The Cover
Mending fences
Legislation against DEI programmes are rattling US' higher education landscape.
By Julia Gilmore
"In some ways, it's no surprise what we're seeing now given the trajectory of increased attacks on programmes correcting for historical injustice but in other ways, it’s still horrifically shocking."
“This is not about politics. It’s about the protection of our community, the progression of our culture, and most of all, it’s about your education and your future.”
“I think the fear of those of us who are researching these issues or who are directly impacted, is that this is not just research or policy. This is people's lives."
A recent wave of legislation against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes in certain US states has sparked fears over the potential impact on not only staff and students at affected institutions, but on the higher education sphere as a whole.
Since July 2023, over 40 bills have been proposed in 22 states to place restrictions on DEI initiatives at public colleges, according to data from the Chronicle of Higher Education. A June 2023 press release from Texas state Senator Brandon Creighton said: “In recent years, DEI offices have grown in size and influence across college campuses requiring political litmus tests, compelled speech and mandatory diversity statements.” Republican legislators who oppose DEI programmes say they are discriminatory and promote left-wing ideology, something they hope will resonate with voters in this election year.
However, Senator Creighton’s views are by no means shared by other figures in US higher education. Laura Lanese, president and CEO of the Inter-University Council of Ohio wrote in an open letter last May: “DEI helps more students achieve the American Dream of success via a college education.” Indeed, outreach programmes such as Upward Bound have existed in the US since the 1960s, aiming to encourage students of colour to attend primarily white institutions. These have evolved into the DEI programmes of today, which recognise that students from diverse backgrounds have particular concerns and needs that go beyond simply increased admissions and have historically been excluded and even exploited by these same institutions.
Texas Senate Bill 17 (also known as SB17), came into effect on 1 January this year, making it illegal to have DEI offices and programming in public universities in the state. The bill also forbids mandatory diversity training, as well as not requiring departments to ask prospective faculty about their commitment to building diverse campuses. There are growing fears that states who adopt similar policies will discourage top applicants from diverse backgrounds from applying to these schools.
The wave of bills against DEI are thought to have stemmed from last June’s Supreme Court ruling against the use of race in college admissions . This was criticised by President Joe Biden, who encouraged colleges and universities to continue using race, income and other diversity metrics as part of their admissions process. He commented: “[Colleges and universities] should not abandon their commitment to ensure student bodies of diverse backgrounds and experiences that reflect all of America… Discrimination still exists in America. Today’s decision does not change that.”
Research by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that there is no substitute for explicitly considering race or ethnicity in admissions whilst simultaneously trying to promote diversity, with their analysis not finding a single case where ‘race-blind’ admissions succeeded in preventing enrolment decline among underrepresented students.
It is worth also bearing in mind that DEI programmes aren’t just focused on racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion, but also benefit students marginalised based on gender, sexual orientation, those with caring or professional responsibilities and also those who are the first in their family to attend university.
As of the start of April this year, 10 states have already implemented restrictions on DEI programmes at universities, including Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Several of these policies ban state funds being used for diversity-based programmes, activities, and offices on college campuses, whereas some go even further, banning diversity offices at universities altogether.
Florida, with Gov Ron DeSantis’ proposed ‘StopWOKE’ act, has even tried to restrict race-related training or programmes in higher education and the workplace, but judges have blocked this, arguing that the restrictions are unenforceable and in violation of the First Amendment. At least 19 other states have proposed similar restrictions, but several efforts have already failed to pass or were vetoed, such as in Georgia and Arkansas.
Research has shown that DEI programmes consistently result in better learning outcomes for students. Not only do students from marginalised groups perform better academically at institutions with robust diversity programmes, graduating at a higher rate, but the student body as a whole gain an increased understanding of different perspectives, developing trust between communities.
Speaking to QS Insights Magazine, Erica Jacqueline Licht, Research Projects Director at the Institutional Antiracism and Accountability Project (IARA) at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government shares her concerns about the new wave of legislation, especially given the important positive benefits documented by social science research: “As a result of these programmes, students graduate with less bias and have an increased ability to work in teams. The programmes promote peer acceptance and benefit both Black, Indigenous and students of colour, but also all students. The list goes on in terms of the beneficial impact to faculty and staff as demonstrated through satisfaction surveys as well as the resulting robustness of engaged scholarship and higher quality of curricula.” Licht also cites research that shows students from universities with DEI programmes go on to be more engaged in their communities after they graduate and are more likely to participate in local government and politics.
