My old Washington Monthly colleague Nick Confessore, now at the New York Times, has a long magazine piece up today about the DEI program at the University of Michigan, one of the oldest and most expansive in the country:
Most students must take at least one class addressing “racial and ethnic intolerance and resulting inequality.”... Programs across the university are couched in the distinctive jargon that, to D.E.I.’s practitioners, reflects proven practices for making classrooms more inclusive, and to its critics reveals how deeply D.E.I. is encoded with left-wing ideologies.... The English department has adopted a 245-word land acknowledgment, describing its core subject as “a language brought by colonizers to North America.”... Striving to touch “every individual on campus,” as the school puts it, Michigan has poured roughly a quarter of a billion dollars into D.E.I. since 2016.
The big problem is that even after many decades and many millions of dollars, it hasn't accomplished much:
Instead, Michigan’s D.E.I. efforts have created a powerful conceptual framework for student and faculty grievances — and formidable bureaucratic mechanisms to pursue them. Everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements, professors and students told me, were now cast as crises of inclusion and harm, each demanding some further administrative intervention or expansion.
....On their private text-messaging group, deans across the university grumbled about the mountains of data they were required to submit each year. Their public progress reports and D.E.I. strategic plans were heavily vetted by the university counsel’s office and Sellers’s team; the resulting public documents, though meant to ensure accountability, were often both lengthy and vague. “No one knew what they were supposed to be doing,” the former dean said. “And no one would tell us. But we had to show that we were doing something.”
....For a large swath of students and professors, Michigan’s D.E.I. initiatives have become simply background noise, like the rote incantations of a state religion.... [But] Michigan has taken the struggles of its D.E.I. program as evidence of the need for more. In 2023, Chavous oversaw the rollout of D.E.I. 2.0. There would be more D.E.I. training, more “antiracism dialogue,” D.E.I. consultants for each university unit, a new raft of subplans and action items.
....Many faculty members I spoke to worried that Michigan’s press to ingrain D.E.I. into their scholarship — the diversity statements, the special fellowships, the clamor for research into contemporary social-justice issues — had narrowed its departments rather than broadening them. Disciplines and historical eras that couldn’t be jammed into an equity framework were being left to wither; even academics from minority backgrounds felt they had to present themselves as scholars of equity in order to advance.
Nor has DEI accomplished its original core purpose of increasing Black enrollment:
The university now has a greater proportion of Hispanic, Asian and first-generation students and a more racially diverse staff. But in a state where 14 percent of residents are Black, the school’s Black undergraduate enrollment has long hovered stubbornly at around 4 percent, before ticking up just past 5 percent this fall.
The whole piece has much, much more. It's long but well worth a read. You might even find yourself surprised by some of it.
You know, I would be happy to have this conversation a couple of months from now. Of course, my opinion does not count for nearly as much as the opinions of black people, especially teachers, academics, and students.
However, coming right now, and from the NYTimes, it really looks like the Times is trolling Harris. I'm sure Nick doesn't decide publication dates, and I think he strives to do good work.
Of course, couldn't they find a black person who thinks the implementation of DEI at Michigan doesn't work? Or did they try?
Honestly, with so many of these things, if you ask a black person, you get a much better answer.
And by the way, this was one of the best things about following the blog of Ta-Nehisi Coates. He would know good black people to ask about these things, and he would get interesting answers, and add some good ideas of his own.
None of this is to trash Nick. I think he does good work. My aim is to underline my thesis: The New York Times can be safely ignored these days.
ah but you see, you can’t ask a black person (and certainly not a black student!) because they’d be biased. same as you can’t interview a trans person in an article about trans rights. this is NY Times logic, where people with an actual stake are “biased activists” but bigots with opinions are “experts.”
These comments (Dr J and somebody) are both spot on.
If you imagine getting your news from Faux and the like, this certainly comes across as a reason to vote against the "Left."
Did you actually read the article?
New York Times Pitchbot@DougJBalloon
1h
We wanted to know how Latino swing voters felt about Trump's Univision town hall. So we talked to three white unvaccinated divorced dads at a Chipotle in Toms River.
Oct 17, 2024 · 2:56 PM UTC
It doesn’t say specifically that the author spoke with black academics at the school, but this:
implies it.
? They have quotes from the head of the Black Student Union and at least one other black student.
Good on Nick. As I said, I was more addressing the NYTimes, which could have had someone like you mention actually write the piece.
Also, we could probably have waited to have this conversation until after the election. Now it's laced with the possibility of bad faith, cherry-picked quotes, and so on.
