In the realm of American higher education, there has long been a widespread initiative known as "DEI" - Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - along with its associated policies and measures. The aim of this initiative is to foster an inclusive environment where all students can thrive. However, in recent years, this historically rooted initiative has faced unprecedented challenges, particularly from state governments and legislative bodies, leading to criticism and resistance.
So, what exactly is DEI? How has it succeeded, and why has it faced significant criticism and resistance? What impact will the changes it undergoes have on American higher education?
Explosive Growth in Industry Scale
DEI is an acronym derived from the first letters of three English words: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It constitutes an organizational framework aimed at promoting "fair treatment and full participation for all." These three letters also represent three closely interconnected values.
"Diversity" refers to building diversity within the employee workforce, encompassing various groups such as different genders, cultures, races, religions, socio-economic classes, as well as individuals with disabilities. "Equity" embodies the concepts of fairness and justice, including fair compensation, substantive equality, attention to social differences and resource allocation, and even decision-making power for historically disadvantaged groups. "Inclusion" entails creating an organizational culture where all individuals feel that their voices will be heard.
DEI originated from the United States' "Affirmative Action." In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order stipulating fair treatment of employees regardless of their race, creed, color, or national origin. By 1964, the U.S. Civil Rights Act proposed to prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Subsequently, in the practice of affirmative action, both through precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court and laws in some states, racial preferences were explicitly prohibited.
Supporters of DEI claim that affirmative action aims to both redress past discrimination, persecution, or exploitation by the cultural ruling class and address discrimination issues in contemporary society. Consequently, DEI has become a "sharp sword" to defend the interests of historically underrepresented groups (primarily African Americans and minorities) and resist various forms of injustice and social discrimination.
Initially, DEI appeared in the form of corporate training but later gained widespread recognition and extensive implementation in the American academic, school, and hospital sectors. With changing times, DEI became a significant rule for many enterprises to promote equality among ethnic groups and individuals. In the new century, many companies organized extensive training to implement DEI.
Reportedly, in 2003, American companies spent $8 billion annually on diversity efforts. By 2019, Time magazine reported that the DEI industry scale was experiencing "explosive growth." In academia, a survey from that year found a 27% increase in spending on DEI work compared to the previous five academic years.
In recent years, many universities and research institutions in the United States have also begun to make commitments to DEI in various ways, including creating policies, arranging programs, and appointing dedicated staff. In fact, as early as 2014, DEI information aimed at students and professors was widely disseminated in American higher education, with many schools requiring training and organizing conferences on the topic. Many scholarships provided by universities and numerous opportunities even have diversity encouragement purposes.
In the United States, many schools, hospitals, and companies have dedicated DEI positions. In some schools, DEI staff are responsible for requiring all faculty to sign written confirmations of their commitment to diversity.
Facing Increasing Criticism
The emergence of DEI undoubtedly reflects a utopian vision and has indeed had positive effects in reality. However, in recent years, it has faced increasing criticism.
For example, as one of the most common tasks of DEI, diversity training is often considered ineffective or even counterproductive. One of the most common arguments is that DEI training and responsibilities are merely to prevent people from suing schools. In other words, various DEI training programs are merely aimed at making people aware of not touching on sensitive topics in speech and implementation, without addressing the core issues such as real racial discrimination. This kind of training puts minorities in a state of being politically correct and friendly in job-seeking or working environments but hitting a wall everywhere, a phenomenon often referred to as the "glass ceiling" - seemingly beautiful, but impossible to reach due to significant obstacles.
According to a survey by the American Association of University Professors in 2022, one-fifth of U.S. colleges have incorporated DEI standards into their tenure standards. In colleges with more than 5000 students, this proportion is even higher at 45.6%. DEI often faces strong criticism in academia because it involves freedom of speech and academic freedom.
For example, many American universities have used mandatory diversity statements, including people's past contributions to diversity and requirements to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion plans if hired. Some universities consider diversity statements as important criteria for selecting applicants during recruitment.
