A diversity statement (also called a contributions-to-diversity, equity, and inclusion statement, or DEI statement) is a short document, typically one to two pages, in which a researcher describes past actions and future plans for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion through research, teaching, and service. Some US faculty search committees have required one as a standard application component alongside a research statement and teaching statement, and some federal grant programs ask for related content under a broader-impacts framework. This guide explains what reviewers are actually evaluating, the structural and content weaknesses that repeatedly weaken otherwise strong statements, and how to think about the document’s structure without relying on a copy-paste template. It also covers the current, unsettled policy landscape around these requirements, since a research administrator advising a candidate or applicant needs to know that landscape as much as the writing mechanics.
Where diversity statements come from and where they still apply
Diversity-statement requirements expanded across US research universities through the 2010s and peaked in the early 2020s, driven partly by accreditation and equal-opportunity considerations and partly by individual institutions’ own hiring-committee practice. They are not a single national standard, and no external body defines their content the way, for example, NIH defines a biosketch format. Two related but distinct contexts still generate demand for this kind of writing:
- Faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure. Some search committees ask candidates for a standalone diversity statement; others fold DEI-related questions into a cover letter or ask candidates to address it within the research or teaching statement.
- Grant proposal broader-impacts sections. US National Science Foundation (NSF) proposals are evaluated against two merit-review criteria, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, and NSF’s guidance lists broadening participation of underrepresented groups in STEM as one of several activities that can satisfy the Broader Impacts criterion — alongside others such as public engagement, workforce development, and improving research infrastructure. A broader-impacts section is not the same document as a faculty-hiring diversity statement, but the underlying skill — describing concrete DEI-relevant activity and plans rather than general commitments — is the same.
What reviewers say they look for
Guidance published by university offices and disciplinary associations that have written explicitly about evaluating these statements converges on a few consistent evaluation dimensions:
- Concrete past actions, not stated values alone. A statement that only asserts that the author values diversity, without describing anything the author has actually done, reads as generic. Reviewers look for specific activities: mentoring students from underrepresented backgrounds, redesigning a course or lab-training process, serving on an equity-focused committee, running an outreach program, or adapting a research program’s recruitment practices.
- Specific, feasible future plans. A strong statement connects past experience to what the author intends to do in the new role — a specific mentoring structure, an outreach commitment tied to a particular program, or a concrete plan for inclusive teaching or lab management — rather than a vague pledge to “continue prioritizing diversity.”
- Evidence across multiple domains. Reviewers commonly assess contributions across teaching/mentoring, research, and service/engagement separately, since a candidate might have real strength in one domain and little in another; naming the domain explicitly helps a reader place each example.
- Institutional fit and self-awareness. Some rubrics reward candidates who show they understand the specific institution’s student population or mission (for example, its status as a minority-serving institution) rather than submitting an unmodified generic statement to every application.
- Reflection, not just a list. The strongest statements explain why an activity mattered or what the author learned from it, connecting personal experience or perspective to professional practice, rather than presenting an unannotated bullet list of activities.
Common weaknesses that lower scores
The same source material that describes what reviewers reward also documents recurring problems:
- Restating identity instead of describing contribution. A statement built entirely around the author’s own demographic background, without describing any action taken to support others, does not satisfy a contribution-focused rubric. Personal background can be relevant context, but committees evaluating contributions are looking for what the candidate has done or plans to do, not solely who the candidate is.
- Platitudes with no supporting detail. Sentences asserting that diversity makes teams stronger or that the author is committed to inclusion, without any example attached, read as boilerplate and are easy for a reviewer to discount.
- A single old anecdote used to cover the whole document. Relying on one mentoring experience from years earlier, with nothing about current practice or future plans, signals that DEI work is not an ongoing part of the candidate’s practice.
- No connection to the target role or institution. A statement that reads identically regardless of which department or institution it was submitted to misses the chance to show the candidate has thought about how their approach fits that specific context.
- Treating it as a compliance formality. Statements that are noticeably shorter or more generic than the candidate’s research and teaching statements can read as an afterthought, which committees notice.
- Overclaiming influence or outcomes. Attributing a large measurable change (a department-wide culture shift, a significant enrollment increase) to a single junior contributor’s individual effort tends to undermine credibility rather than build it; specific, appropriately scoped claims read as more genuine.
