The Effects of Funding Bans on College DEI Programs
The Texas House Committee on Appropriations has approved an additional provision to House Bill 1006 that would prohibit public colleges and universities from using state funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, programs, and activities [1]. It was introduced by State Rep. Carl Tepper (R), who was elected to the Texas House of Representatives last November in House District 84, which includes Lubbock County and Texas Tech University [2]. Governor Greg Abbott (R) told state agencies to stop using DEI initiatives in hiring, claiming it violates federal and state employment laws and illegally discriminates against specific demographics. Republican lawmakers in several states have also pushed back against DEI initiatives and critical race theory (CRT), alleging they discriminate against white people [3]. Several Texas colleges and universities have implemented DEI initiatives and programs to make marginalized groups — such as people of color, LGBTQ people, veterans, senior citizens, or disabled people — feel more supported on campus [1].
CRT is an academically credible set of analytical tools for legal scholars to help judges, attorneys, expert witnesses, law students, and others in the Courts understand the role of race in judicial outcomes [4]. Scholars and legal practitioners who use CRT acknowledge the persistence and pervasiveness of racism in America to challenge claims of objectivity, color blindness, and universal meritocracy; they insist on accurate teachings of historical facts about race; and assume people of color as experts on their own experiences with racial injustice [4]. DEI describes three values that many organizations today strive to embody to support different groups of individuals [5]. Diversity refers to who is represented in the workforce, which includes gender diversity - companies with 30% or more female executives were more likely to outperform companies with 10-30% female executives; age diversity, which looks at a mix of ages or generations in the workplace; ethnic diversity, which looks at whether employees represent similar or different nationalities or cultural traditions; and physical ability and neurodiversity, which looks at whether the perspectives of people with disabilities are accounted for [5]. Equity considers each individual's circumstances and experiences, adjusting resources to be equal and fair for all. The concept of inclusion pertains to how employees experience their professions and how the workplace provides a sense of belonging to all workers regardless of their background [5]. Bias refers to people's conscious or unconscious judgments derivative of our experiences or cultural backgrounds. Employers can bias veterans by assuming they have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), mental health problems, or an abrasive personality [6]. Bias against senior citizens includes presuming they have mental health problems or are physically incapable of manual labor without straining themselves. According to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, about 250,000 service members transition into civilian life annually. Transitioning to the civilian workplace can be difficult, as 90% of veterans say they have faced challenges when looking for employment [7]. Minority veterans are 44% more likely to experience unemployment than non-minority veterans, and 17.3% of minority veterans have experienced homelessness in their adult life, compared to 8.3% of white veterans [8].
Affirmative action is a set of procedures designed to: eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future [9]. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson established affirmative action policies to prohibit discriminatory hiring practices regarding race, religion, gender, and country of origin [10]. A protected class, created by federal and state laws, is a group of people with a common characteristic legally protected from employment discrimination based on that characteristic. Federal protected classes include race; color; religion or creed; national origin or ancestry; sex (including gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity); age; physical or mental disability; veteran status; genetic information; and citizenship [11]. In university admissions programs, affirmative action is the system of using racial minority status as a positive factor in determining which applications to accept and remedy discrimination [12]. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, which held that public schools cannot exclude minority students from white schools, was a precursor to many education-based affirmative action cases in the Supreme Court that followed in later years [9].
A diverse student body can foster a richer educational experience for all students. Ending affirmative action and DEI initiatives could jeopardize that [13]. "A more diverse faculty also yields critical pedagogical and community advantages: more diverse perspectives in the classroom and the residential colleges, and a broader range of role models and mentors for all students," Rice University said [14]. Rep. Mary González, vice chair of the appropriations committee, said just engaging in conversation about eliminating state funds for DEI might lead students, faculty, and staff to consider not coming to colleges and universities in Texas [1]. After Michigan banned affirmative action, Black undergraduate enrollment at the University of Michigan dropped from 7% in 2006 to 4% in 2021. California banned racial preferences in admissions in 1996; by 2006, there were just 96 Black freshmen at UCLA [13]. Despite claims of discrimination against white people, affirmative action policies and programs have seemingly helped more white families than minority families [10]. Students who attend more diverse colleges make more than others who do not. Since Blacks and Latinos already have experience working with different people, they only get points for grades, majors, and college selectivity but not for diversity; white students, on the other hand, learn a skill valued by employers when working with different people [15].
If the Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action, universities considering race as one factor in a holistic admissions review process would be unconstitutional [16]. Experts believe the Supreme Court will rule affirmative action unlawful this spring or summer. Several colleges have released statements about how they will handle such a change. For example, Texas A&M issued a statement banning DEI [14]. Communities of color can re-evaluate affirmative action programs at their institutions and create programs to address their interests [17]. Educational institutions and places of employment can support veterans to pursue career training, licensure, certification, equipment, and assistance for minority veterans to eliminate barriers to socioeconomic mobility [8]. Colleges can invest more in targeted student support services and faculty diversity efforts. Colleges can recruit and admit more working- and middle-class students. They can institute class-based affirmative action policies as a supplement to race-conscious policies. If colleges and policymakers do not act, alumni and university corporate and philanthropic partners can condition contributions by putting donations into escrow accounts that schools can only tap into to meet measurable access and completion goals [18]. Students exposed to diverse backgrounds, experiences, interests, and talents are better prepared for success. Banning race considerations would make generations of students unprepared for an increasingly diverse nation [16].
Sources:
[6] https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/dei/columns/how-to-include-veterans-in-your-dei-plan
[9] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action
[12] https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=fac_works
[13] https://www.axios.com/local/houston/2023/03/09/affirmative-action-rice-uh-diversity
[15] https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3876588-the-surprising-losers-of-an-affirmative-action-ban/
[17] https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=lawineq
