Photo illustration by Pablo Delcan and Danielle Del Plato
By Nicholas Confessore | The New York Times
Diversity, equity and inclusion programs are under attack. A dozen states have passed new laws restricting D.E.I. in public universities. Conservatives argue that the decades-long drive to increase racial diversity in America’s universities has corrupted higher education.
After covering some of these debates for The Times, I decided that I needed to see D.E.I. programs up close. So earlier this year, I began visiting the University of Michigan, one of the country’s most prestigious public universities.
Michigan voters had banned affirmative action in 2006, leading to a plunge in minority enrollment, particularly Black students. So the university built one of the most ambitious D.E.I. programs in higher education. It hoped to attract and retain a more diverse array of students and faculty. Since 2016, I learned, the university has spent roughly a quarter of a billion dollars on the effort. Each of Michigan’s 51 schools, colleges, libraries and other units has its own D.E.I. plan; many have their own D.E.I. offices. By one count, the school has more D.E.I. staff members than any other large public university in the country.
The program has yielded wins — a greater proportion of Hispanic and Asian undergraduates and a more racially diverse staff. It has also struggled to achieve some central goals. The proportion of Black undergraduates, now around 5 percent, has barely changed in a decade.
Most strikingly, the university’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, Michigan has become less inclusive. In a 2022 survey, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Minority students — particularly those who are Black — were also less likely to report “feelings of being valued, belonging, personal growth and thriving.” Across the board, students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or with different politics.
These are the precise areas of engagement that D.E.I. programs have promised to improve. I wrote a story in The New York Times Magazine today about why the effort is coming up short.
Campus paranoia
At the University of Michigan. | Nic Antaya for The New York Times
One reason I wanted to report at the University of Michigan was to better understand campus conflicts around identity and speech. Last year, the school received more than twice as many formal complaints of sex or gender discrimination than it did in 2015. During roughly the same period, complaints involving race, religion or national origin have increased from a few dozen to almost 400.
Some of that change reflects a growing willingness to challenge ugly behavior that might once have been tolerated. But people at Michigan also argued to me that the school’s D.E.I. efforts had fostered a culture of grievance. Everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements, professors and students told me, were cast as crises of inclusion and harm, each demanding administrative intervention.
At the law school, some students demanded that a professor be fired for referring to two students — who were both named Xu and sat next to each other in class — as “left Xu” and “right Xu.” Another class was derailed when the professor asked a white student to read aloud from a 1950s court decision containing the word “Negro.”
As at other colleges and universities nationwide, faculty and students told me, everything escalated in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020. One professor, Eric Fretz, was pulled into a Title IX hearing because he invited his class to let him know when he wasn’t being sensitive enough to gender stereotypes. (A student complained that Fretz was forcing his female students to educate their own professor on how not to be sexist.)
What is D.E.I. really for?
Michigan’s recent past may be a glimpse of D.E.I.’s future. The school’s program was built to accomplish what affirmative action, forbidden in the state, could not. Last year, the Supreme Court copied Michigan and barred schools nationwide from using racial preferences in admissions, making administrators likely to reach for D.E.I. solutions.
What went wrong at Michigan? One answer is that programs like Michigan’s are confused about whom — and what — D.E.I. is really for. The earliest versions were aimed at integrating Black students who began arriving on college campuses in larger numbers in the 1960s and 1970s. But in subsequent decades, as the Supreme Court whittled down the permissible scope of affirmative action programs, what began as a tool for racial justice turned into a program of educational enrichment: A core principle of D.E.I. now is that all students learn better in diverse environs.
That leaves D.E.I. programs less focused on the people they were originally conceived to help — and conflicted about what they are really trying to achieve. Schools like Michigan pay lip service to religious or political diversity, for example, but may do little to advance those goals. Along the way, they make ambitious commitments to racial diversity that prove difficult to achieve. As a result, many Black students at Michigan have grown cynical about the school’s promises and feel that D.E.I. has forgotten them. They are, a leader in the university’s Black Student Union told me, “invested in the work, but not in D.E.I. itself.”
I encourage you to read the in-depth story of what went wrong.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Read Full Post »
