Senate Bylaw 40 explains the powers of the Senate, the protections for tenure at UC, and critically, contains this text:

40.3 Special Provisions Concerning Faculty
(a) No Political Test
No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee.

The Kalven Report is a 1967 statement of a University of Chicago committee chaired by Harry Kalven, Jr. The Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action [local copy] concluded that institutional neutrality on political issues was necessary for intellectual freedom.

Regents Policy 2301 recognizes a right of students to proper instruction, including the “right of students to have their classes held on the regularly scheduled basis and to be taught by the instructor whose responsibility it is to teach the course in question…” This provision has been interpreted to prohibit cancellation of classes for rallies and protests, see email from Benjamin Hermalin (Oct 25, 2023).

The same policy prohibits, “Misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination, for purposes other than those for which the course was constituted, or for providing grades without commensurate and appropriate student achievement, constitutes misuse of the University as an institution.”

In addition, the Faculty Code of Conduct, APM-015, imposes standards for professionalism. It defines “significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course” as a form of “unacceptable conduct.” It also prohibits the “use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student…”

In July 2024, the UC Regents adopted a policy allowing departmental and unit “discretionary statements,” but also complicating their adoption through regulation of their content, placement, and procedures for promulgation. A discretionary statement is a communication concerning matters “that are not part of the day-to-day, term-to-term operations of the unit, and that comment on institutional, local, regional, global or national events, activities or issues.” Departments wishing to make such statements must: 1) not appear on the main homepage of the unit (although the homepage may link to the statement), 2) must include a disclaimer that the statement is not the policy of the University, 3) must be adopted pursuant to a set of defined procedures, 4) must explain in general terms who is represented by the statement (e.g. a majority of the faculty, or the results of a unit vote), and 5) must be generally lawful (i.e. cannot contain harassment or threats).

The policy also clarifies that groups of professors (e.g. BIFI or BFA) and individual professors may post statements on their sites.

Background: The policy follows a years-long debate over departmental statements. In 2022, Joint Senate-Administration Workgroup on the Role of The University and its Units in Political and Social Action was charged by Chancellor Christ to recommend, “1) a draft set of principles and issues to consider when the university and its units are commenting on matters about which people have deeply held views; and, 2) resources for operational unit and academic department officials to help them consider when and how to issue statements about current events and subjects about which people are known to disagree on behalf of their units.”

That Workgroup recommended in a draft 2022 report [local copy] that departments could make political statements, but also qualified the recommendation with guidance for a consultative process before issuing a statement. The draft report went out for comment, but no final report was issued. In June 2022, the Systemwide Academic Council endorsed recommendations from the University Committee on Academic Freedom that also support the ability of departments to make statements, but included many procedures to encourage departments to be “more thoughtful and judicious in their publication of statements about controversial topics.”

In January 2024, the UC Regents considered a measure that bans departmental statements while greenlighting political statements by the Chair of the Board of Regents, the President, the Chancellors, and the leadership of the Academic Senate. This measure was tabled for the March 2024 meeting. Berkeley Professor Ty Alper wrote a history and critique of the Regents’ proposal.

NO. DEI statements are not required for faculty hiring at Berkeley. 

Diversity is an important value for intellectual freedom and for our success as an institution. But how to value diversity in hiring is a matter to be decided upon by the faculty in the unit making the hiring decision. 

Yes. By policy, all UC campuses other than Berkeley require a “Statement on Contributions to Diversity” for hiring..

Perhaps.  As of this writing (March 2024), every faculty search listed on APRecruit makes a DEI statement a requirement. Applicants who do not submit one risk having their file marked incomplete and not considered.  But this may be because there’s been a widespread misperception that DEI statements are required, or may be because departments with active searches have all chosen to require DEI statements.

One concern about diversity statements surrounds whether they are used to screen candidates for their political views. But the problem may be even more fundamental than that. It appears that even questioning their use on efficacy grounds is perilous for candidates. For instance, Yoel Inbar was denied a position at UCLA despite supporting affirmative action, because he questioned the value of DEI statements. The New York Times reported that “the department chair emailed and told [Inbar] that more than 50 graduate students had signed a letter strongly denouncing his candidacy. Why? In part, because on his podcast years earlier, he had opposed diversity statements — like the one he had just written.”

Screening for politics is a widely-held concern among faculty in the UC system, even among supporters of DEI statements. In 2022, the Systemwide Academic Council reaffirmed its support for using DEI statements, and endorsed their use in all faculty hiring, merit, and promotion cases. However, concerns about how DEI statements have been implemented caused the body to recommend guardrails. Specifically, the Council recommended that “DEI statements should focus on actions, not beliefs,” and “Faculty have the primary responsibility for evaluating contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion within their discipline.” The latter recommendation was driven by faculty concerns that administrators and staff are interfering with hiring processes.

Berkeley’s DEI rubric is available here. Unfortunately, the rubric applies a litmus test explicitly: a candidate who writes, “I treat everyone the same” receives the lowest score. This is a litmus test because believing in formal equality is a political opinion, in fact a mainstream one. Many people apply a formal quality theory of change for principled and practical reasons. California law requires formal equality in hiring.  

Some disagree with formal equality, preferring a substantive equity approach that considers outcomes. Of course there are reasons to pursue a substantive equity approach, and those reasons are intertwined with one’s political beliefs and priorities. No matter one’s choice, it should not affect candidacy for any position at the University.

Other aspects of the Berkeley rubric require adherence to political values and performance of them. The highest scores can be earned by candidates who, “Convincingly expresses intent, with examples, to be a strong advocate for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging within the department/school/college and also their field.” By implication, this means that the candidate must endorse the substantive equity view of these issues, rather than the formal equality approach. Another top-scoring factor is, “Describes multiple activities in depth, with detailed information about both their role in the activities and the outcomes.” This factor connects adherence of political values to specific actions, in effect requiring the candidate to spend her time and even research focus on the substantive equity view.

Because the University of California is a non-profit entity, faculty must exercise their political advocacy carefully. One may not use University property (including electronic resources like email and websites) for electoral or ballot political advocacy. UCOP issued guidance on these issues in February 2024.

The rules are in PACAOS-40 (Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students. PACAOS-40 must be read in context. It is about electioneering rather than politics in a general sense. For instance, faculty members are free to evaluate candidates and ballot measures in their expert roles. They are also free to comment and use academic method to evaluate policy proposals. At all times, one must carefully use their title—the title should only be employed for identification, and never for endorsement of a candidate or ballot proposition.

Interestingly, PACAOS-41.10 contains a provision on institutional neutrality: “As a State instrumentality, the University must remain neutral on religious and political matters. The University cannot sponsor or fund religious or political activities except when authorized for University purposes by The Regents or the President or their designees.” Again, in context, political matters here are electioneering ones, and so this provision does not impose broad institutional neutrality (e.g. banning departmental political tracts).

The UC System reviewed and reformed measures to accommodate and respond to protests in the Robinson-Edley Report (2012).

In a March 2024 campuswide email, Chancellor Christ explained, “Political protest is a protected—indeed a valued—activity on the Berkeley campus, it is also subject to time, place, and manner regulations. We address nonviolent civil disobedience in accordance with UC’s systemwide Community Safety Plan. That plan directs us to avoid police involvement, if possible, and prioritize negotiation when responding to nonviolent violations of rules…”

Campus protests in 2024 caused the California legislature to enact legislation requiring the UC system to adopt and clarify rules surrounding protests. In August 2024, UC President Michael Drake issued guidelines for these rules, requiring that each campus implement them. UC Berkeley’s implementation is summarized here.