#diversity equity inclusion policies @ state institutions

[reportwire]

DEI Legislation Tracker

The Chronicle is tracking legislation that would prohibit colleges from having diversity, equity, and inclusion offices or staff; ban mandatory diversity training; prohibit institutions from using diversity statements in hiring and promotion; or prohibit colleges from using race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions or employment. All four proscriptions were identified in model…

[mariacallous]

Georgians are in the streets fighting for their democracy. The Georgian Dream party, which is working to align Tbilisi with Moscow’s interests, declared victory in the country’s Oct. 26 election before the votes were even counted. Voters and election observers were harassed by Russian-funded gangs and mobsters; just after the election, protesters holding European Union flags were sprayed with water from high-powered hoses. And the person who has the iron will necessary to lead the charge against Russian-inspired authoritarianism in Georgia? A woman: President Salome Zourabichvili.

This is no accident. Across the world, women have, and are, playing incredible roles as bulwarks against the rise of authoritarianism. Moldovan President Maia Sandu is standing up to a tsunami of Russian disinformation. In Poland, women played a critical role in the effort to oust the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party. In Hong Kong, women continue to be the practical and normative face of resistance to Chinese authoritarian rule.

These are the freedom fighters of the 21st century. And yet, the U.S. national security community tends to view women’s issues as a domestic concern, frivolous, or irrelevant to “hard” security matters. For example, in 2003, discussions of securing Iraq excluded women, with a top U.S. general stating, “When we get the place secure, then we’ll be able to talk about women’s issues.” More recently, the role of women in the military has been reduced to discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, rather than a focus on how women have been vital to solving the United States’ most wicked national security problems—from serving on the front lines in combat to providing essential intelligence analysis. But if the overall aim of U.S. national strategy is to shore up democracy and democratic freedoms, the treatment of women and girls cannot be ignored.

Globally, women’s rights are often eroding in both policy and practice, from the struggles of the Iranian and Afghan women who exist under gender apartheid to the Kenyan women experiencing the harsh backlash of the rise of the manosphere. In tandem, there’s been a sharp rise in reports of online harassment and misogyny worldwide.

National security analysts explore issues and psychologies through any number of prisms, but Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) remains an underutilized one. One of the national security community’s core tasks is discerning signals from noise in the global strategic environment, and regressive ideas on gender and gender equality can be a useful proxy metric for democratic backsliding and authoritarian rise.

The United States’ 2023 Strategy and National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security provides the backbone for the United States to leverage WPS to counter authoritarianism. It highlights that displays of misogyny online are linked to violent action. The plan also points out that formally incorporating gendered perspectives is essential for maintaining democratic institutions at home and modeling them aboard. This includes recognizing misogyny—online or in policy—as an early indicator of authoritarian rise.

Unfortunately, WPS is often misread as simply including more women in the national security workforce. But it is more than that. It offers a framework for understanding why it is useful to take gendered perspectives into account when assessing how the actions of individuals or groups enhance national security, which is especially important at a time when authoritarian regimes are weaponizing gender in ways that strengthen their grip on power domestically and justify their aggression abroad.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has argued that he is the guardian of traditional Christian values, telling women that they should be back at home raising children, and has been rolling back domestic violence laws at the same time. Days before invading Ukraine in February 2022, Putin said, “Like it or don’t like it, it’s your duty, my beauty,” which was widely interpreted within Russia as a reference to martial rape. Russia’s own army is built on a foundation of hierarchical hazing in which “inferior” men are degraded by their comrades. With that kind of rhetoric from the top, is it any wonder that Russian soldiers’ war crimes have included the rapes of women and children?

But Putin isn’t alone. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consolidated media outlets to censor women’s voices, in the name of protecting traditional values. He has also used coercive financial practices to push women out of the workforce and positions of political power and into more traditional roles of wife and mother. In Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko attempted to force the deportation of the most prominent woman opposition leader and imprisoned her after she tore up her passport to prevent it. In China, where women were once told they “hold up half the sky,” President Xi Jinping has worked to undo decades of Chinese Communist Party policy on gender equality. Chinese women are now being encouraged to return home and become mothers, while feminists have been targeted legally and socially.

The WPS agenda provides the U.S. national security community with three opportunities to recognize, understand, and counter early-stage authoritarianism.

First, the United States can do a much better job of supporting women’s groups around the world as a central aspect of its national security strategy. Women’s groups are often a bellwether for authoritarian rise and democratic backsliding—as currently on display in Russia, China, Hungary, Georgia, and Belarus, where women inside and outside their respective regimes have been specifically targeted or attacked.

Women have also found innovative ways to resist the rise of authoritarian norms. In places like Moldova, women have acted as bulwarks against authoritarianism despite vicious disinformation campaigns targeting women leaders. Yet when it comes to formulating and executing strategies on national security, women’s groups are often left in the margins and their concerns dismissed.

Second, gender perspectives are essential to more fulsome intelligence gathering and analysis. The U.S. intelligence community can do a much better job of integrating gender—particularly as it relates to the treatment of the most vulnerable—as an indicator of societal and democratic health. This includes understanding how both masculinities and femininities influence decision-making and how, in turn, lived experiences act as necessary analytical tools. Training collectors and analysts of intelligence to recognize gendered indicators will provide a more robust view of the geopolitical landscape and fill critical holes in national security decision-making.

Finally, the United States must improve the participation of its national security community in WPS and feminist foreign-policy discussions. For too long, the “hard” security sector has distanced itself from more “human” security-focused endeavors and treated women’s rights as something that’s just nice to have.

Yet national security is an essentially human endeavor, and gender is a central component of what it means to be human. This is something that needs to be appreciated to better understand the many dimensions of the conflict—disinformation, online influence campaigns, and lawfare—that authoritarian regimes are waging against the United States and its allies.

[vague-humanoid]

Across the country, Republicans have attacked diversity, equity and inclusion offices on college campuses as being discriminatory, ineffective, and a waste of taxpayer money. They’ve introduced dozens of laws in 21 states to try to dismantle the work of these offices and, in some cases, shut them down.