Because y'all know who loves to criticize DEI, right?
Uh, what? They have multiple Black students quoted, most of them negative about DEI.
"The New York Times can be safely ignored these days."
Sorry, that's ridiculous. That's the same nonsense I see on the MAGA blogs.
The NYT does not consider itself to be in the role of the Party Political Cheerleader.
Suppressing news work to serve an electoral cycle... that's for house organs.
While their sane-washing of Trump can certainly be critiqued, preciously whinging on about this timing ...
Of course the responses here rather go to illustrate your challenges.
Why is it important to ask a black person? This DEI nonsense at Michigan affects every student and faculty member there and only 5% of the students are black.
What drivel.
The framing is backwards. It's not that inclusivity and respect for all people is "left wing ideology", it's that right wing ideology not only begins from a place of hate, bigotry, and exclusion but actively encourages such things. The NYT won't call this out, and that's a stain on them - doubly so when they lend credence, inadvertently or not, to the idea that inclusivity is somehow an inherently left-wing idea.
Also, just because the goal of their DEI initiative (probably just one goal? I don't know, I don't want to go down a rabbit hole today) was to increase black enrollment doesn't mean it's a failure. It just means it may not be working at that one metric. Maybe it's working on other, equally important metrics: whether courses are framed and taught in a neutral rather than biased way, whether the POC who are present feel more comfortable and welcomed than they would in the absence of these initiatives, and so on. Those things have broad benefits, not just to the POC, but to the community as a whole.
Seeing an old white guy (and one who should know better) slam DEI initiatives without even talking about any of that is just sad.
I love when people defend the big corporate universities because they throw the right words at you.
FOAD Troll, you're an idiot
"Maybe it's working on other, equally important metrics: whether courses are framed and taught in a neutral rather than biased way, whether the POC who are present feel more comfortable and welcomed than they would in the absence of these initiatives, and so on. Those things have broad benefits, not just to the POC, but to the community as a whole."
Indeed, it would be nice if we could know this. But the point of the article is that despite these programs being in place for years, we still have no practical way of objectively measuring their outcomes, positive or negative, and a lot of stakeholders, including students and staff of color, are doubtful they're having much impact. It doesn't mean they aren't doing some good. It's just that we have no idea how, why, or in what areas.
I'd rather have intentional efforts at being inclusive without the ability to really measure outcomes than not have them, which seems to be the alternative. That's how we have systemic biases and the perpetuation of systemic racism.
Too often, data-driven decision making and outcomes measurement is used as the same sort of cudgel as white moderation. And I say that as someone whose literal job it is to make sure my organization and county are making data-driven decisions (where and when appropriate).
I looked at adding a DEI program for my corporation a few years ago and looked at a lot of different programs. Two things stood out to me. One, most fo the programs were not very well done and would have required a lot fo work on my part or someone I would have designated, to make it relevant to our work. Second, virtually none had any metrics so that you could judge results. They were not results focused but focused on the idea that everyone should realize DEI is important.
I think I am fairly well read on actual diversity studies and think diversity is beneficial for most corporations. I agree with he concept, but I couldn't see why I should spend money on a program that would also take up a lot fo time without the likelihood of actually increasing diversity. I came away feeling most of the DEI programs on the market are poorly done or scams.
I retired and now 2 years later my corporation is actually doing a DEI program. I have been helping the woman in our corporation running it. As I predicted it required lots fo work on her part. The program has no metrics. It will just be a program that will make those who think they need a DEI program feel good.
Steve
Counting my children, the close neighbors have eleven children at ten different Colleges/Universities. What the other kids told mine the summer before attending:
Never use pronouns
Never interact with the kids who dress like animals (I am not sure what this means)
If someone starts talking about racism, assume they are a professional victim
Coach the foreign kids to walk on eggshells, especially if they are from Africa or South America wrg to all the above.
Never discuss politics with other students outside of your core friend group.
So bigots.
At least they are not pieces of shit like you.
QED
While the goals are laudable just because you have goals doesn’t mean you have solutions. Getting people to change their attitudes or behavior is really hard.
You make a good point about coaching the foreign kids. I’ve traveled a lot in Asia and find that every country has its own “common sense” about how to treat minorities. Add in using English as a second language and I can see they would have a hard time.
It sounds like everyone has to walk on eggshells now. I’m sure this was not one of the goals of the program.
Of course, once they get the program established and funded it will be really hard to kill.
As far as walking on eggshells, I think most of the kids find their core friend group where it is not an issue and ignore the whole DEI thing. It is mostly about larger groups and class. And yes, there they walk on eggshells.
