Federal judge dismisses lawsuit challenging UC Santa Cruz faculty applicant DEI statement

---

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, nominated by former President Barack Obama, threw out a lawsuit against the University of California, Santa Cruz, that challenged the institution’s requirement that applicants for faculty positions file diversity statements. The judge cited a lack of standing. In response, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 

Key Player

John Haltigan holds a Ph.D. in developmental psychology from the University of Miami and previously served as an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.  

Further Details

In July 2022, the University of California (UC) Santa Cruz posted a job listing for a tenure-track faculty position in developmental psychology. 

Per the UC system standards, faculty applicants must file diversity statements, also known as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) statements. This supplement asks candidates to share how they would contribute to diversity on campus and is a common feature of the application process for faculty jobs nationwide. The UC Santa Cruz listing notes that candidates would initially be screened only using a research statement and a DEI statement. 

On May 18, 2023, Haltigan filed a lawsuit, seeking to “enjoin the University from enforcing the DEI statement requirement.” 

On June 19, he amended his complaint. Under the “competitor standing” doctrine, he argued, a plaintiff may challenge a selection process in which they are not a candidate, so long as they can show they are “able and ready to bid” for the position. UC Santa Cruz then filed a motion to dismiss the suit because of lack of standing. 

In his suit, Haltigan claimed that he would have applied to the position, but the DEI statement made his application futile considering his “commit[ment] to colorblindness and viewpoint diversity.” He also denounced the requirement as a “functional loyalty oath” that violated his First Amendment rights. 

The UC system defends the use of DEI statements as a means of gauging a candidate’s commitment to guiding and teaching an increasingly diverse student body. Proponents of the practice view it as an additional piece of information that supplements, rather than defines, a candidate’s application. 

However, opponents of the practice, such as Haltigan, say that the statement forces candidates to espouse progressive views they do not agree with and encourages performative dishonesty. Such aversion has gained legal backing. Since July 2023, at least 40 bills have been introduced in 22 states that would place restrictions on DEI initiatives — including DEI statements — at public colleges and universities. 

Outcome  

Davila throws out lawsuit 

On Jan. 12, 2024, Davila ruled that Haltigan lacked standing, as he had never applied for the open faculty position he cited, ruling that the “competitor standing” doctrine did not pertain to Haltigan; he had, the judge said, failed to prove he was “ready and able” to apply for the position. The court gave Haltigan three weeks to modify the complaint. 

In response, Wilson Freeman, an attorney representing Haltigan, stated that his team “[would] consider all avenues to vindicate [his] client’s First Amendment rights.” 

Revised complaint filed

On Feb. 2, Haltigan filed a revised lawsuit, which contains similar language and rhetoric to the previous one, but asserts that the DEI statement requirement is not tailored to any compelling interest and therefore violates the First Amendment. 

As of April 22, 2024, there were no further developments.