Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on college campuses, known as DEI, continue to be a popular punching bag for conservatives. In a recent congressional hearing, Republican lawmakers alleged that DEI offices are behind the rise in campus anti-semitism. This year, both Florida and Texas banned DEI programs in public higher education in part because of fears that they are too divisive.
Bari Weiss, the editor of the Free Press, has similarly argued that it’s “time to end DEI for good,” calling it a dangerous ideological project that undermines the central missions of the institutions that adopt it. A similar call was raised at last month’s University of California Board of Regents meeting.
I too would be fearful of DEI if offices that oversee a wide range of those efforts were actually guilty of such serious charges. However, I find those fears to be more imagined than real, based on what I have experienced in my more than 30 years studying higher education and two years working in UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.
DEI offices on college campuses do not have special superpowers that ensure transformative influence as claimed by critics. These offices have had a relatively short history and must operate within a context shaped by multiple competing internal and external forces.
Even if those offices come to establish strong standing, they are limited by the structures, practices and cultures that have developed within higher education. As Brian Rosenberg, the former president of Macalester College, put it in his book “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It,” higher education is notoriously resistant to change.
Moreover, Inside Higher Ed reported this year that there is a high turnover rate among chief diversity officers, and these positions can be isolating, emotionally taxing and not taken seriously. Even under better circumstances, chief diversity officers are spending their days mainly on administrative duties and functions.
Universities must comply with civil rights legislation, and some diversity offices were established because of failures to do so. My office, for example, was established in 2015 primarily to improve policies and procedures at UCLA to prevent and address discrimination, including protection under Title IX and the Americans With Disabilities Act.
It turns out that those duties also support other educational interests. I learned through my own scholarship that there are significant educational benefits to learning across social and cultural differences, including across religious differences. The success of those aims depends on an institution proactively protecting civil rights and supporting students in challenging themselves both intellectually and emotionally. Fostering such an environment enables universities to fulfill their mission.
As such, DEI programs can play a key role in strengthening the fabric of our democratic society, especially as the nation’s population becomes increasingly more diverse. While there is no consensus about how we should ground or pursue this work, opponents are quick to characterize it as a radical project tethered to a fringe ideology. Given the short existence of diversity and equity offices and their continued development, it is imprudent to pass judgment based on misleading claims about what DEI is or isn’t in higher education.
Mitchell J. Chang serves as the interim vice provost for the Office of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion and is a professor at the School of Education and Information Studies at UCLA.
