Most of those have been around for decades. Some of them are legal requirements, at least in some contexts. Some are required by research funders and similar organizations. Some must be included in a teaching statement, which became a popular requirement a decade or two before DEI statements. And all contribute to the administrative bloat everyone likes to complain about.

> Committing to long-term, foundational research

Here I would respond that academics are prone to looking down on applied research, but it's also incredibly important. Think of new programming languages, new types of chips that will enable future computational workloads. New ways of using or optimizing existing technology... Or even empirical research to validate the effectiveness of current industrial practices (something people often don't do, or don't do rigorously enough).

Not all research needs to be "foundational". Not all applied research needs to happen in industry. Many academics would actually benefit from climbing down from their ivory tower more often.

As it is, a huge percentage of research happening in academic CS circles would probably call itself "foundational" but is actually very much divorced from reality and useless. Just people trying to increase their citation count with an incremental extension to some widely-accepted idea.

A declaration of support for those line items would be more impactful if it came from the university administration.

> - Embracing diverse viewpoints

If you read this as having some academics embracing Flat Earth viewpoints, it is obvious this will not happen. The devil is in the details, what does "Embracing diverse viewpoints" even mean? Science usually drives to unique conclusions, not diverse interpretations. How many correct and diverse viewpoints exist about E=m*c^2 ?

  what does "Embracing diverse viewpoints" even mean

I could have phrased this better. What I meant was: being open minded to being proven wrong.

There are many academics who will not entertain any viewpoint that's contrary to their own belief and agenda. They will happily share papers that support their preconceived notions, and be hostile towards anyone who questions whether these papers have merit.

OK, with that definition not only it make sense, but close minded academics are not worth to be academics.

They don't do this already? Who would possibly object? Why would any student attend an institution that didn't require it?

Obviously I'm not in academia, but to most outsiders this is really obvious stuff.

  Obviously I'm not in academia, but to most outsiders this is really obvious stuff.

That's my point. To outsiders like you and me, these things may seem obviously desirable.

But academics respond to incentives. Imagine you've spent 10 years pushing some set of conclusions based on some shaky studies you did early in your career. Do you really want people to dig deep and challenge the validity of your research?

Isn't that just part of the job? If you're not wrong sometimes you're not trying hard enough. To avoid this situation you should invite others to challenge your work more quickly.

The academic job is primarily about getting funding for further work. If ten years of work were proven wrong, the academic may worry that funding agencies may stop funding them. "You've been doing the wrong work for a decade!"

So while the academic may not mind being proven wrong in their hypotheses/results/conclusions, they may stress about not being able to get more funding.

We do. I literally just had to submit a statement to this effect to the NSF. The GP is spouting uninformed opinions and then patting themselves on the back for being an "outsider".

  The GP is spouting uninformed opinions and then patting themselves on the back for being an "outsider".

Why so hostile?

BTW I have nothing to gain from 'spouting uninformed opinions'.

My opinion is mostly based on my own interactions with certain academics, and others I've had the opportunity to directly observe.

Perhaps the patterns I've seen are not universal. But that doesn't mean that they are not common or, as you seem to suggest, do not exist at all.

> Why so hostile?

This sort of thread pops up again and again on HN. It's frustrating to read comment after comment of people being confidently wrong about your vocation.

I have an MBA, and spent years as a Product Manager.

There is much snark on HN about MBAs and PMs being useless. I read those comments with curiosity to understand what I might learn.

Those commenters' experience is not universal, but neither is my own. Some of the comments might be based on virtually no evidence, but that's probably not the majority.

Does "external influences" include the American Communist Party? How about the Chinese Communist Party?

If everything is a priority/mandate than nothing is.