Some universities have responded by suspending DEI policies and programs, others by removing the word “diversity” from the names of offices and the titles of officers. The opposite is happening at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, an institution that has played a pivotal role in the decades-long debate over race and college access. Instead of cutting back, it’s doubling down on its commitment to one of the nation’s most expansive DEI efforts.

[mimi-0007]

****†** EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE. ****Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of policy proposals to thoroughly reshape the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Established in 2022, the project aims to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to the District of Columbia to replace existing federal civil servants—whom Republicans characterize as part of the "deep state"—and to further the objectives of the next Republican president. It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory—which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration. Unitary executive theory is a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States. Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor of fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of various federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism. .

Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other government agencies, or terminated. Scientific research would receive federal funding only if it suits conservative principles. The Project urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care and to restrict access to contraception. The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank that leads the development of Project 2025, asserted in April 2024 that "the radical Left hates families" and "wants to eliminate the family and replace it with the state" while driving the country to emulate totalitarian nations, such as North Korea. The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity, stating in its Mandate that "freedom is defined by God, not man." Project 2025 proposes criminalizing pornography, removing protections against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, as well as affirmative action. The Project advises the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and to direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. It recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants across the country. It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences. Project director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans admitted that it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many people to join the government in order to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future President to "regain control" of the federal government. Although the project does not promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his presidential campaign. The Heritage Foundation has developed Project 2025 in collaboration with over 100 partners including Turning Point USA, led by its executive director Charlie Kirk; the Conservative Partnership Institute including former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows as senior partner; the Center for Renewing America, led by former Trump Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought; and America First Legal, led by former Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller. The Project is detailed in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a version of which Heritage has written as transition plans for each prospective Republican president since 1980. Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, climate change, and foreign trade.

[darkmaga-returns]

11/19/2024•Mises Wire•Wanjiru Njoya

In considering the outcome of the recent elections in the United States, the question arises as to whether we can now expect to see the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion schemes which were beloved of the Biden administration. As we await the new administration, it is timely to evaluate the challenges facing those seeking to uproot the DEI industry. A key point to highlight is that the roots of this industry run too deep to be supplanted simply by closing down federal DEI programs. We can certainly celebrate the end of Mr. Biden’s Executive Orders on DEI, such as the “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” but the wider culture of what is often called “wokery” which now abounds will be much more difficult to displace.

A good example of the culture of “wokery” comes from universities. On the eve of President Donald Trump winning his historic second term of office, the website Campus Reform reported that, “Students at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy will be offered ‘self-care suites’ Tuesday, where they can play with Legos, use coloring books, and drink milk and cookies.” Campus Reform also highlighted its previous report that, “the University of Oregon’s University Health Services is providing therapy goats, dogs, and even ‘Quacktavious the Therapy Duck.’”

The response of many people to such excesses of “wokery” is simply to laugh. It is easy to be amused by the outrageous antics of the fragile adherents of the woke culture. However, laughter must not distract us from the more sinister elements of the DEI industry. As DEI is now banned in several states, many presume that the threat to liberty posed by DEI is over. In fact, DEI has simply evolved.

[beardedmrbean]

Growing evidence makes this clearer by the day: Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) does not help American institutions attain progress or profit.

It’s time for all institutions to get back to their basic duties and stop pushing extreme agendas on the American people. This is especially important for American corporations that have a fiduciary obligation to make decisions in the best financial interests of their shareholders.

A growing chorus of Americans recognizes the acute challenges of DEI. Even the co-founder and CEO of a prominent DEI consulting firm laments assuming the role of “moral authority” on the subject and regrets labeling people who disagree with DEI as “bad” people.

The controversy over DEI has also captured the attention of two well-known businessmen, Mark Cuban and Bill Ackman, both of whom have engaged in a tense exchange on X, formerly Twitter.

Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks owner and star of “Shark Tank,” wrote, “Diversity—means you expand the possible pool of candidates as widely as you can. Once you have identified the candidates, you hire the person you believe is the best.”

“That’s exactly what I thought until I did the work,” said Ackman, the founder of Pershing Square Capital Management and Democrat mega-donor. “I encourage you to do the same and revert. DEI is not about diversity, equity or inclusion. Trust me. I fell for the same trap you did.”

In the same post, Ackman explained that DEI is “a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.”

In simplest terms, what Ackman and others critical of DEI have identified is the inherently flawed nature of the ideology. By insisting that our institutions are irredeemable and cannot escape past wrongs or that people groups should be divided into two camps — oppressed and oppressor — the adherents of DEI are compelled to use the levers of those very same institutions to manipulate outcomes based on identity rather than merit. 

This conduct is dangerous when you consider its effects on our economy and our public corporations.

Good business is ultimately about producing a good product, not pushing an agenda. DEI unnecessarily complicates that winning American formula. Rather than focus on improving production and goods, companies are now choosing to divert resources and attention to internal race and identity-based policies that neither improve return on investment to shareholders nor result in better products for consumers. 

Corporations adopting policies that prioritize social engineering over corporate responsibility do not serve the interests of all Americans. Instead, they appease the extreme desires of a few, thereby eroding confidence in the ability and competency of our institutions. 

It is neither profitable for businesses nor sustainable for the American people.

Along the same lines, those in the financial services industry must understand that fiduciaries must have a single-minded purpose in the returns on their beneficiaries’ investments.

State and federal law have long recognized fiduciary duties for those who manage other people’s money. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, for example, demands that a fiduciary “discharge that person’s duties with respect to the plan solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries, for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries …”

As attorney general of Kentucky, I was one of 22 state attorneys general who signed a letter warning financial services companies that they may be violating their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by agreeing to radical activism in their environmental proposals. I also issued a legal opinion outlining why government-sponsored racial discrimination and so-called “stakeholder capitalism” was unlawful.

