Yoel and Mickey discuss two mini-controversies recently in the news: 1) Should equity, diversity, and inclusion statements be required from academic job candidates? Do they signal the liberal values of academia, and if so, is that a bad thing? 2) Are psychologists disproportionately likely to argue that free speech is in crisis on campus? If so, why?

Bonus: Mickey describes an intimate product that he definitely does not own.

Links:

• Kenneth DeMarree - Department of Psychology - University at Buffalo
• Bare Spray – A Hit for Your Naughty Bits
• 🐙🛐Will Gervais🛐🐙 on Twitter — "Academia has some bleak and pessimistic takes on political conservatives. This is bad. In my opinion, “diversity statements discriminate against conservatives” is one of those bleak and pessimistic takes."
• Clay Routledge on Twitter — "Also, I think many conservatives support diversity and inclusion but there is published research showing many liberal academics would discriminate against conservative applicants so they might need to be careful to express the "correct" approach in their statements.… https://t.co/4A4kGKRZA2"
• Writing Your Diversity Statement — The goal of the diversity statement is to show how your past experiences have made you a diverse candidate, and how you’ll apply that diverse perspective at your target institution in your future research and teaching pursuits
• Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter
• The Scholar's Stage: Why Is the Fight for Free Speech Led by the Psychologists? — Here’s a puzzle I think about a lot. If any academic field is associated with the contemporary debate surrounding free speech, it’s psychology. Haidt, Pinker, Peterson, Saad, Jussim, even Lehmann. All specialize or have backgrounds in academic psych. So what’s the puzzle?