The article states black enrollment is down by almost half over the last 25 years at Michigan. There has to be a better way. Bitching about micro-aggressions and lack of diversity statements isn't going to raise black enrollment. That $250 Million dollars spent on DEI would have done more if it had been spent having students tutor inner-city kids so they could attend UofM.
The big problem is that even after many decades and many millions of dollars, it hasn't accomplished much
DEI (like ESG) was never going to accomplish much, other than line the pockets of "experts" who've never held a real job, let alone successfully introduce change into an organization.
Kevin, you say 'many decades' and then list items which have only existed a few years.
It will takes many, many decades of kids growing up, being taught they can strive, making sure they actually can, and then maybe we'll approach equality.
Women got the vote in 1920 but we didn't see near parity in laws, let alone outcomes, until a hundred years later.
And there's still bigots saying that a woman can't be President.
I hate to be the wet blanket, but I don't think this work will ever be "done" in the sense that we can now ignore it because everything is ok.
No, I think that valuing diversity is a think that requires work, and will always require work. It does not oppose human nature, but it does oppose the sort of grooves that human nature plus the least effort will lead you to.
Affinity bias, and Fear of the Other are things that will always be there. What is needed are ways to make that work *for* diversity, rather than against it.
That sounds crazy, but I know it can work. I've seen it.
+1 for "getting it"
Who is saying a woman can't be president?
I think the answer as to why they keep trying despite futile results is in this passage:
There is a sizeable edifice of DEI-related bureaucracy under the Chief Diversity Officer that needs to justify its existence, and promote its own growth and expansion.
OK, so assuming that what Michigan has been trying with regard to DEI has been a failure, what should they be doing instead?
Kevin, what university has successfully implemented a program over the past ten or twenty years that has had the desired effects?
If no university has managed to accomplish this yet, that implies that NOBODY knows what will or won't work and schools have the choice to try SOMETHING and see if it's effective or not, or to do nothing. (Unsurprisingly, if you've spent ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars on a program, you probably don't want to run a study that shows it was all a waste and discontinue the program. Private industry does that just as often as academia; sunk cost is real.)
But the first question is a serious one: what institution (college, university) has successfully accomplished what Michigan hasn't, and how did it do that?
DEI could have been useful, but instead it's been seized upon by the most extreme identitarian left who think it's a vital mission to make white kids ashamed of who they are.
I never thought I would utter words like that, but in some quarters it appears to be true. No one should ever be ashamed of their identity, no matter what their ancestors have done.
Naturally, that's launched a narrative that has been hugely valuable to the right-wing politicians and influencers who seek to paint ALL liberals with the same extremist brush. This has been a huge gift to Trump and his minions and could actually put him back in the White House.
I keep hearing that DEI makes white people feel guilty, but I haven't seen it.
I work at a Uni with a DEI program and it's 100% training on how not to be racist or sexist, what to do if some powerful person is being racist or sexist. The training encourages you to handle minor problems yourself and only go to the admin for serious problems.
Finding bad DEI programs to trash DEI as an approach is the same story as using one mob boss to trash the concept of a union.
"instead it's been seized upon by the most extreme identitarian left who think it's a vital mission to make white kids ashamed of who they are."
That is completely made up. No college course on race or imperialism or whatever is designed to "make white kids ashamed." What happens sometimes is that a course on history, race, genocide, etc., sometimes makes people realize that the sanitized propaganda they grew up with isn't the whole story and they learn that real injustices have been perpetrated against certain groups not just by a few individual bad apples, but by states, groups, and institutions. Facing up to that, particularly if you're part of the historical majority (either religious, racially, ethnically or otherwise) is not easy and some people perceive this as "being shamed" for who they are. Should German school kids not have to learn about the Holocaust because it might make them "ashamed" of their heritage? It should make them hate Nazis, but not be ashamed of their ethnicity. Same with other DEI-oriented instruction.
Read “White Fragility,” then read John McWhorter. Yes, there has been a long-standing effort to shame white people. If they object, they’re “fragile.” That’s B.S. It’s a prior assumption.
You have it backwards.
Is there a goal for DEI? What would it be. That we all love each other? Or that we all stay in our own silos and hate each other? It would be nice to have metrics. At least if we had metrics we could see what the goals are and if they are being helped or hurt by DEI.
My husband (Or should I say partner?) went to the hospital today for testing. They asked him if he had any problems with balance. I chuckled because that man could walk a tightrope with his eyes closed. The interviewer looked at me, and I almost said that it was because his grandfather was an Indian. But I couldn't figure out if that met the criteria plastered on the wall for "being nice", so i just concurred that he has good balance. The world has become a much less interesting place.
