Is it too late to reform DEI?
As Republicans ramp up their attacks on colleges’ diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts — in the courts, in statehouses, and in meetings of boards of trustees — administrators across the country are being forced to rename, replace, or remove existing services explicitly targeted toward students of color.
A recent survey by Naspa: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education shows that there’s a disconnect between what administrators say students of color need and what those students say they need.
From our Amita Chatterjee’s recent story in The Chronicle:
“When it comes to racial climate, administrators and students agreed on a lot of things. They said it was important for the entire institution, from students to leadership, to be diverse. Campus spaces should be welcoming. People should be held accountable for comments or actions that treat someone differently based on their identity. Students should be involved in institutional decision-making. And colleges should transparently track the progress of these efforts.
But there were a few areas where administrators and students diverged — both in terms of which factors create a more equitable campus, and which barriers prevent meaningful change.”
According to Amita’s story, half of students want healthier interactions with the police, while just a quarter of administrators do. Neither administrators nor students trust the systems built to respond to racist incidents on campus. Administrators are more likely than students to believe that diversity training is working, and administrators think a diverse staff and faculty matter, while few students do. And neither students nor administrators think renaming buildings or removing statues contributes to a healthier climate.
What a jolt of reality.
Many college DEI offices, which are now being dismantled in states where anti-DEI laws and court rulings aren’t yet even in place, are administering the many racial-affiliation groups that some students of color have come to rely on for rudimentary needs — camaraderie, companionship, mental-health services, advocacy, and academic assistance.
A recent story by our Katherine Mangan explores whether such affinity groups, increasingly administered by students of color, should be encouraged or even allowed by colleges.
From Katie:
“Affinity groups that allow students to socialize with members of their own race let them ‘refuel’ in a comfortable setting with classmates who understand the challenges they’re facing, many student leaders and experts believe.”
But Republican lawmakers counter that “manufactured racial groupings are illegal, ineffective, and an approach that pits students against one other. At least 40 bills have been introduced in 22 states that would dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and seven have become law. … Colleges worried about losing state aid are pre-emptively scaling back efforts to place students together based on race, ethnicity, and sexuality.”
Katie’s story lists several examples of Black students going above and beyond to fight racial isolation and build trust and a sense of belonging.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s banning of race-conscious admissions could create more racial isolation next year, with potential consequences for student retention and graduation rates.
A recent Review essay by Feisal G. Mohamed, who describes the Supreme Court decision as a “gift in disguise,” challenges colleges to use the ruling as an opportunity for colleges to better “articulate the value of social justice and of the public good.”
From his essay:
“I have never been a fan of campus-diversity lingo. In its orthodox expressions, it praises diversity as an aspect of well-rounded training: Every student benefits from being exposed to a diversity of people and perspectives. Tomorrow’s leaders in industry, or medicine, or law, the argument runs, will be more effective if in their university experience they share classrooms with people of various backgrounds and life experiences. Such language seems designed to pacify all and satisfy none.”
More:
“Now that Grutter is dead, universities can, and must, openly claim a more compelling set of core values: advancing social justice, serving the public good, pursuing true democracy. If universities fail to do these things, it will not be the fault of the Supreme Court. It will be owing to the penny-pinching and pusillanimity of universities themselves.”
While the calls for reform are admirable, conservatives’ proposals are gaining traction and are specific and suffocating: Administrators aren’t allowed to conduct diversity training or require diversity statements. Staff DEI offices are prohibited, as is the hiring or promotion of staff members based on their race. Financial-aid offices can’t target scholarships toward students of color, accreditors can’t account for outcome disparities between white students and students of color, and high schools are banned from discussing issues regarding race that make students feel uncomfortable, making it more difficult for teachers to give college applicants advice on how to describe racial discrimination in their essays.
Attempts to better align what administrators and students of color want may be too late.
What I’m reading
- Black enrollment at the nation’s 122 selective private colleges continues to lag, according to a recent study by the Education Trust.
- Colin Grant’s incisive review of Margo Jefferson’s Constructing a Nervous System, in The New York Review of Books, which explores the power of the Black memoir.
- Steven D. Mobley Jr., an associate professor of higher education at Morgan State University, describes to Open Campus the origins of the funding disparities between HBCUs and PWIs.
- In The New York Times, David French writes about how MAGA has corrupted the white working class.
- Is Ibram Kendi a grifter? Or did he just make a lot of money off a really interesting idea? asks John McWhorter in The New York Times.
- Sixty years later, The Wall Street Journal corrects its coverage of the March on Washington. Turns out, the paper cited an earlier draft of John Lewis’s speech. Lewis, who was then the chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, did not demand a scorched-earth policy or denounce Kennedy’s civil-rights legislation. He said: “We shall splinter the segregated South into a thousand pieces, put them together in the image of God and Democracy. We must say wake up, America, wake up!” Read the rest of his speech here.