We’ve collectively witnessed some of the consequences of extreme ideology taking priority over responsible corporate governance. After Bud Light’s infamous foray into the culture wars, its sales collapsed, forcing one of its executives to step down. We’ve also seen prominent fund managers like Vanguard drop ESG-driven investments — another ideological blunder at the corporate level — because they have not been profitable and have exposed their investors to greater losses.

DEI objectives have moved some of our business so far from their purpose that even those on the left like Ackman are compelled to speak out, underscoring that the adverse reaction to DEI is not a partisan issue. 

Most Americans want our corporate institutions to move away from extreme ideologies. It’s time to return to the American formula of producing great products and services, not pushing agendas.

Daniel Cameron is the former attorney general of Kentucky and the current CEO of the 1792 Exchange.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: John Sailer

Published: Jul 5, 2024

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), the Supreme Court held that colleges and universities couldn’t engage in racial discrimination in the name of diversity. The 45-year-old dispensation from civil-rights law that the court effectively overturned had never applied to employment decisions. But its end ought to provoke institutions to scale back “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives more broadly. Some appear to be doing so: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard said recently they would no longer require “diversity statements” from prospective hires.

Yet there is evidence that many universities have engaged in outright racial preferences under the aegis of DEI. Hundreds of documents that I acquired through public-records requests provide a rare paper trail of universities closely scrutinizing the race of faculty job applicants. The practice not only appears widespread; it is encouraged and funded by the federal government.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a large hiring initiative targets specific racial groups—promising to hire 18 to 20 scientists “who are Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander.” Discussing a related University of New Mexico program, one professor quipped in an email, “I don’t want to hire white men for sure.”

Both initiatives are supported by the National Institutes of Health through its Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation program, or First. The program gives grants for DEI-focused “cluster hiring” at universities and medical schools, promising eventually to spend about a quarter-billion dollars.

A key requirement is that recipient institutions heavily value diversity statements while selecting faculty. The creators of the program reasoned that by heavily weighing commitment to DEI, they could prompt schools to hire more minorities but without direct racial preferences. That’s the rationale behind DEI-focused “cluster hiring,” an increasingly common practice in academia. The documents—which include emails, grant proposals, progress reports and hiring records—suggest that many NIH First grant recipients restrict hiring on the basis of race or “underrepresented” status, violating NIH’s stated policies and possibly civil-rights law.

In grant proposals, several recipients openly state their intention to restrict whom they hire by demographic category. Vanderbilt’s NIH First grant proposal states that it will “focus on the cluster hiring of faculty from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, specifically Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander scientists.” The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and the University of Texas at Dallas jointly proposed hiring 10 scholars “from underrepresented groups,” noting that the NIH First program specifically identifies racial minorities and women as underrepresented.

Emails reveal candid discussions about the perceived aim of the program. In April 2023, a professor running the University of New Mexico’s cluster hire emailed Jessica Calzola, the NIH program official overseeing the First program, to ask whether Asian-Americans count as underrepresented. The professor later wrote, “I really need a response at least by tomorrow, because it is now holding up our search teams.”

In reply, Ms. Calzola reiterated the program’s official policy: “My confusion is how this information can hold up search teams since candidates are to be evaluated and considered based on their credentials and not race/ethnicity/gender, etc.—all hiring decisions are to be made following the law and avoiding any type of bias (as you have stated and acknowledged).”

Ms. Calzola’s seemingly straightforward response confused her correspondent. “I am now wondering if I am missing something in terms of what we are supposed to be doing,” the professor emailed other members of the leadership team. She wondered if she placed too much emphasis on minority status.

Yet she hesitated to take Ms. Calzola’s word at face value, citing earlier remarks: “My first thought is that Jessica has to write about hires in this manner (she’s hinted at that before on zoom).” (Ms. Calzola referred my inquiry to an NIH spokeswoman, who said in a statement: “Consistent with NIH practice and U.S. federal law, funded programs may not use the race, ethnicity, or sex . . . of a prospective candidate as an eligibility or selection criteria.”)

A colleague responded: “For me as long as we are diversifying our departments and go with what we wrote in the proposal I am happy.” She then made clear her intention to keep one specific group out of consideration: “I don’t want to hire white men for sure, we did a very good job in the grant with the tables and numbers and that’s what we should follow in my opinion.”

Yet the confusion at UNM makes sense. Records show a repeated tension between the NIH First program’s official nondiscrimination policy and how the funded projects have played out—which at times looks a lot like discrimination.

At its inception, NIH First was widely understood not to involve racial preferences. In 2020, shortly after the program was announced, Science magazine published an explanation: “Not all of the 120 new hires would need to belong to groups now underrepresented in academic medicine, which include women, black people, Hispanics, Native Americans, and those with disabilities, says Hannah Valantine, NIH’s chief diversity officer. In fact, she told the Council of Councils at its 24 January meeting, any such restriction would be illegal and also run counter to the program’s goal of attracting world-class talent.”

Yet multiple programs have stated their intention to limit hires to those with “underrepresented” status. One job advertisement, for a First role at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine, notes: “Successful candidates will be early stage investigators who are Black, Latinx, or from a disadvantaged background (as defined by NIH).”

Some grantees even admit such preferences in documents sent to and reviewed by the NIH. A joint proposal from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the university’s Baltimore County campus states that all scientists hired through the program will meet the NIH’s definition of “underrepresented populations in science.” Drexel University’s program, which focuses on nursing and public health, provides its evaluation rubric in a progress report. Among its four criteria: “Candidate is a member of a group that is underrepresented in health research.”

This raises questions about compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in employment. The First program’s website highlights regulations requiring that federal agencies ensure grant recipients comply with nondiscrimination law. The most basic implication is that universities can’t refuse to hire someone, or prefer one candidate over another, because of race or sex. But emails show that this has been happening.

At the University of New Mexico, the First leadership team heavily scrutinized the race and sex of applicants. “Just to be sure: what was the ethnicity of Speech and Hearing’s first-choice candidate?” a UNM team member asked in an email.

