In essence, diversity, equity, and inclusion are commendable ideals – who would not want to be diverse and embrace inclusion? In theory, we appreciate the principles of diversity and inclusion, and our preference may be for equality in terms of opportunity; equity might not be the end goal of this particular diversity endeavor. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) have quietly emerged as the latest battleground in the cultural conflict against woke education. In education policy, DEI has taken on a bizarre character, threatening the principles of free speech, inquiry, hiring, firing, and maintenance of academic integrity.
DEI-related activities are often presented as essential initiatives, mission and vision statements, course material, and training sessions to foster racially diverse and thriving institutions; diversity, equity, and inclusion face criticism and backlash for fueling racial resentment and prioritizing physical characteristics over merit. DEI personnel introduce training and programs that significantly alter one’s college experience in education and the workplace. Faculty, too, are put through mandatory training sessions that change their worldview on concepts of race and equality. DEI views its initiatives from Critical Race Theory as a necessary response to structural racism, aiming to reshape American society towards equality of outcomes.
Critical race theory (CRT) is often linked to Marxism within the context of the historical implementation of critical theory values in education and the marketplace. Initially, the Marxist liberal left based its political ideology on class conflict. However, around the mid-1960s, Marxist scholars in the West started adapting their revolutionary theory to the social and racial upheaval of the time, systematically replacing “class” with “race.” This crafted narrative building and adaptation gave rise to critical race theory, a framework scrutinizing race-related issues and systemic racism within society. Due to CRT-led initiatives, there is a visible shift in education from the equality of opportunities to the unnatural equality of outcomes. This is deemed as equity, which is essentially a communist endeavor and a political goal in a nutshell.
Legitimizing Discrimination?
Poff (2023) describes this phenomenon in depth, quoting an Education Policy Fellow at the Heritage Foundation who expressed in an interview, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are euphemisms used to describe training or information exchange about why discrimination is appropriate.” The Fellow – Jonathan Butcher – emphasized that these programs convey that individuals deserve special privileges or benefits based on their identity, ethnicity, gender, or other chosen categories. Critics widely associate these programs with critical race theory, an academic framework positing that U.S. institutions are inherently built upon and permeated by systemic racism, advocating for its confrontation through “anti-racism” (2023).
DEI is continuing to distort the landscape of education. This is especially evident in higher education, where DEI offices are not engaged in research or teaching but are often tasked with legal compliance related to civil rights laws like Title IX officials. Consequently, DEI staff enjoy an ambiguous mandate and considerable flexibility. DEI faculty, too, are busy creating new ways of research and analysis based on Marxism but under the guise of diversity and inclusion.
The terms diversity, equity, and inclusion are being criticized as misleading, as DEI programs often focus narrowly on race, sexuality, and gender identity to the exclusion of other perspectives. The educational implementation (indoctrination?) of DEI ideas often happens in the Humanities and Social Science departments, within department units such as gender, sexuality, and ethnic studies; some universities have opened up Critical Race Theory majors and minors, and thus campuses have turned DEI into a cash cow for the few where high paid administrators and staff are mandated to change narratives, conversations and implement the unnatural idea of equity, by literally marginalizing, othering and erasing diverse voices and opinions.
As Greene (2022) aptly explains, DEI staff operate as political commissariats, enforcing a particular political orthodoxy on campus. The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education positions itself as “a leading voice in the fight for social justice.” It outlines its commitment to advancing anti-racism strategies, mainly targeting anti-Black racism. This “requires confronting systems, organizational structures, policies, practices, behaviors, and attitudes. This active process should seek to redistribute power to foster equitable outcomes.”
Moreover, this redistribution has expanded the bureaucracy and budgets across campuses – a bloat many colleges cannot sustain post-pandemic. DEI has swept into all aspects of university life, enforcing compliance with incentives and imposing penalties for non-compliance. Ideology-based litmus tests (Pidluzny, 2023) in faculty hiring, firing, and tenure decisions contribute to the American higher education system’s politicization, implosion, and eventual collapse. As administration becomes top-heavy and admins often outnumber students in struggling departments, the future of DEI seems grim. Additionally, as students seek out trade schools and other non-traditional programs, colleges, and universities suffer from low enrollment, which affects budgets, making it challenging to absorb burgeoning DEI budgets and hires.
Based on Marxist communism, DEI and its components are based on equality of outcomes rather than opportunity. This setup leads DEI personnel to oppose high academic standards and meritocracy while promoting and rewarding mediocrity. This occurs by neglecting standardized test scores in college admissions and paying greater attention to race and personal narratives. Somehow, tests are labeled as inherently racist, and therefore, scores do not matter as much, preferring those of a certain race while marginalizing other races. This inherent discrimination is not confined to any one university campus but is embedded in university mission statements that have gone the woke route. This phenomenon is not limited to higher education as the canceling of authors and revision of textbooks is also visible at the lower tiers – primary, secondary, and high schools, as well as companies, which are complicit in implementing the skewed CRT-led DEI agenda.
DEI vs. Civil Rights
The America First Policy Institute has created a comprehensive report on the woke takeover of higher education and suggestions for reversing the process. The below sections highlight some relevant points to the discussion of DEI’s scope, reach, and dangers. As Pidluzny (2023) argues, highly compensated senior administrators plan and carefully execute the DEI takeover of universities. Critical Race Theory serves as the basis of the foundation for DEI practices despite attempts by university administrators to deny the connection. The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education openly aligns its objectives with CRT, advocating for anti-racist reforms across all university life. DEI officers nationwide follow this lead despite claims that DEI is unrelated to CRT. However, institutional mission statements and the backgrounds of chief diversity officers often reveal connections to critical theory concerning their radical political agenda.
