This essay is excerpted from a new Chronicle special report, “The Future of Diversity Training,” available in the Chronicle Store.
Nationwide, bills that would restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in some way have been introduced in more than two dozen states since 2023.
So how should we interpret this wave?
Conservatives have long seen higher education as a place where students are taught to see the world through a left-leaning lens. They see students as being indoctrinated with a worldview that leads to the unavoidable conclusion that Republicans are backward and racist and that Democrats in general, and progressives in particular, can alone claim the moral high ground. To many on the right, the legislative measures are a long-overdue course correction for an institution whose politics have become deeply one-sided.
At the same time, many liberal faculty members and campus-community stakeholders view that as a gross exaggeration of what’s going on. They feel that conservatives tend to cherry-pick a few extreme cases and, from there, generalize about the entirety of higher education. They see those examples as having led to the perception of professors in tweed jackets teaching students to be politically correct and grading them on how well they succeed. From where many liberals sit, conservatives’ hysterical responses have led them to pull a legislative lever that amounts to little more than an attempt at mind control.
Some liberals view conservatives’ legislative proposals even more darkly. That is, they believe the measures result from an unwillingness to acknowledge the deeply and persistently racist nature of this country. Conservatives, in this line of thinking, want to “whitewash” history, and, if liberal faculty members won’t do it willingly, they’ll be forced to comply. In fact, to many on the political left, the legislative measures are evidence that higher education is the victim of an unprovoked and unwarranted attack.
In many ways, conservatives are right about the problem. They’re just wrong about the solution.
Here’s what too often gets missed: In many ways, conservatives are right about the problem. They’re just wrong about the solution. To understand why, it’s worth being clear about what is meant by the broad term “DEI.” In some ways, what campus DEI offices deal with isn’t particularly contentious, and therefore probably isn’t driving the legislative efforts. For instance, many spend a significant amount of their time and budget handling the kinds of campus-level investigations that are linked to violations of Title IX or of equal-employment-opportunity laws. So much so that I had one DEI administrator tell me that the largest portion of the office’s budget went to lawyers.
What’s more, it’s arguably in the interest of the DEI office itself to dismiss frivolous complaints, if only because they’re often expensive to pursue.
So what gives? Part of what has come to be associated with DEI offices in recent years is DEI programming, which includes the broad umbrella of diversity training. On the surface, it’s difficult to imagine what there is to object to. What could be wrong with trying to get people of different backgrounds to treat one another with respect? But it turns out there are some real concerns.
While the ways diversity, equity, and inclusion programming is carried out can vary across campuses, most share a few core assumptions. Few, if any, of the assumptions are ever made explicit, an oversight with significant implications. After all, it’s difficult to have a conversation about something that hasn’t been named. So here are three of the main assumptions that go along with most DEI programming:
1. The primary way we do and should think about who we are — both to ourselves and to one another — is along the lines of our race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. There are no downsides to speak of when it comes to leaning into identity as defined this way. What’s more, we know all we need to know about what those axes of identity mean for who has privilege and power in a given situation, and we need to bear this in mind in all of our interactions.
2. Avoiding microaggressions is of utmost importance. The harm they cause is serious and persistent, and preventing students and employees from experiencing that harm is more important than creating space for a diversity of perspectives.
3. On heated issues, people differ in their opinions because they have different information. This means that, if we give people with the “wrong” opinions more information — if we educate them — they will come around to the “correct” opinion.
Ultimately, the problem with DEI is the certainty associated with the assumptions.
Perhaps those assumptions are not stated out loud because they’re treated as given. Or perhaps they’re quietly treated as given because they’re not stated out loud. Either way, not naming them makes them difficult to challenge. And treating them as given means that anyone who does challenge them is, at best, viewed with suspicion and, at worst, seen as questioning reality itself.
And yet, for each of those three assumptions, liberals who think conservatives are making mountains out of molehills might ask themselves the following question: Is there a version of the opposing position that would make sense to me even if I don’t agree with it?
When it comes to the first assumption, on identity, that might mean asking how much we really understand about both the nature of power and who has it in any given interaction. It might mean thinking about how and under what conditions we should view the world through the lens of race, ethnicity, and gender, and whether there’s a point where doing so simply becomes unacceptably divisive.
For the assumption on microaggressions, on one level, one might simply consider what we really know about their effects — a question some empirical researchers have raised as well. On another level, it might mean thinking through the role of intent itself — something the world of DEI often minimizes or ignores entirely. After all, many of the kinds of statements that end up on lists of microaggressions have interpretations that vary based on what it was that the speaker meant. Take an example like “Where are you from?” When we treat intent as irrelevant, we’re saying there’s no difference between someone who’s genuinely curious about the origin of an obviously non-native English speaker and someone who is deliberately trying to make non-white people feel as if they don’t belong in this country.
The third assumption spans the breadth of just about all diversity-training programs. It is the idea that what keeps people on different sides of contentious issues is information. And if people simply had the right information, they’d have the proper opinion.
While liberals are pondering these kinds of questions, conservatives would do well to ask themselves a different one. That is, will top-down solutions accomplish what you think they will? I am not sure you can legislate what people think and believe. What’s more, there are probably unintended consequences of trying to force people to change. These include resentment, divisions, and simply the finding of new and subtle strategies to communicate the same ideas. Ultimately, the problem with DEI is the certainty associated with the assumptions. In this sense, conservative solutions that ban these ideas simply replace a problem of certainty with more certainty.
I recently participated in a meeting on my campus where someone asked why it is that DEI policies and statements are subject to such scrutiny and criticism at all. I understood him, in asking the question, to be implying that the criticism must be coming from people who want to silence an honest conversation about race and racial inequality. While that might be true, there’s another entirely plausible explanation. That is: The kinds of assumptions that underpin DEI programming and thinking break entirely along political lines. And while the assumptions aren’t certainty, certainty keeps higher education from seeing that they’re assumptions.
The upshot is this: Any path forward involves letting people openly question and challenge ideas around diversity, equity, and inclusion. A first step in this direction means naming them.