So around $500/student/year. If half goes towards salaries, I'd guess there would be about 120 people or roughly 1 per 500 students (undergrads). Add in grad and professional schools plus faculty and staff, and that could be about 1 per 750 people.
Some DEI programs may simply be "training on how not to be racist or sexist and what to do if some powerful person is being racist or sexist", as one commenter says above. If so, this a watered-down version of DEI since the "anti-racist" ideology behind DEI states that the US is a white supremacist society, all whites have "white privilege", and "whiteness" is a character defect of some kind which must be expunged. It's strange, this ideology is built on stereotypes about people of a certain race, and we were supposed to be leaving stereotypes behind.
Stereotypes can be a very powerful tools and weapons when they are tolerated in a society. But use of them can backfire – many whites simply avoid engagement on matters of race. It’s just not worth it. Some even vote for Trump because they don't like the idea of being stereotyped.
Look who's been drinking the Faux News Flavor-ade, y'all.
You may think that using stereotypes to weaponize your political goals are fine, but I don't. It does nothing to improve race relations, and it alienates large numbers of whites. It's a lose, lose strategy.
BTW, I vote straight ticket Democrat and I don't watch Fox News.
DEI is not affirmative action. It is not not simply an attempt to right historic wrongs or assist various disadvantaged demographic groups. DEI is, rather, the administrative apparatus for implementing the "anti-racist" ideology. That fact sets DEI very much apart. And anyone who doesn't understand this crucial point does not really understand the issue.
Here's the "anti-racist" ideology in a nutshell (as spelled out by its most famous modern exponent): "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." This "anti-racist" ideology promotes a state of permanent racial discrimination. In other words, "anti-racism" is racist.
This problem should have been pointed out by Liberals as well as Conservatives. "Anti-racism" should have been condemned in a bipartisan manner. Instead, the basic dynamic that took place is that Conservatives (by and large) condemned it and the Left responded in a tribal manner by defending and embracing a reductive and discriminatory ideology. The Left has thereby greatly discredited itself.
And supposedly liberal institutions such as schools and media organizations betrayed their own values by adopting this illiberal agenda. To be clear, DEI is an entirely appropriate topic for academic or journalistic inquiry, but it should be analyzed: not proselytized.
Any school or media outlet that adopts a DEI policy and/or publishes a DEI statement announces that they are committed to only that one perspective on what is actually a complex topic. But for anyone with a curious (rather than a radicalized) mind, the topic of bigoted or biased systems is an open question to explore - not a settled question to accept.
Equality vs equity, individuality vs collectivism, and merit vs favoritism are living debates. But our schools and news sources have greatly narrowed the range of "acceptable" discourse on these and similar issues. They should all be ashamed of themselves.
With all this in mind, it is not even remotely surprising that DEI programs have come to resemble, as quoted in Kevin's blog post, "the rote incantations of a state religion." That's what happens when once-Liberal institutions shut down debate and dedicate themselves to ideological extremism. And the situation will not improve unless and until Liberals can finally just admit it: they got this one wrong.
We need to go back to a liberal society where our knowledge institutions are ready, willing, and able to promote free inquiry on our most pressing issues. And that will not happen until DEI is gone.
Nobody reads the bigoted crap you write, Leo. You should save your energy on these walls of text.
@cmayo:
Kevin's blog post is about an NYT Magazine article: "The University of Michigan Doubled Down on D.E.I. What Went Wrong?"
Here is the most liked comment in the comments section of that article:
"Sasha
CT
Oct. 16
If someone wanted to find a way to destroy American universities, they wouldn't be able to find a better tool than D.E.I. An enormous bureaucracy that drains resources and drives up the already astronomical price of college while contributing next to nothing to the advancement of actually underprivileged students. It has a profoundly negative effect on campus life by turning it into victimhood Olympics. Through its influence on hiring it actively works to exclude people on both ideological and racial grounds, and it further tilts the already wildly imbalanced campus politics. Moreover, as this article demonstrates, by trying to infuse every aspect of teaching and research with DEI considerations it further erodes the distinction between activism and scholarship and remakes entire disciplines in its shape (and not for the better). Finally, by politicizing the university it undermines the already problematic standing of higher education among the American public. As I said, one of the most pernicious things ever to happen to American higher education.
22 Replies 2695 Recommend"
At this point in time, if you're still unable to simply acknowledge the damning reality about DEI and anti-racism, then you simply must be as deep in a Leftist cocoon as Trump's supporters are buried in a cult.