Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Higher Education: Drain or Asset?
Over a year ago, the Supreme Court's Harvard decision deemed affirmative action unconstitutional, leading many universities to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Since April 2023, 86 anti-DEI legislative actions targeting high education have been introduced across 28 states. In response, some universities have renamed their DEI offices and adjusted policy language, avoiding terms like "diversity" and "equity." And now, president-elect Trump’s agenda includes a mandate to "de-woke" America, including ridding our institutions of DEI programs on a national level.
Clearly, this is not yesterday’s news. The debate around DEI programs has been growing increasingly polarized and consequential, both for students and institutions of higher education, no different from other impacted settings, including corporations, small businesses, and government.
The acronym is kicked around so often now that many condemn it out of hand without considering what DEI stands for. Diversity is about ensuring that the student body or members of the workforce represent the demographic makeup of the larger community. And when that goal cannot be achieved, the school or company takes steps to protect the rights of those who are underrepresented. Equity is about being fair, just, and impartial. Hard to find fault with those values which are very much at the root of our democracy. And inclusiveness promises equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might be at risk of being excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups.
We choose to believe that most, if not all, people believe it’s important to guarantee these rights to all Americans. A key element of DEI is found in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability.”
However, critics of late argue that these programs are divisive and an abuse of resources on college campuses, while proponents highlight their importance in creating inclusive learning environments and promoting student success. Because balancing these perspectives is crucial for informed decision-making about DEI policies, as advocates for the use of scientific evidence to guide public policies, we wondered if any data existed to support one position over another. We scoured the literature, not expecting to find much.
To our surprise, we found quite a few research studies, echoed by commentaries of experts and educators' experiences on the role of DEI programs for build a thriving, supportive, and adaptive educational environment for students. Collectively, the findings favor DEI programs in higher educational environments, identifying several negative consequences when DEI programs are removed from academic institutions and several benefits when they are provided.
Representation Matters
Incorporating DEI into academic curricula has been shown to improve the ability to analyze information and deploy problem-solving skills, leading to higher overall academic achievement. Without an inclusive, equitable environment—key aspects of DEI—a campus can hinder productive discussions and academic growth. A University of Texas professor highlighted the importance of representation, asserting that “representation does matter,” as students benefit from seeing themselves in educators and coursework, sharpening critical thinking skills.
DEI initiatives bolster student engagement by fostering a sense of belonging, which promotes participation and academic success and equips students with the tools to thrive in a globalized world. DEI programs are inherently designed to foster cultural awareness, empathy, and sensitivity, translating to greater exposure to diverse cultures. These experiences enhance intercultural competence and identity security and, in turn, improve creativity and the ability to effectively respond to challenges.
Increases in graduation rates for underrepresented groups have also been noted when universities support diversity. For instance, Georgia State University's graduation rate for Black students jumped from 25% to 56% between 2001 and 2014, indicating that DEI programs cultivate community, support students, and motivate them to persist until graduation.
Fueling Discriminatory Practices and Attitudes
Officials report that the shift away from DEI has suppressed diverse perspectives through discriminatory hiring practices—we have seen hundreds of layoffs, particularly affecting senior faculty of color and LGBTQ+ staff in DEI offices.
And censorship of course content has become more commonplace, especially in classes dealing with the topics of sexism and racism. Biased curricula under the guise of "safe spaces" limits the range of accurate, thought-provoking, and inclusive materials to which students are exposed.
In the meantime, antisemitism, racism and hate crimes on college campuses have reached unprecedented proportions throughout the country.
Mental Health Can Suffer
DEI programs contribute significantly to students’ social and emotional well-being. Studies show that inclusive environments reduce anxiety and depression, especially benefiting students from marginalized backgrounds. Belongingness also boosts students’ confidence in their academics and fosters overall success. Meeting this need positively impacts their physical, emotional, and mental well-being, particularly for international students.
Research from Penn State's Center for Collegiate Mental Health reveals that mental health issues worsen when schools are not supportive of DEI and discrimination is more prevalent. Without DEI programs to build supportive communities, institutions risk jeopardizing the safety and well-being of their most vulnerable student populations.
The Financial Costs
What could ultimately be a deal-breaker for educational institutions thinking of removing DEI programs is the threat of financial drain consequences for these institutions. Anti-DEI initiatives tend to discourage enrollment and retention of BIPOC, veteran, and LGBTQIA+ students and faculty who seek institutions that commit to inclusion. Students may prefer schools that have not abandoned values consistent with their own. Universities also risk losing access to federal grants that require protection from harassment.
In the absence of DEI programs, many universities are scrambling to salvage financial programs designated to support students from various racial and gender backgrounds. For instance, at Texas A&M University, a scholarship fund established by the parents of two Black female athletes killed in a car accident to help other Black female athletes through college was put on hold. And states with DEI bans may further disadvantage minority students in the job market due to limited exposure to diverse perspectives.
A cost-benefit analysis—which we did not stumble upon—may reveal that the small investment in DEI is well justified relative to the deep costs that can adversely impact enrollment, academic standards, mental health, and institutional reputation. It will soon become clear how many students—and from what demographic—have been denied entry or cannot/will not now attend these institutions. Nevertheless, the evidence to date suggests that financing DEI programs do not detract from other essential services.
In an era marked by escalating mental health challenges, social isolation, discrimination, and violence, prioritizing students’ cognitive, academic, mental, and physical well-being is paramount. At a minimum, higher education leadership might want to consider the evidence before implementing these changes at scale until there is more clarity.
Comments (0)