“She identified as URM in her application, right? I am confused, maybe I am misremembering,” a team member wrote of a different candidate. Another responded, “It looks like she said she was a ‘native New Mexican.’ We checked, and she said she’s white.”

Another team member wrote about a third candidate: “He is LGBTQ so should fit NIHs definition of URM. In my opinion, women are more underrepresented in our department when you consider demographics.”

The team had veto power over the program’s job searches, which it took seriously. In one email, a math-and-statistics search committee sent a list of proposed finalists. The first candidate, a woman, was recommended without qualification, while the second candidate, a South Asian man, was recommended if the leadership team decided he was a “good fit for the program.” A third candidate, a woman, was recommended as a backup.

One leadership team member emailed her colleagues about the South Asian candidate, citing the NIH’s priorities: “Is this a second look person that NIH would like?” UNM’s grant proposal explains that “at each point in which the applicant pool is narrowed, all applicants from underrepresented groups are given a ‘second-look’ before they are eliminated.” The question, in other words, was whether the South Asian candidate counted as underrepresented. (A UNM spokeswoman said “the second look procedure is a longstanding UNM hiring process.”)

The team agreed the answer was no and nixed him. As one pointed out, “We’ve said that Math is really low on women.” Another chimed in, excited to interview the two remaining candidates, noting “their DEI statements are strong.”

UNM appears to have violated NIH First policy, which states that programs “may not discriminate against any group in the hiring process.” The UNM spokeswoman said in a statement that “the email correspondence among members of the UNM FIRST Leadership Team do [sic] not represent the University of New Mexico’s values nor does it comport with the expectations we have of our faculty” and that “as a result of this unfortunate circumstance,” the university is instituting a required “faculty search training/workshop for all . . . faculty search committee members.”

Yet other universities signaled to NIH that they also intended to engage in race and sex preferences. Northwestern University’s program, which focuses on areas like cancer and cardiovascular health, promises to hire faculty from “underrepresented groups.” Its grant proposal suggests this excludes one particular group: “Our faculty development programming intentionally seeks to elevate URG”—underrepresented group—“faculty to equal privilege with white men in academia.”

Records repeatedly show NIH First grantees following through on their promises. In a letter of support for Florida State University’s project, that university’s associate vice president for human resources declared, “I firmly believe in and reaffirm this project’s mission to create an under-represented minority faculty cohort.”

Hiring documents show that special attention was paid to job candidates’ minority status. In a survey on job finalists, one Florida State faculty member wrote, “Is the applicant a URM, as defined by the NIH? Relatedly, I’m not saying this is happening, but I believe consideration of self-reported sexuality in the hiring process would go against official FSU nondiscrimination policy.” An FSU spokeswoman said in an email that “the Florida FIRST program followed the guidelines set forth by the NIH.”

That search took place as the Florida legislature was beginning to curtail DEI at public universities. Other programs raise similar red flags regarding state law. California’s Proposition 209 prohibits preferential treatment by race in admissions, hiring and “the operation of public employment.” A San Diego State University proposal says nonetheless that it will require shortlists “to include at least 25% of applications from historically underrepresented groups.” The San Diego program even divvies up certain faculty duties by race: “Whenever possible, the chair of the hiring committees should be a faculty member of color”; “the hiring committees will be required to have at least two (50% recommended) faculty of color”; and so on.

A university spokesman said in an email that “SDSU relies on the Building on Inclusive Excellence (BIE) faculty hiring program,” that “BIE is compliant with both civil rights law and California Proposition 209,” and that “it is incorrect to state that ‘the SDSU program . . . divides certain faculty duties by race.’ ”

Taken as a whole, these documents shed new light on the practice of cluster hiring. They explain why some in academia seem to treat the practice as a form of legal racial quotas. In addition to the responses already noted, representatives of the University of Maryland, UT Dallas and UT Southwestern said that their institutions comply with civil-rights laws and don’t discriminate on the basis of race. Drexel, Northwestern, Mount Sinai and Vanderbilt didn’t reply to inquiries.

The documents I reviewed point to a large-scale sleight-of-hand in the application of the NIH First program. They give all the more reason to reconsider one of the most controversial practices in higher education, mandatory diversity statements, which provide a convenient smokescreen for discrimination. Lawmakers would be wise to investigate this practice closely—especially the NIH First program.

In a comment on her decision to end mandatory diversity statements, MIT president Sally Kornbluth noted that such statements “impinge on freedom of expression.” That’s true, but fails to capture the full extent of the problem. Diversity statements mask racial discrimination. The NIH has ensured that they’re widely used in medicine, where excellence should matter most.

Mr. Sailer is a senior fellow at the National Association of Scholars.

[ Via: https://archive.today/nZ42W ]

==

This is amazingly unethical, not to mention illegal.

DEI is cancer.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Alice Speri at The Guardian:

In 2020, Donald Trump signed an executive order against “race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating” which would have set the stage for sweeping attacks on diversity initiatives in the public sphere. In January 2021, on his first day in office, Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s anti-DEI order and signed one promoting “racial equity and support for underserved communities”. Now Trump is returning to office, he expected to restore his directive and double down on it. The people that run diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at public and private institutions are expecting mass crackdown. Project 2025 has labeled them “woke culture warriors” and pledged to wield the full force of the federal government against their efforts to create a more equitable society. Trump and his advisers have already threatened the funds and accreditation of universities they have labeled the “enemy”, and pledged to dismantle diversity offices across federal agencies, scrap diversity reporting requirements and use civil rights enforcement mechanisms to combat diversity initiatives they see as “discrimination”.

The multi-pronged attack is certain to be met with major legal challenges, but while they prepare for those, advocates warn about the ripple effects of an administration declaring war on inclusivity efforts. “The concern is the bigger footprint and symbol,” said Nina Ozlu Tunceli, chief counsel of government and public affairs at Americans for the Arts. “Federal policies do have a domino effect on other states, on foundations, on individual donors.” Last week, Walmart became the latest in a series of high-profile companies to announce a rollback of its diversity initiatives following a campaign of legal challenges by conservative groups. Other businesses and institutions small and large are trying to keep a low profile to avoid becoming the target of anti-DEI campaigns, those who work with them say. There are already concerns that institutions fearful of losing funding or facing lawsuits may overcorrect and dial back their programmes before they are required to do so, advocates warn.