She comments on her own reaction when greeted by the news of the legislation: “In some ways, it's no surprise what we're seeing now given the trajectory of increased attacks on programmes correcting for historical injustice but in other ways, it’s still horrifically shocking. When I say it's no surprise, it's because we've seen the lead up to this moment in policies explicitly meant to restrict the freedom to learn and learn about an accurate US history, as well as to directly target and eliminate policies proven to benefit Black, Indigenous and students of colour, as well as staff, and the general campus climate.”
The effect on faculty of DEI programmes cannot be understated, with Licht pointing to studies that have shown that faculty job satisfaction is higher when these policies are in place. This is because they help restructure university policies on hiring, promotion and advancement, such as redesigned job descriptions, more voices taking part in the interview process and a requirement for implicit bias training on search committees. This leads to an increased diversity in junior faculty on campus and, therefore, more diverse voices in higher education.
On April 2, Jay Hartzell, President of the University of Texas (UT) at Austin, sent an email stating that the school would be shutting down the Division of Campus and Community Engagement, eliminating jobs in order to comply with the SB17 ruling. More than 60 UT Austin staff members were terminated as a result, with the Associated Press discovering that around 36 other positions have been eliminated at other schools across the state of Texas.
The backlash to the UT Austin layoffs has been swift and forceful. Around 200 students at UT Austin crashed a virtual council meeting conducted by President Hartzell – when officials logged on to the meeting, they were faced by students sharing black backgrounds with red letters reading: “No DEI = Not Our Texas.” The university’s actions have also been criticised by the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, who condemned the decision, and the Texas NAACP releasing a statement asking for transparency and more information from university officials about the terminations.
In Florida, the NAACP have even urged Black student athletes to reconsider attending public colleges and universities in the state, with an open letter to the NCAA President Charlie Barker in March, saying: “This is not about politics. It’s about the protection of our community, the progression of our culture, and most of all, it’s about your education and your future.”
Licht echoes these concerns: “I think the fear of those of us who are researching these issues or who are directly impacted, is that this is not just research or policy. This is people's lives. This is people's livelihoods, day-to-day lived experiences on campus, or in their communities and their place of work. The implications of that continues to grow and snowball on the state level.”
It is important to also consider the implications that such legislation and rhetoric emerging from certain US universities will have on the higher education sector as a whole. Whilst there has been no explicit pushback on a government level in the UK to EDI programmes at universities, Licht cautions against the assumption that this means there isn’t more to be done around EDI in higher education in the country: “In the UK, the Institutional Antiracism and Accountability Project has interviewed archivists and scholars who have worked extensively to address the extreme lack of curriculum in the UK related to Black British history, to South Asian British history, and also about the implications of colonialism and slavery. What does that mean for institutions today? What does that mean for how success and privilege functions in society today? If we don't make those historical linkages as well as have offices to support students on campus, we've truly failed.”
Strong DEI/EDI initiatives are essential at universities with a high proportion of international students, particularly in countries where these students are ethnic or racial minorities. Australia is well-known for attracting many international students, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that their DEI initiatives are effective in the ways Licht and others have discussed.
An audit of strategies to foster intercultural engagement in Australian public universities undertaken by the University of Melbourne noted that despite significant diversity in terms of cultural and linguistic backgrounds, there is “little evidence that intercultural learning is taking place, or that intercultural engagement is being developed.” Their study found that whilst universities in Australia are focusing on ensuring a diverse demographic profile of staff and students, this is “not enough to ensure that frequent or effective inclusive engagement occurs".
Licht calls on those who are concerned about the recent, and continuing, legislation against DEI to ensure they make their voices heard: “I think that we should all be really alarmed. We should all be directly pushing back and advocating in whatever spaces that we're in, whether it's within higher education or as citizens to prevent more restrictive policies.”