@penelope, it's not a statement by the university. The applicants themselves must explain in writing and convince the committee in detail how and why they are committed to social justice, diversity, equity etc. So there's no single example.

@Dilworth Are you aware of the weasel words (e.g. "some" academics) used in your post? The words are supported by scant evidence of the claims made in the context of those words, and the links give the impression of "some" meaning "one". To make the post clearer, please replace "some academics" with "one academic" and "some other groups" with "one group".

@Dilworth "Regardless of the arguments for or against DEI" Then why did you bring up those arguments? The question could be made clearer by removing the arguments.

The entire statement should be removed per my second comment as it is immaterial to the question posed by the OP, and by the OP's own admission. The statement only increases signal-to-noise, decreasing the quality of the question.

@wwarriner, I'm not aware of this "Weasel words" concept. But of course I am happy to expand my question to include many more counter arguments against DEI and provide more links. But am afraid that people would see this as "putting too much emphasis on counter arguments".

@Dilworth Your fears could be easily allayed by removing the statement. It is, as you say in the post, immaterial to the question.

@AnonymousM, again, this matter has already been discussed before (and moved to chat), and I have explicitly changed the wordings precisely as you've suggested to make it "neutral". It was concluded by the moderator that it is sufficiently neutral. (I think it is really almost a sterile question. It is a very neutral sounding question.)

My thoughts are not about politics, but about question quality. I have reviewed the chat now, thank you. I still disagree with the need for the supporting opinions, and disagree with the need for them in the other question. The external opinions on that question are immaterial to the question itself, and to that OP's own opinion. They are similarly immaterial to this question. However, if external opinion pieces as fluffy background is the structure that makes for high quality questions on this sub-site, then my argument is being made in the wrong place.

@wwarriner, the argument was that EDI and the argument for it are well known, while counter arguments are not; in addition, I'm asking about counter arguments (and initiatives) and not supportive ones. Compare to questions about university rankings: these questions always explain (in much less neutrality) why "rankings are bad" in the body of the question.

I understand what you are saying. I still disagree with the need for the external opinions. Again, this isn't the right place for me to be making this argument, because it appears to be the site's expectation for high-quality questions of this type.