A climate of fear

Even before Trump was re-elected, “educational gag orders” seeking to limit discussion of race and LGBTQ+ issues in school classrooms had been introduced in at least 46 states. Last spring, conservative legislators linked campus protests against the war in Gaza to DEI initiatives. Virginia Foxx, the chair of the House committee on education and the workforce, told the presidents of several colleges that her committee would be “steadfast in its dedication to attacking the roots of antisemitic hatred, including anti-Israel DEI bureaucracies”. Questioning by Foxx’s committee ultimately led to several resignations by college presidents.

“That just got everyone terrified, including private university presidents who previously had been pretty brave about these things,” said Jeremy Young, director of the Freedom to Learn programme at the free speech group PEN America. “It was just this sense that, they’re coming, they’re headhunting for leaders, and you just have to do everything they say or they’re going to fire you or they’re going to cut your budget.” Even where no laws have been passed, a broad fear of repercussions has prompted some campus leaders to cut back on DEI initiatives, noted Young. “A number of states have engaged basically in jaw-boning, where the lawmakers will go up to a university president and encourage them or threaten them to close their diversity office while dangling a threat of funding cuts or passing a law the following year,” he said. “So we’re seeing universities trying to comply with these restrictions, or with these threats, even though there’s no law compelling them to do so.”

Young cited the University of Missouri, for instance, where campus leaders in July dissolved its division of inclusion, diversity and equity citing nationwide measures against DEI even though no such law was passed in the state. In Texas, where state law does ban DEI offices but exempts academic course instruction and scholarly research, the University of North Texas system began scrutinising course materials in search for references to DEI, in what Young called an example of overcompliance and a “complete overreaction”. It’s a domino effect that anti-DEI activists are exploiting, for instance by sowing confusion about the 2023 supreme court ruling, which was fairly narrow but is sometimes cited as evidence that all DEI initiatives in higher education are illegal, said Leah Watson, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Racial Justice Programme, where she focuses on classroom censorship. “We are very concerned about the broad chilling effect, and we see conservatives misrepresenting the status of the law in order to further the chilling effect,” Watson said. “Overcorrections are happening, and things are being cut that don’t have to be cut.”

[...]

The new administration

Going forward, the Trump administration is “likely to be the most virulent anti-DEI administration that we’ve seen”, said David Glasgow, the executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging, which helps institutions navigate an array of recent legislative restrictions on diversity work.

With the Trump Administration set to announce a heavy crackdown on diversity initiatives, many colleges are obeying in advance by eliminating or scaling back such initiatives.

[renthony]

"Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Jan. 18 memo, issued by Chris Spencer, director of the Office of Policy and Budget, mandated Florida public universities compile a report on the number of patients receiving numerous types of gender-affirming care through UF Health facilities starting from Jan. 1, 2018. The information was due Feb. 10.

DeSantis’ press secretary Bryan Griffin responded Monday afternoon to The Alligator’s request for comment, saying the administration plans to reassess the public funding of certain initiatives through state-funded institutions.

“Like [diversity, equity and inclusion] and [critical race theory], radical gender ideology has supplanted academics at many institutions of higher education,” Griffin said. “We are committed to fully understanding the amount of public funding that is going toward such non-academic pursuits to best assess how to get our colleges and universities refocused on education and truth.”

UF followed all applicable state and federal laws when complying with the request, UF spokesperson Cynthia Roldan said. The UF Office of the General Counsel reviewed the responsive documents and ensured protected health information was removed before the audit’s production.

The university will not speculate on the state’s intended use of the report, Roldan added."

[joy-haver]

On Oct. 1, 2024, it will become illegal for me to use a women’s restroom in any public school or university in the state of Alabama, where I live.

Sb19, A law banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices in state agencies (including higher education) was signed by Governor Ivey. It will go into effect Oct 1, 2024. The law is unclear, but it seems it would ban funding for nearly every active student group I was a part of in college. It also bans trans people from using the bathroom of the gender we know ourselves to be in these same institutions.

“Gov. Ivey has signed several other anti-LGBTQ+ bills in the last several years. In 2022, on the same day she signed a ban on gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, Ivey also signed House Bill 322, another bathroom bill that requires K-12 schools to separate toilets and locker rooms based on “biological sex” alone. Ivey also approved “biological sex” restrictions on high school sports teams in 2021, and expanded that policy to include colleges last year.”

[zalrb]

thoughts on the author who was just exposed for lying about being native? (colby wilkens)

and white liars finding success in general tbh… there’s been quite a few

There have been quite a few, there have also been white authors who haven't lied about being white and decided to write stories - badly - about BIPOC and received the institutional support for writing stories they have no right to tell while authors of that context receive nothing or bare bones - Jeanine Cummins and her seven-figure deal for American Dirt comes to mind. It reminds me of when I first started writing and I was at this writers studio and on the first day spoke about how I kept getting passed over for things because agents and publishers and contest judges kept saying my work was inaccessible due to the cultural specificity and the use of Jamaican patois in my stories and this white author responded by saying that she had just gotten a story published about taking a vacation in Jamaica and getting her hair braided and I was just like

but I mean I don't really think there's anything to say about it except that it obviously points to the racism inherent in the industry and as Bethany Baptiste said on twitter, it speaks to the fact that white authors write BIPOC the way white people view and want to read BIPOC, which is why they keep finding success doing these things

and that also speaks to the fact that there is a lot of discussion around representation in publishing for authors, as there should be, but the industry doesn't just stop at authors, it's also about agents and editors and the people acquiring/working on the books and while there is a slow shift in these areas, the fact remains that it's still overwhelmingly white in Canada

The industry as a whole remains majority white, but the balance has shifted since 2018, from 82% white to 75%.

Respondents identifying as gender-diverse, including transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming, increased from 5% in 2018 to 10% in 2022.