Structural guidance
There is no single required structure, and institutions that still request a diversity statement rarely mandate one. A structure that shows up repeatedly in published evaluation rubrics and writing guidance, adaptable rather than prescriptive, covers:
- A brief framing paragraph stating, in general terms, the perspective or experience that shapes the author’s approach to DEI in their work — kept concrete and short rather than an extended personal narrative.
- Past contributions, organized by domain (teaching/mentoring, research, service/engagement), each with a specific example: what the activity was, who it involved or affected, and what came of it.
- Reflection connecting the examples — what the author learned, or how these experiences shaped their approach to teaching, mentoring, or running a research group.
- Forward-looking, feasible plans specific to the target institution or program: a mentoring commitment, an outreach partnership, a course or lab practice the author intends to implement.
- A short closing that does not simply repeat the opening.
This is a structural pattern, not a template to fill in mechanically — reviewers who read many statements a cycle notice when the same skeleton is used with the nouns swapped out, and specificity is what the evaluation criteria above are actually rewarding.
An illustrative example (composite, not a real candidate)
Illustrative composite — not an actual candidate, statement, or institution; built only to show the structural pattern above.
As a first-generation graduate student, structured, low-stakes check-ins — rather than open-ended availability — made the biggest difference in whether students from non-traditional academic backgrounds actually sought help. As a teaching assistant for an introductory methods course, I piloted a weekly fifteen-minute structured office-hours slot specifically for students new to the department’s research norms; roughly a third of the section used it in a term when general office hours went largely unused. If hired, I would extend this practice to my own lab’s onboarding process for new graduate students and undergraduate researchers, and would pursue a mentoring role with the department’s existing first-generation student program.
Note what the example does structurally: a specific past action tied to a specific context, a plausible, appropriately scoped result, and a concrete forward-looking plan tied to the target role — rather than a general statement of values.
The contested policy landscape
Diversity-statement requirements in US faculty hiring are a genuinely unsettled and actively changing policy area, and a research administrator should be aware of the current landscape rather than assuming the practice is uniform. Starting in 2023, several states passed legislation restricting or prohibiting public universities from requiring diversity statements as part of hiring, admissions, or promotion decisions, and additional states followed through 2024 and 2025. Independently of state legislation, a number of individual institutions — including MIT and the University of Michigan — ended their own diversity-statement requirements for faculty hiring in 2024, and the University of California system moved to eliminate the practice as well, according to reporting from Inside Higher Ed and other higher-education outlets. Reporting through 2025 describes a substantial year-over-year decline in the share of faculty job postings that request a diversity statement compared with 2024.
This guide describes the practice as it currently exists across a still-varied institutional landscape, without taking a position on whether these requirements should exist. A research administrator supporting faculty search committees or grant applicants should verify current institutional and, where applicable, state-level policy directly rather than assuming a diversity-statement request is still standard practice everywhere it once was — the requirement, where it still applies, and its absence, where it has been removed, can both be current and correct depending on the specific institution.
Frequently asked questions
Is a diversity statement the same as a broader-impacts statement in a grant proposal?
No. A faculty-hiring diversity statement and an NSF broader-impacts discussion serve different review processes with different criteria, and broader impacts covers a wider range of activities than DEI work alone (public engagement, workforce development, and research-infrastructure contributions are all valid broader-impacts activities under NSF’s own guidance). The overlap is in approach: both are evaluated on specific, credible past activity and feasible future plans rather than general statements of intent.
Should a diversity statement disclose personal identity or background?
Personal background can provide useful context for why a candidate approaches DEI work the way they do, but a statement built solely around identity disclosure, without describing any action taken, does not satisfy a contribution-focused evaluation rubric of the kind used by the institutions that have published their criteria.
How long should a diversity statement be?
Most published guidance and institutional instructions describe one to two pages as typical; specific page or word limits are set by the individual search committee or institution and should be followed exactly where given.
What if the target institution no longer requires one?
Follow the specific application instructions for that search. Given how unevenly this requirement has been removed across states and institutions since 2023, confirm current requirements directly rather than assuming based on a prior year’s process or a different institution’s practice.
Related CASRAI resources
- Diversity statement — operational definition and examples
- Teaching statement
- Research statement
- Personal statement
- Narrative CV
- Biosketch
- Grants Management hub
