Institutions of higher education (IHE) throughout the United States have a long history of acting out various levels of commitment to diversity advancement, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Despite decades of DEI “efforts,” the academy is fraught with legacies of racism that uphold white supremacy and prevent marginalized populations from full participation. Furthermore, politicians have not only weaponized education but passed legislation to actively ban DEI programs and censor general education curricula (https://tinyurl.com/antiDEI). Ironically, systems of oppression are particularly apparent in the fields of Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology (EECB)–which recognize biological diversity as essential for ecological integrity and resilience. Yet, amongst EECB faculty, people who do not identify as cis-heterosexual, non-disabled, affluent white males are poorly represented. Furthermore, IHE lack metrics to quantify DEI as a priority. Here we show that only 30.3% of US-faculty positions advertised in EECB from Jan 2019-May 2020 required a diversity statement; diversity statement requirements did not correspond with state-level diversity metrics. Though many announcements “encourage women and minorities to apply,” empirical evidence demonstrates that hiring committees at most institutions did not prioritize an applicant’s DEI advancement potential. We suggest a model for change and call on administrators and faculty to implement SMART (i.e., Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) strategies for DEI advancement across IHE throughout the United States. We anticipate our quantification of diversity statement requirements relative to other application materials will motivate institutional change in both policy and practice when evaluating a candidate’s potential “fit”. IHE must embrace a leadership role to not only shift the academic culture to one that upholds DEI, but to educate and include people who represent the full diversity of our society. In the current context of political censure of education including book banning and backlash aimed at Critical Race Theory, which further reinforce systemic white supremacy, academic integrity and justice are more critical than ever. 

Here we investigated the (lack of) process in faculty searches at IHE for evaluating candidates’ ability to advance DEI objectives. We quantified the prevalence of required diversity statements relative to research and/or teaching statements for all faculty positions posted to the Eco-Evo Jobs Board (http://ecoevojobs.net) from January 2019 - May 2020 as a proxy for institutional DEI prioritization (Supplement). We also mapped the job posts that required diversity statements geographically to gauge whether and where diversity is valued in higher education across the US.

Data analysis

We pulled all faculty jobs posted on Eco-Evo jobs board (http://ecoevojobs.net) from Jan 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. For each position, we recorded the Location (i.e., state), Subject Area, Closing Date, Rank, whether or not the position is Tenure Track, and individual application materials (i.e., Research statement, Teaching statement, combined Teaching and Research statement, Diversity statement, Mentorship statement). Of the 543 faculty positions posted during this time, we eliminated 299 posts because the web links were broken or application information was no longer available (i.e., “NA”), leaving 244 faculty job posts. For each of the retained posts, we coded the requirement of teaching, research, diversity, and/or mentorship statements as follows:

• "Yes” = statement required 
• “No” = statement not required 
• “Other” = application materials did not explicitly require a Diversity Statement (i.e., option or suggested that applicants include a statement on diversity and inclusion as a component of their teaching and/or research statement or in their cover letter)

Data visualization

We created a Sankey diagram using Sankey Flow Show (THORTEC Software GmbH: www.sankeyflowshow.com) to compare diversity and representation from the general population, through (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) STEM academia (a career hierarchy often referred to as the “leaky pipeline”). We procured population data from the US Census Bureau (US Department of Commerce: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219) and quantified the diversity/representation in Conservation Biology (https://datausa.io/profile/cip/ecology-evolution-systematics-population-biology#demographics) and Ecology (https://datausa.io/profile/cip/conservation-biology) using Data USA (developed by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and Datawheel).

We used the 2015 Diversity Index (produced by PolicyLink and the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity: https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Diversity_index/Ranking:33271/United_States/false/Year(s):2015/) to quantify relative ethnic diversity per state, and graphed Figure 2B using the tidyverse, rgdal, broom, and rgeos packages in R (see Base code used to produce Figure 2 in R, below). The Diversity index measures the representation of White, Black, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Mixed/other race in a given population. A maximum possible diversity score (1.79) would indicate even representation of all ethnic/racial groups.

We checked all figures using the Color Blindness Simulator (ColBlindor: https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/) to maintain inclusivity.

• Google Sheets or Excel is required to open Lafferty et al. Data_File.xlsx
• Sankey Flow Show (THORTEC Software GmbH: www.sankeyflowshow.com) used to create the Sankey diagram
• Figure 2 produced in R