11% fewer respondents overall identified as heterosexual, down from 72% in 2018 to 61% in 2022. 

The percentage of respondents who said their firm currently has Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies and initiatives rose from 49% in 2018 to 63% in 2022, whereas the percentage of heads of firm with plans to implement new DEI policies and initiatives rose from 35% in 2018 to 52% in 2022. 

in the States

72.5 percent of US publishing, review journal, and literary agency staffers are white/Caucasian, “a significant decrease from 76 percent in 2019.”

The rest comprise people who self-report as:

Biracial/multiracial (8.4 percent)

Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/South Asian/Southeast Indian (7.8 percent)

Black/African-American/Afro-Caribbean (5.3 percent)

Hispanic/Latino/Mexican (4.6 percent)

There continues to be a prominent lack of representation within the publishing industry of Native American as well as Middle Eastern people,” the study’s authors write, referring to a result showing less than 1 percent representation in each.

A total 0.8 percent of respondents said their identity was not listed.

in the UK

·  Representation of people from ethnic minority groups (excluding White minorities) has increased to 17% from 15% in 2021.

·  LGBT+ representation has increased, with 15% (up from 13% in 2021) of respondents either identifying as lesbian, gay, or bi, or self-describing their sexual orientation, a figure which has grown each year since 2017 (5%) – and as in 2021, 1% of respondents identified as trans.

·  The representation of people with a disability or long-term health condition has increased from 2% in 2017 to 16% in 2022 (up from 13% in 2021).

·  Socio-economic background continues to represent major barriers to inclusion, with two thirds (66%) of respondents being from professional backgrounds.

So, yeah, there's a lot of work to be done.

[personnotfound]

if you don't vote, someone still gets to be president

idk, i see a lot of people talking about the election and criticizing the democratic candidates, which is great, please do that, but please also acknowledge the stakes and the context here. If you're saying talking about something horrible the dems have done/are doing, and saying not to vote for them because of it, then at least let it be a criticism that does not also apply tenfold to the republicans. Because SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT. It's one or the other. Realistically, it is Trump, or it is Harris. Convincing people not to vote for Harris is advocating for Trump to win. Period. End of. That is what you are doing.

Since I am going over project 2025 - which was written by some very good friends of Trump, and which the man himself has tried to distance himself from without actually addressing any of the contents of the document itself, which align quite well with how he talks about his values and intentions - here are some quotes i have selected to contextualize the stakes of this election (under the cut for length and tw for transphobia, misogyny, )

If you are trans, here is what they think of us, "Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries" (from the foreward by Kevin D Roberts, PhD, on page 1. Kevin is the president of The Heritage Foundation, which describes itself under the 'membership' tab of their 'about' page on their website as the "most influential conservative group in america")

and here are a few of the policies they would like to inact in regards to us, "Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for servicemembers should be ended." (Page 104),

"Reissue a stronger transgender national coverage determination. CMS should repromulgate its 2016 decision that CMS could not issue a National Coverage Determination (NCD) regarding “gender reassignment surgery” for Medicare beneficiaries. In doing so, CMS should acknowledge the growing body of evidence that such interventions are dangerous and acknowledge that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support such coverage in state plans." (Page 474)

"Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexualorientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing" (Bostock in this context is a legal case regarding workers protections against discrimination in the workplace, this is page 584 saying that they would like it to be legal to fire people for being trans)

Or how about this from pages 4-5, "The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civilsociety hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion(“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi-tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists." Still the foreward there, same author. Literally calling to restrict speech in the name of 'freedom of speech'. Some irony there. The next paragraph starts by describing 'transgender ideology' (the existence of trans people) as 'pornography'.

Page 5, literally the next paragraph. "Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."

How are we feeling? But what about foreign policy? What about Palestine?

Page 94 reads, "Sustain support for Israel even as America empowers Gulf partners to take responsibility for their own coastal, air, and missile defenses both individually and working collectively"

That does not sound like pulling support from Israel to me.

Oh, also on page 94 is this, "Implement nuclear modernization and expansion. The United States manifestly needs to modernize, adapt, and expand its nuclear arsenal. Russia maintains and is actively brandishing a very large nuclear arsenal, but China is also undertaking a historic nuclear breakout."

Because what we definitely 100% need is more military spending on nuclear weapons. I also cannot help reading that in connection to Palestine, Israel, and our country's allyship with Israel.

I'm getting stressed. I have linked the full document below. Please look up these quotes yourself, check my work, read the context for yourself. Decide for yourself if you feel I have been unfair. Decide for yourself which of the two sets of options is going to do the least damage. Because remember, it's not just the one person you're voting for. The president gets to appoint the people who run the rest of the government. The people Trump likes very much wrote this document.

Please do not play games with weather or not I can be fired from my job for being trans. Please do not play games with my access to healthcare.

It is horrific that we do not have a choice that will end US support for the genocide going on right now. But that choice isn't on the table. Our choices are genocidal fascist or a lot less genocidal fascist.

[schraubd]

Why Does DEI Make Good Free Speech Advocates Go Bad?

Keith Whittington, Princeton professor and chief of the Academic Freedom Alliance, has been reviewing various state-level attacks on academic freedom. Today he visits Texas, which has a trio of bills under consideration that all put public universities under their sights in various ways. Whittington is generally skeptical of all these proposals, but he does have kind things to say about portions of one of the proposed laws, SB17.

That bill would shift greater authority to the university boards of trustees, would prohibit the use of diversity statements in faculty hiring, and would abolish the activities of diversity, equity and inclusion administrators. A similar prohibition was adopted as an appropriation rider in the House. Violating the DEI ban can be a cause for terminating even tenured members of the faculty. The bill would also require state universities to adopt as part of their mission statements a set of pledges regarding intellectual freedom, including a commitment to "viewpoint diversity" and "institutional neutrality."

[...]

From my perspective, the DEI ban and the institutional commitments are all to the good in enhancing the intellectual freedom on college campuses. The potential penalty for faculty who violate the DEI ban is worrisome, however, in both its chilling effect and its unjustified expansion of the bases upon which tenured professors can be terminated.

