A recent article in Inside Higher Ed was entitled, “How Colleges Can Pivot to Keep DEI Alive.”  

Having spent over a half century inside the once hallowed halls, the goal of academics to sustain DEI therein didn’t surprise me, but the blatantness of putting it in the title of a publication did.  It’s basically an “up yours” -- raising that messaging finger -- to legislators and anyone else trying to fix today’s broken education system.

My own article on diversity, equity and inclusion almost two years ago, noted the detrimental impacts it has had on equal employment opportunity.  “Is it DEI, IED or DIE?  Yes, it is!” described how DEI has destroyed the EEO outcomes that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought and died for. 

Higher education used to champion MLK’s efforts.  Not anymore.  Being qualified for a university position -- faculty, staff or student -- doesn’t matter today if an unqualified candidate checks an unfilled or underfilled diversity slot.

Yes, the applicant has the capabilities and academic acuity of a toadstool, but the institution currently has too few toadstools among its employees and students.  Hence, bringing them on campus is for the purpose of inclusion and equity to help solve a diversity problem, i.e., IED, a more accurate descriptor.  DIE denotes the long-term outcome.  

Can the candidate do what the position requires?  No, but that’s irrelevant DEI-wise.  

As my earlier piece highlighted, “When America’s woke progressives successfully snookered the nation into accepting equity (the impractical pursuits of equal outcomes) as a replacement for equality (equal opportunity) the ballgame changed, majorly.  The topline issue is no longer about hiring the applicant with the best credentials to do the work.  Today, training and experience for a job barely count with DEI employers.”

That’s a problem!  

The Inside Higher Ed article gets into specifics with regard to bypassing legal restrictions being imposed on DEI by pinpointing four areas where this can be done: (1) candidate selection; (2) training; (3) programs; and (4) personnel.  For each of these, the first sentence or two from the article will be included below along with a brief summary of the proposed workarounds.  

Candidate Selection

“A number of states have required colleges and universities to institute policies that prohibit or limit the use of diversity statements in hiring.” Obviously, prohibiting or limiting the use of diversity statements in hiring is easy to bypass, and the author provides two paragraphs explaining how to do it.  Bottom line: don’t make diversity proclamations when advertising positions, just require diversity outcomes when hiring anyone.  Easy-peasy.  

Training

“As a result of recent legislation, many institutions have either eliminated mandatory DEI training or banned such training entirely.  Again, within these constraints, we can still work toward our goal,” says the author.  The university objective of conducting DEI training can remain, but it shouldn’t be called that.  Another couple paragraphs of gibberish focus on eliminating bias in thoughts and changing behavior, i.e., DEI brainwashing absent the three-letter acronym.  

Programs

“State legislation has resulted in the dismantling of many DEI programs, including those aimed at creating spaces for and/or offering scholarships to members of specific identity groups."  So, again, not calling them DEI programs is the first step -- do away with DEI in the most visible manner possible while creating shadow “engagement” or “community” programs that do the same thing -- and, voilà, state legislation problem solved.  Just rebrand DEI and the dummies in state government won’t know that you’re still doing what they told you not to do.  

Personnel

“As another result of state-based legislation, many DEI positions have been eliminated and personnel have been laid off or reassigned.”  This was identified by the author as “the most challenging” roadblock to overcome, and she posed this question: “Who will create programs, offer training and lead equity and inclusion initiatives?”  

Say what?  

In state after state, the DEI “cease and desist” orders appear to be crystal clear, but apparently, not clear enough.  The states are telling their institutions, DO NOT “create programs, offer training and lead equity and inclusion initiatives.”  

Of course, the intellectual elite believe -- unequivocally -- that they’re smarter than every nonacademic on the face of the Earth … and, particularly, politicians.  Thus, they can get around rules, regulations, laws or whatever else is put in place to control them by those less gifted intelligence-wise.  

Piece-a-cake!  

The Inside Higher Ed author wraps up her opinion piece with the following: “While I hope that one day we can reverse this legislative trend, let’s take this moment to strengthen our commitment, expand our objectives and embed this important work across our institutions.”  

Yep, she concludes with the “up yours” solution -- raising a middle finger -- aimed at state legislators and governors.  

R.W. Trewyn earned a PhD after surviving Vietnam combat, and more treacherously, endured 53-years postwar slogging academe’s once hallowed halls.

Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License