SANTA CRUZ — Last spring, a former professor at the University of Toronto filed a lawsuit against UC Santa Cruz officials over the school’s requirement for jobseekers to include a diversity, equity and inclusion statement, or DEI statement, in their employment application, claiming that the requirement violates First Amendment principles of academic freedom.
The case was dismissed last week by a federal judge because the plaintiff, independent scientist and Pennsylvania resident John D. Haltigan, never actually applied for a job at the university.
“The University of California, Santa Cruz is committed to inclusive, welcoming and enriching learning environments fostering success within and beyond our classrooms,” said UCSC Assistant Vice Chancellor Scott Hernandez-Jason in a statement. “We therefore focus on attracting and retaining faculty who will contribute to that mission in their role at the University. We are pleased with the court’s decision granting the motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing to bring his claims.”
According to UCSC’s guidelines, diversity equity and inclusion statements are intended to, “give examples of a candidate’s past contributions to diversity, demonstrate an understanding of the particular diversity and equity related issues and needs in a candidate’s field, or in higher education more generally, and/or discuss the candidate’s vision for how they might make contributions to diversity in the future.”
While job hunting last year, Haltigan saw an opening at UCSC for a tenure-track position in developmental psychology, which he felt he was qualified for.
After reviewing the university’s requirement to include a diversity, equity and inclusion statement with the job application, Haltigan was inspired to write a blog post where he stated that DEI statement requirements for academic job applicants have, “contributed to creating a corrosive and hostile environment that is intolerant of viewpoint diversity and is anathema to high-quality research and teaching.”
Attorneys with the Pacific Legal Foundation took notice of Haltigan’s blog post and reached out to him. Attorney Wilson Freeman and his colleague Jack Brown represented Haltigan in the novel lawsuit filed last May against University of California President Michael Drake, UCSC Chancellor Cynthia Larive, UCSC Psychology Department Chair Benjamin Storm and UCSC Social Sciences Dean Katharyne Mitchell.
The lawsuit stated that Haltigan is “committed to colorblindness and viewpoint diversity. He objects to DEI orthodoxy and believes individuals should be considered based on individual merit.” and also that, “If Dr. Haltigan were to apply for this position, he would be compelled to alter his behavior and either remain silent about the many important social issues addressed by the DEI statement requirement or recant his views to conform to the dictates of the university administration.”
After deliberation, United States District Judge Edward J. Davila ruled that “because Plaintiff does not allege that he subjected himself to the process that he now seeks to challenge in federal court, he is subject to the general ‘long-established rule’ that a plaintiff lacks standing to challenge a rule or policy to which he has not submitted himself by actually applying for the desired benefit.”
The ruling also states, “his First Amendment prudential arguments have limited, if any, application to the Article III standing inquiry, and the complaint allegations do not support a finding of futility. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate standing to bring his First Amendment claims.”
The case was dismissed last Friday with the condition that Haltigan could file an amended complaint by February.
“We restate our commitment to our mission — hiring employees who can foster academic excellence and success for our richly diverse and vibrant student body,” said Hernandez-Jason. “The university stands ready to respond in the event that an amended complaint is filed.”
+ There are no comments
Add yours