Conservative activists, governors and legislators have launched a scorched-earth war on “woke education,” with campus diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs the latest target.
The allegations in the campaign against DEI may serve the political interests of conservative activists and politicians, but they misrepresent the power, policies and day-to-day activities of DEI offices and staff.
Calling DEI a “scam,” Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) announced proposed legislation that would ban public colleges from funding DEI initiatives and require “presidents and boards of trustees to take ownership of hiring and retention decisions, without interference from unions and faculty committees.”
To date, 31 bills have been introduced in 18 states to eliminate DEI offices, prohibit mandatory diversity training, bar the use of DEI statements in hiring and forbid consideration of race, gender, ethnicity or national origin in admissions or employment.
Modeled on proposals from the Goldwater and Manhattan Institutes, proposed legislation in Arizona would preclude colleges and universities from adopting as institutional policy concepts of “unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, structural racism, and disparate impact,” among others. And a bill pending in Texas would empower anyone “to seek an injunction against a public university that supports or sponsors” DEI activities, opening colleges and universities to a potential “flood of citizen lawsuits.”
The anti-DEI rhetoric is extraordinary. A series of opinion pieces in The Wall Street Journal, for example, proclaim that “DEI spells death for the idea of a university,” “DEI at law schools could bring down America” and DEI bias response efforts amount to “Stasi-like behavior.”
Having “won the debate” against critical race theory, conservative activist Christopher Rufo recently proclaimed, “it’s time to dismantle DEI.”
In reality, DEI programs represent one component of efforts by colleges and universities to address what is detailed in a 2016 U.S. Department of Education report: “During the past 50 years, the U.S. has seen racial and ethnic disparities in higher education enrollment and attainment, as well as gaps in earnings, employment, and other related outcomes for communities of color.”
Efforts to address these inequities include consideration of race in admission and employment decisions, anti-bias training, establishment of multicultural centers, inclusive pedagogy workshops, community conversations, student support services and a wide range of other efforts to diversify campus communities and make all students, faculty and staff feel welcome and included.
But it is a grotesque exaggeration to suggest, as The Wall Street Journal editorial board has, that “the diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy governs academia,” or that, as Rufo and colleagues at the Manhattan Institute insist, it is the “nerve center of woke ideology.”
DEI offices play little or no role on the issues of greatest concern to these critics. Admission decisions, for example, are made by admission office staff, often with input from faculty and subject to direction from college presidents and other senior officers.
And at the vast majority of institutions, including Hamilton and Cornell, where we are employed, DEI programs operate under policies that protect free and unfettered speech, even if it makes some members of the campus community uncomfortable.
The reality is that campus DEI offices are often lightly staffed and poorly funded. In Florida, legislative demands for an accounting of DEI expenditures revealed that public institutions devote 1 percent or less of their budgets to DEI programs.
On a day-to-day basis, most DEI staff can be found helping students navigate the complexities of campus life, working to deescalate tensions over hot-button issues and supporting faculty and staff efforts to make the classroom and the campus feel welcoming to all.
To a great extent, conservatives use DEI programs as a surrogate for their opposition to affirmative action policies that have been in place in higher education for decades. Conservatives claim that admission, hiring and other decisions should be based exclusively on objective criteria such as grades, test scores and other accomplishments. Liberals respond that total reliance on such indicators requires institutions to ignore the impediments that discrimination, past and present, creates for members of underrepresented groups.
It’s the difference between Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who argues that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who contends that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to . . . apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”
While we side with Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court in the affirmative action cases now before it may well side with Justice Roberts. It’s an inevitable debate, and one that will continue long after the Court’s decision. But that debate should rest on evidence and reasoned argument, not caricatures of DEI offices and programs.
Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Isaac Kramnick) of “Cornell: A History, 1940-2015.” David Wippman is president of Hamilton College.