> It feels to me much more aimed at being able to fire people when controversy arrises than something used to actively screen new hires.

If you mean my speculation about political posts, then you're probably right. But if you mean the diversity pledge screening, then you couldn't be more wrong. From another article on the same subject:

> 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...