(Whittington also raises the alarm about shifting review power to the boards of trustees).

I want to flag Whittington's claim that the DEI ban is "all to the good" (even if, perhaps, too draconian in its enforcement mechanisms). It is not all to the good! It is very bad, and pointedly, it's very bad for reasons that Whittington identifies elsewhere in his post! This is yet another example of how the anti-DEI obsession amongst some "free speech" advocates has caused them to endorse policies and practices whose impingement on academic freedom would otherwise be nakedly obvious.

Among the things prohibited by this part of SB17, universities would be prohibited from soliciting or acting on any statement regarding an applicants "views on, experience with, or past or planned contributions to efforts involving diversity, equity, and inclusion, marginalized groups, antiracism, social justice, or views on or experience with race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or other immutable characteristics."

As a constitutional law professor whose work focuses significantly on questions of race, equity, inclusion, and so on, I shudder to think how an interview with me would go if the hiring committee were forbidden from asking about or considering my views on these topics. What, exactly, would we talk about -- the Dodgers? And while for someone in my shoes there is an obvious relationship between the banned topics and my disciplinary work, there are also areas where this is germane for professors of any academic affiliation -- most notably, in discussions of pedagogy. As I've written before, it cannot be the case that university actors are forbidden from caring about questions like "will the job candidate do a good job creating an equitable and inclusive environment for our diverse academic community?" But SB17 strongly suggests that such concerns would, in fact, be legally proscribed.*

This is why I've written before regarding how anti-DEI bans are inevitably academic freedom trainwrecks. They're justified as checks against "compelled speech", but in practice they serve (and intentionally so) as massive chills on important facets of academic conversation. And the thing is, Whittington is well aware of the mechanics here -- he explains them ably in his critique of the companion SB16 bill. SB16 purports to forbid professors from "compel[ling] or attempt[ing] to compel" an enrolled student "to adopt a belief that any race, sex, or ethnicity or social, political, or religious belief is inherently superior to any other race, sex, ethnicity, or belief." Here's what Whittington says to that proposal:

It would likely chill classroom speech as faculty try to avoid any appearance of compelling belief on various sensitive topics routinely discussed in college classrooms. To the extent that the law simply codifies the constitutional prohibition on compelled speech, then it accomplishes little other than attempting to chill speech. To the extent that it might be interpreted to prohibit professors from advocating certain views in the classroom or requiring students to correctly describe and analyze such views in their coursework, then it will invite controversy. Not hard to imagine students complaining that a professor attempted to compel them to believe that, for example capitalism is superior to socialism by assigning them to write an essay with that premise.

Emphasis added, because that's the rub. If it's just an attempt to forbid compelled speech -- someone being forced to swear allegiance to a particular ideological framework -- it's redundant except for its knock-on chilling effect. But of course, the law isn't just about the specific "compelled speech" case -- it is designed to and inevitably will curtail very normal academic conversations.

Yet this exact same problem besets the DEI ban. If it's just about forbidding a requirement that prospective professors genuflect before a graven image of Derrick Bell as part of the application process, then it's unnecessary and only serves to create an additional halo of chilling effect. But SB17's DEI ban doesn't "just" do that; it by its term stretches to cover any "statement" on matters of diversity, equity, inclusion, race, or other like topics -- topics that a hiring committee regularly and appropriately should be considering. For example, as someone who has served on a hiring committee, I very much want to be able to inquire into whether (to pick a recent example) a candidate openly believes Jews should never be hired again. It is important and good that a person like that not get hired; I absolutely can and should be giving preference to candidates who do not take that sort of view! And more broadly, we can and should be able to consider and debate over whether given candidates will do a good a job facilitating an effective academic and pedagogical environment for diverse communities. That's normal, and that's salutary, and that would likely be either forbidden or at least significantly chilled by application of Texas' proposed DEI ban.

Again, the logic for why the DEI ban is problematic is contained in Whittington's own post. He should be able to spot it, and yet it says that the provision (absent the penalty provisions) is "all to the good." FIRE went through the same thing a few weeks ago, drafting a trainwreck proposal against DEI statements that -- were it on any other topic -- FIRE would be screaming bloody murder about the obvious academic freedom impingements. Something about the DEI issue is corrupting free speech advocates, causing them endorse obvious violations and ignore flagrant threats. They're going to need to address this blindspot sooner rather than later, because this fever doesn't seem to be going away.

* SB17 has a provision that exempts requests for information regarding "pedagogical approaches or experience with students with learning disabilities." That narrow and highly specific carveout strongly suggests that inquiring generally how a prospective professor would seek to facilitate an effective and inclusive classroom environment for students of diverse backgrounds would now be verboten.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/bO1oDRU

[ausetkmt]

The alerts from groups representing Black and Latino Americans come as the state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, is expected to enter the 2024 presidential race with a campaign built on tenets of the conservative agenda he’s fostered in Florida.

The NAACP issued a travel advisory for Florida “in direct response to … DeSantis’ aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools,” the group said Saturday in a statement.

“Beware that your life is not valued,” NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson told CNN on Monday. He cited a new DeSantis-backed law allowing gun owners to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, as well as education policies that include a ban on teaching about gender identity and sexual orientation through 12th grade.

The announcement came days after LULAC – the League of United Latin American Citizens – issued a travel advisory for Florida after DeSantis signed a new immigration law that will go into effect in July.

Both LULAC and the NAACP say actions under the DeSantis administration are “hostile” to their communities.

“Florida is openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals,” the NAACP said. “Before traveling to Florida, please understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans and other communities of color.”

Under DeSantis, Florida has banned the teaching of critical race theory, which acknowledges systemic racism is a part of American history and challenges the beliefs that allowed it to flourish. The governor said the concept would teach children “the country is rotten and that our institutions are illegitimate.”