Reportedly, the University of California, Berkeley, eliminated three-quarters of applicants for five life science faculty positions in 2018-2019 based solely on diversity statements. This move has drawn criticism from many.
The American Association of University Professors called for the abolition of such mandatory statements in 2022, stating that they encouraged cynicism and dishonest behavior. Some scholars have pointed out that most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, and forcing scholars to make such statements is equivalent to compelling them to go against their desire to understand the truth. Some critics argue that DEI has become a distinct ideology or political agenda, leading to excessive politicization in universities. However, in reality, the essence of universities lies in the freedom to express thoughts.
Universities Seeking Self-Transformation
In the article "The End of the 'Harvard Model': The Changing Landscape of Higher Education in America" published on July 11, 2023, I discussed a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring affirmative action policies based on race at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina unconstitutional. This ruling signifies that racial identity will no longer be considered a factor in university admissions. The decision overturned decades of regulations aimed at fostering vibrant diversity on American campuses, sparking profound upheaval in the higher education landscape, with nearly all top universities responding immediately.
In my view, the Supreme Court's decision marked the beginning of a significant blow to DEI and the commencement of universities seeking self-transformation.
It should be noted that since then, most American universities have made defensive adjustments. Some institutions have removed the term "diversity" from office and position titles; some are shutting down campus spaces designated for students based on identity; others have ended diversity training programs; and some no longer require all faculty and staff to formally affirm their commitment to diversity, among other measures.
However, both the Supreme Court's ruling and the self-transformation sought by universities are closely related to recent self-reflection within the American academic community.
For instance, in April 2023, 29 scientists, including Nobel laureates, published a paper expressing concerns that the enforced ideals of diversity, fairness, and inclusivity were threatening the entire scientific enterprise.
In recent years, conflicts over speech on American campuses have occurred frequently, with DEI offices and officials often intervening in invited speakers' presentations, sparking debates about their impact on campus environments, academic freedom, and freedom of speech. For example, in 2021, astrophysicist Albert had his lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology canceled after criticizing DEI, drawing widespread media attention. MIT subsequently established a committee to investigate the state of academic freedom at the institution.
Laws Prohibiting DEI Continuously Enacted
Since 2020, DEI has increasingly become a focal point of American politics. Many states are considering or have already passed legislation targeting DEI in public institutions.
In March 2023, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill with an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used for DEI projects at universities. In May of the same year, the state also passed legislation prohibiting the establishment of DEI offices and programs in public universities. In Iowa, a bill was introduced in March 2023 to prohibit spending on DEI in public universities. In January of this year, the Florida Board of Education proposed prohibiting federal or state funds from being used for DEI projects at universities.
The Chronicle of Higher Education tracked 81 bills in 28 states and Congress since 2023, all of which prohibit universities from establishing diversity, fairness, and inclusivity offices or hiring related staff, mandate diversity training, prevent institutions from using diversity statements in recruitment and promotion, or prohibit universities from considering race, gender, ethnicity, or nationality in admissions or employment.
While the list of these bills and their outcomes is still being updated, as of March 22, 2024, 13 of them have been finally approved, 11 have become laws, 33 have been introduced but failed to pass or were vetoed, and the rest are pending approval.
The enactment of these laws will profoundly affect the external environment of diversity in American universities and trigger a reconfiguration of internal mechanisms related to diversity, fairness, and inclusivity.
The original purpose of DEI was to help create a sense of belonging, establish inclusive learning environments, and improve students' success on university campuses, while also helping more students achieve the American Dream through higher education. However, its implementation has brought about some social issues, such as unfair treatment of non-minority individuals due to prioritizing certain minority groups. These issues also need to be taken seriously, with solutions proposed.
(The author is the Vice Dean of the Institute of Capital Development and Strategy at Renmin University of China)
