of the students. So a thumbs down from the students can hurt a university, especially in the fiercely competitive leaderboards where UCLA wants to be.
OK, it was only 65 students who objected. But if you were in the senior management of the university, would you want to take the chance that the 65 were not speaking for the majority, or even a significant minority, of students?