DeSantis has supported legislation barring instruction that suggests anyone is privileged or oppressed based on their race or skin color. His administration also blocked a preliminary version of a new Advanced Placement course for high school students on African American studies, with Florida’s Department of Education saying it “significantly lacks educational value.”

The NAACP said DeSantis’ actions are “in direct conflict with the democratic ideals that our union was founded upon.”

“Let me be clear: Failing to teach an accurate representation of the horrors and inequalities that Black Americans have faced and continue to face is a disservice to students and a dereliction of duty to all,” said Johnson, the NAACP president.

CNN has sought comment from DeSantis’ office.

After the DeSantis administration rejected the AP African American studies course, the NAACP distributed 10,000 books to 25 predominantly Black communities across Florida in collaboration with the American Federation of Teachers’ Reading Opens the World program, the NAACP said.

The majority of the books donated were titles banned under the state’s increasingly restrictive laws. The NAACP continues to encourage local branches and youth councils to start community libraries to ensure access to representative literature.

The NAACP also decried Florida’s new concealed weapon law, which also states gun owners no longer have to take any training before carrying a concealed weapon outside the home. It goes into effect July 1.

The NAACP president said such measures are “not business-attractive policies” and urged members to consider holding conventions outside of Florida.

“The policies that he has put in place are harmful policies to far too many individuals,” Johnson said.

This isn’t the first time the NAACP has issued a travel advisory for a state. In 2017, the NAACP warned people of color about traveling to Missouri after the state passed Senate Bill 43, which made it more difficult for employees to prove their protected class, such as race or gender.

While the governor said the new law put Missouri’s standards for lawsuits in line with other states, the NAACP said it allows unlawful discrimination.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Tyler Durden

Anti-woke crusader Robby Starbuck has been on a mission to shift the corporate landscape in America from insanity and rainbows to what he considers "sanity and neutrality." He has successfully pressured companies such as Tractor Supply, John Deere, Harley-Davidson, Polaris, Indian Motorcycle, Lowe's, Ford, Coors, Stanley Black & Decker, Jack Daniel's, DeWalt Tools, Craftsman, Caterpillar, Boeing, and Toyota to move away from toxic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices.

Now, Starbuck is at it again. He wrote on X that America's largest employer, Walmart, has decided to end its woke policies after he "had productive conversations to find solutions" with management.

He stated that the changes Walmart committed to "will send shockwaves throughout corporate America," adding that their executives deserve "major credit" for wanting to end corporate wokeness.

"This is the biggest win yet for our movement to end wokeness in corporate America," Starbuck said.

Here are the changes Walmart committed to:

Surveys: Walmart will no longer participate in the HRC's woke Corporate Equality Index.

Products: Monitor the Walmart marketplace to identify and remove inappropriate sexual and / or transgender products marketed to children.

Funding of Grants: Review all funding of Pride, and other events, to avoid funding inappropriate sexualized content targeting kids.

Equity: We will not extend the Racial Equity Center which was established in 2020 as a special five-year initiative.

Supplier Diversity: We will evaluate supplier diversity programs and ensure they do not provide preferential treatment and benefits to suppliers based on diversity. We don't have quotas and won't going forward. Financing eligibility will no longer be predicated on providing certain demographic data.

LatinX: Walmart will no longer use the term in official communications.

Trainings: Walmart will discontinue racial equity training through the Racial Equity Institute.

DEI: Walmart will discontinue the use of DEI as a term while ensuring a respectful and supportive environment. Our focus is on Belonging for ALL associates and customers.

[beardedmrbean]

UNC Charlotte announced sweeping changes to its diversity, equity and inclusion programming Thursday, including eliminating three offices.

The school’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Office of Identity, Equity and Engagement and the Office of Academic Diversity and Inclusion all closed as part of the move— though university officials say no one was laid off as a result. Instead, 11 employees were reassigned to new positions.

The shift comes after the University of North Carolina System in May repealed its diversity, equity and inclusion policy, when all but two members of the UNC system board of governors voted to roll back the policy originally adopted in 2019.

What is DEI?

Attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, often referred to simply as “DEI,” began gaining traction in early 2023. Conservative politicians targeted policies intended to attract and retain candidates of color at universities, corporations and government agencies. Since then, 85 anti-DEI bills geared toward programs at colleges have been introduced in 28 states, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

While proponents of DEI programs say they’re a strategy to correct injustices from decades of exclusionary practices, opponents say they’re discriminatory toward white Americans and violate the First Amendment.

UNC System President Peter Hans said the change was motivated by the university’s duty to remain neutral on political matters.

“We have well-established laws and policies that prohibit discrimination, protect equal opportunity, and require a safe and supportive learning environment for all students,” Hans said in a written statement this May. “We will continue to uphold those responsibilities.”

What will changes look like at UNC Charlotte?

The UNC system’s previous policy required the employment of a diversity and inclusion officer at each of the system’s 17 schools and the creation of a UNC system diversity and inclusion council. It’s been replaced with a new one titled “Equality Within the University of North Carolina.”

The new policy “requires offices and positions at all System institutions to comply with institutional neutrality, refrain from compelling others’ speech and refrain from promoting political or social concepts through training or required beliefs,” UNC Charlotte Provost Jennifer Troyer and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Kevin Bailey wrote in a letter to students and faculty Thursday. “Specifically, it does not allow any institution in the System to have offices that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion.”

According to the new policy, the university may not promote a particular set of concepts related to race and sex nor include them in any types of training for employees.

The new policy still allows faculty full discretion in decisions around research design and course material.

Students and student organizations still are allowed to engage in political and social advocacy as long as they do not speak on behalf of the university.

“UNC Charlotte is committed to creating a culture of belonging for everyone, from every background and identity,” a university spokesperson wrote in a statement to The Observer. “The university’s care and concern for its students is unchanged, as are student organizations, which help students build community and identity with others.”

Money previously allocated to diversity, equity and inclusion will now be diverted to “student success,” which includes improving graduation rates, degree efficiency and student mental health and well-being. The university will continue to permit identity-based mentoring, programming and support as long as they align with student success initiatives.