In an age when unprecedented governmental intimidation is forcing major universities to eliminate DEI programs, imposing shocking financial penalties for resistance, who will champion sustaining a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion?
Patricia A. McGuireThe current political administration has embarked on an aggressive campaign to wipe out any semblance of DEI practices, claiming that DEI is illegal. This is simply not true, and yet one major university after another has bowed down to the commands of the overlords. This abject response, given ostensibly in a futile effort to protect the economic interests of the institutions, betrays higher education’s moral commitments to our students, faculty, staff and alumni — particularly those who are persons of color, or women, or immigrants, or who identify as LGBTQ, or who are marginalized in so many ways by the dominant culture. In the most diverse society the world has ever known, supporting diverse student populations in college is both a moral imperative and a social necessity for our nation’s future.
Yes, there are some courageous exceptions. Harvard has chosen a profoundly expensive legal battle; they have the resources. University of Virginia President Jim Ryan chose to resign rather than subject that venerable university to the pernicious consequences of a similar fight; UVA may suffer anyway. George Mason University President Gregory Washington, one of the best in the business and the first Black president of Virginia’s largest public university, is standing his ground — so far. He gave a rousing defense of DEI in his recent letter to the Mason community, demonstrating a model that should inspire more presidents to stand up and be counted.
Let’s talk about what IS illegal. It’s illegal, yes, to choose candidates for admission or hiring or other benefits based solely on their race or gender in ways that disadvantage or exclude others who are equally qualified. Because, historically, white males were almost always favored in hiring and admissions, generations of advocates for justice demonstrated, lobbied, marched, were beaten, imprisoned, firehosed and eventually successful in securing the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed by none other than that old segregationist President Lyndon B. Johnson.
As George Mason President Washington wrote in his letter to his campus community, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act “…was enacted to dismantle explicit and systemic racial discrimination that denied access to education, employment, housing, and public services based solely on race, color, or national origin. It was designed to ensure that no person in the United States would be excluded from participation in federally funded programs because of who they are.”
Now, the current political administration, in league with some very wealthy rightwing interests, is turning the civil rights victories and legal protections of the last half century on their heads, allowing the provisions of the Civil Rights Act to defeat programs and protections for the very people the law was created to help.
This perversion of the Civil Rights Act has become a weapon to undermine and destabilize the academic autonomy and mission values of colleges and universities that have long held commitments to racial and social justice as central to their work. Teaching students how to live and work together in the most diverse society the world has ever known is certainly not illegal or wrong — it is a moral imperative! Making it possible for persons who were historically barred from higher education to have opportunities to go to college is not only not illegal, it is essential to this nation’s health, security and long-term domestic peace.
The drive for inclusion of once-excluded and marginalized persons has a long history in America, pre-dating the 20th Century Civil Rights Movement. Catholics were largely excluded from America’s early colleges, so Georgetown College (now university) started in 1789 to open opportunities for Catholic men in those days. Blacks were excluded from higher education until the late 20th Century, so Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were founded to provide pathways into higher education starting with the founding of Cheyney University in 1837 in Pennsylvania. Women were excluded from most colleges until the mid-20th Century, so Salem College founded in 1772 led the way for women’s colleges. While these “special mission” colleges opened pathways into higher education for historically excluded persons, they did not necessarily provide the full educational, economic and social benefits of the institutions that historically served privileged white men.
In the mid-20th Century, the movements for civil rights and women’s rights propelled the opening of the most exclusive colleges and universities to all qualified students without regard for race, religion, gender or other personal characteristics. Yet, many women and students of color still felt marginalized on the newly diversified elite university campuses with the result that programs to welcome, include, support and ensure equity became imperative for diverse student populations to enjoy the full benefits of higher education. In 1972, the continuing discrimination against women in colleges led to the enactment of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to enshrine equal opportunity for women into federal law.
Sadly, some powerful white persons now claim that making opportunities for inclusion and equitable treatment available to persons of color is illegal discrimination against whites, and some also claim that opening opportunities for women discriminates against men. Without any proof, but with improper citations to certain legal cases, these individuals are working in league with the current political administration to ban as illegal any programs that promote access and opportunity for diverse populations, using perverse interpretations of Title VI and Title IX to undermine equity initiatives.
Consider the case of Marc Andreessen, a multi-billionaire technology investor, who recently received front page attention in the Washington Post for his vicious comments about universities and DEI in a group chat on WhatsApp. The chat, supposedly on the topic of artificial intelligence, was private, but this being Washington, someone helpfully took screenshots of his comments and leaked them to the Post. In the chat, Andreessen expressed extreme hostility to DEI practices as well as immigration. The Post reported: “The combination of DEI and immigration is politically lethal,” Andreessen wrote. “When these two forms of discrimination combine, as they have for the last 60 years and on hyperdrive for the last decade, they systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America.” He went on to say that “my people are furious and not going to take it any more,” calling universities “ground zero of the counterattack” and declaring that, “They declare war on 70% of the country and now they’re going to pay the price.”
Who does he mean by “my people” …?? I leave it to the readers’ imaginations…
How can somebody so wealthy be so ill-informed and so angry about discrimination he has never suffered? His billions suggest that nobody has discriminated against him, to be sure. Moreover, an examination of the demographic data of the nation’s most prestigious universities confirms that students of color, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, are a tiny percentage of the student bodies — less than 10% in many cases. They are hardly taking seats from the white majority.
As well, if Andreessen did a modicum of research (or asked his AI chatbot) he would learn that thousands of seats in higher education go unfilled every year. It’s a myth that “children of the Trump voter base” do not have “any realistic prospect of access to higher education…” Access is everywhere! (ChatGPT just answered my query about how many seats go unfilled annually in American higher education with this stunning tidbit: In U.S. higher education, a striking statistic reveals that institutional capacity is under‑utilized by about 25%, meaning roughly 5 million empty classroom seats each year.”)
But, heck, what does Chat GPT know?
For real expertise on this topic, let’s talk Trinity. At Trinity, our faculty and students know a thing or two about DEI and immigration. 56% of our students are Black, 30% are Latina, 95% are women, and a substantial number are immigrants. Trinity’s ambitious, forward-thinking students know full well what it means to have a chance to go to college, how important it is to be in a university that supports them, how inspiring it is to see faculty who “look like me” in the classroom and around campus. These are students who have deep personal experience with discrimination and they are working hard in college to learn how to move forward without rancor and with purpose. Students such as ours at Trinity are not taking any seats or jobs away from anybody but they are preparing for work that our society needs so very much — nursing and healthcare, teaching and counseling, entrepreneurship and leadership in communities of high need.
Trinity’s commitment to the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion is rooted in Catholic teaching on social justice. The first tenet of social justice is the imperative to protect and honor the dignity of all human life. Our faith teachings on social justice compel us to welcome and educate diverse populations of students who were once marginalized in education and society.
Who will champion DEI?
I will! Who will join me?
Patricia McGuire is president of Trinity Washington University.
