Sure enough, a report on Berkeley's diversity initiative—recently publicized by Jerry Coyne and John Cochrane—shows that eight different departments affiliated with the life sciences used a diversity rubric to weed out applicants for positions. This was the first step: In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were. - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...
I'll let you decide if using this criterion as the first step, that disqualifies 76% of candidates, is a "token gesture that takes 0.05% of your time".
Regardless of how arbitrary you claim the filtering is, the effect is the same - it makes commitment to diversity the most important, primary criterion.
I don't understand what beliefs you're referring to? I thought they were asking people to promote diversity, what "belief" is there in that?
It's a very radical concept for many people, including Scott Adams.
And yet, most commentors here would want you to respect such a person.
Welcome to HN.
You can take a guess how good your chances of passing the diversity filter are, if your main contribution is trying to reduce the discrimination against non-Jewish whites, by which they are 12-times less likely to be admitted to the Ivy League than their Jewish counterparts.
They require candidates to show a track record promoting diversity. Merely saying it is not enough, so they do in fact require sacrifices - even if you don't count being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold as a sacrifice. But then forced conversion is also no big deal.
This is required by one fifth of academic jobs, as of 2021: https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...