Is DEI dead -- or just disrupted? Texas' state colleges and universities were forced to close diversity, equity and inclusion offices and programs on Jan. 1, reports Lily Kepner in the Austin American-Statesman.
It's a rose-by-any-other-name scenario, writes Jordan Boyd on The Federalist.
Colleges must comply with Senate Bill 17 or lose funding, she writes. They can't "hire someone based on their sex, race, or ethnicity or require faculty applicants to submit a 'diversity statement' or promote preferential group treatment.
But they can rename DEI offices, retain all the staff and reframe old initiative as "belonging."
University of Texas in Austin announced it was “halting” all DEI policies but Jay Hartzell, the president, said the flagship university will continue its "commitment to attracting, supporting and retaining exceptionally talented staff, faculty and students with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and fostering and celebrating diversity across our community.”
The Division of Diversity and Community Engagement will rebrand as the Division of Campus and Community Engagement, reports Boyd. The business school's "Outreach & Inclusion" director has been renamed “Outreach & Scholarships.”
At University of Texas at San Antonio, the Office of Inclusive Excellence will become the Office of Campus and Community Belonging, said the president in a statement.
The University of Houston Downtown renamed its DEI office the Center for Student Advocacy & Belonging.
On Free Press, Oliver Wiseman is looking for ideas on new names for old DEI offices.
"Belonging" seems to be the popular replacement for "inclusion," but how should "diversity" and "equity" be reframed?
Fire the speech monitors, writes Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic. "These assistant deans, DEI consultants, sensitivity readers, and disinformation 'experts' enforced speech taboos that changed too quickly to be fully grasped."
. . . campus bureaucrats at selective colleges have sought for years to police “microaggressions,” to create “safe spaces,” to stigmatize speech that undermines subjective feelings of “belonging” on campus, and to define what is permissible by invoking the experience of the offended rather than objective standards.
But not for the Jews.
Rather than adding Jews to the list of protected groups, colleges should eliminate the list, Friedersdorf argues. Return to the old free-speech norms.
DEI is very unpopular with traditional Democrats, writes Ruy Teixeira on Liberal Patriot. "Most voters, especially working-class voters, think racial preferences are not fair and fairness is a fundamental part of their world outlook."
Most voters, especially working class voters, are right, in this instance: racial preferences are not fair, and "equity" is the offensive centre of "diversity, equity, and inclusion", since the anti-racist racists' race-based version of "equity" is deeply unfair, and has now been outlawed by the Supreme Court, a decision these university presidents don't agree with, and so should be fired, since they are so obviously acting in bad faith, and skirting their duties to see that the laws be faithfully executed.
A whole lotta "could not afford" at UTSA. When I was teaching there, about a third of my students worked part-time to pay their way. What surprised me was the number of sharp black students who came to UTSA from Houston. Not sure about the proportion of Asian students, but grad school is full of Chinese.
Once again, the iron question of education: What does a political, an administrator, or anyone in authority do when the performance of blacks is significantly below that of whites and Asians. The right seems to believe that ignoring the situation is the best idea. All universities cannot recruit highly qualified students who can be placed in the easy majors.
Citizens! Say goodbye to that tired old DEI in your cupboard, and say "Hello, Comrade" to new improved "Belonging!" All new packaging, with an extra helping of Inclusion, and secret non-whitening ingredients. A-a-n-d it's (Don) Lemon fresh!