The author continues the argument and considers DEI an industrial complex—a network of programs, individuals, and policies collaborating to establish influential incentives and career-related repercussions that extend throughout the institution. This arrangement encompasses faculty recruitment, student admissions, development of new curricula, extracurricular initiatives, student housing, residential life, financial motivations for research and course creation, evaluation of personnel and programs, resource allocation, codes of conduct and disciplinary processes, and the communication department’s prioritization of messaging via social media. In short, DEI is being woven into the higher education fabric, inside and outside the classroom.
DEI’s color-conscious programs, often illegal, divide society into aggrieved minorities and domineering majorities. However, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Violating Title VI in the context of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is a highly debated issue. Some argue that certain DEI practices, particularly those involving race-based preferences or quotas, conflict with Title VI by treating individuals differently based on their race, which goes against the principle of equal treatment. Critics often point out that some DEI programs, policies, or initiatives may inadvertently lead to reverse discrimination or create a hostile environment for individuals not belonging to specific racial or ethnic groups. Think about Harvard University and the case of discrimination against Asian Americans. For example, suppose an institution implements policies that favor one racial group over another in hiring, firing, tenure issues, admissions, or other areas. In that case, DEI would probably be violating Title VI. Legal debates around DEI and Title VI are ongoing, and court decisions may shape the boundaries and permissible practices in the future.
The “Costs” of DEI
Pidluzny (2023) points out that DEI initiatives may exhibit a left-leaning political bias, potentially shaping students’ and faculty’s perspectives in line with specific ideological viewpoints and limiting exposure to diverse opinions, eventually leading to exclusion. Concerns are raised about the potential enforcement of ideological conformity, creating an environment where dissenting views are discouraged or even penalized. Additionally, the focus on identity categories in DEI efforts is seen as contributing to a divisive atmosphere, reinforcing stereotypes, and curbing open dialogue. DEI programs also lead to censorship by labeling specific perspectives as offensive or harmful, fostering a culture of canceling and censorship—i.e., freedom of speech for me, but not for thee. Enforcement of specific language use, prohibition of certain words or phrases, and biased incident reporting systems hinder freedom of expression. Students and faculty deemed conservative or belonging to so-called canceled groups are left without a voice or breathing space in the educational realm. DEI activists often protest conservative faculty and diverse opinions on campus. In numerous cases, invited lecturers are uninvited or, worse, heckled on campus by students, faculty, and campus administration. What is missing is the true fostering of inclusivity, respect for diverse perspectives, and freedom of expression. This phenomenon has led to colleges and universities no longer being fertile grounds for learning but rather silos and echo chambers touting a false idea of inclusion.
Another important point from an economic standpoint is that some of these CRT-related majors are expensive and have little return on investment. Students end up spending 200- 300 K for a four-year education, and even with student loans, the idea is unsustainable, especially in a marketplace where there is minimal demand for such majors. Undergraduates often switch majors with little thought, and student debt is a significant issue in the United States. In 2021, statistics on student loan debt revealed that approximately 45 million borrowers in the U.S. collectively faced an outstanding debt nearing $1.7 trillion, according to Forbes (Friedman, 2023). Notably, student loan debt has become the second-largest consumer debt category, trailing only behind mortgage debt, majors, and degrees mentioned above. Such degrees do not result in graduates finding jobs that pay a living wage, putting a section of college graduates in perpetual debt.
I know such graduates personally who have graduated with humanities majors as that seemed to be “cool’ at the time, and a majority of these graduates ended up learning activism in the classroom, ending up indoctrinated. However, the lack of utility of CRT-related “learning” came as a big jolt when they failed to get hired in ‘the real world.’ These students either return to a trade school and pick up medical coding or programming or continue to work multiple jobs to sustain themselves, as typical nine-five jobs do not exist for unnatural majors and degrees.
Anti-DEI Measures
According to Insight into Diversity staff, the War on DEI has intensified as Republican lawmakers across the United States introduced 40 bills opposing diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education since late 2022. These laws target crucial institutional practices, such as mandatory DEI training, diversity statements in hiring, DEI office programming, and curricula addressing systemic issues. Originating in Texas and Florida, the momentum has spread nationwide, with several states like Oklahoma enacting legislation prohibiting DEI initiatives. Defunding DEI will solve some of the issues faced by higher education institutions. With the advent of technology (artificial intelligence) and related market shifts, many traditional humanities majors still need to translate into jobs.
College majors that focus on dividing people based on race and gender create problems for the unity of the nation. These academic differences often lead to conflicts at work, in society, and even within families. Critics of CRT argue that the principles of critical race theory are perceived as a challenge to conservative values, faith, family structures, and the basic concept of freedom. They contend that CRT poses a threat to traditional beliefs and societal foundations.
The insider stories from the point of view of people stuck in this DEI/CRT-led system are akin to nightmares where censorship reigns under the guise of inclusion. This oppressive phenomenon is leading us to cancel democracy. The administrators not toeing the line are imprisoned by it and are terrified of speaking out over the loss of reputation or livelihood. Who would willingly accept the stigmatization of being deemed racist without cause? Scholars have faced cancellations, and professional trajectories have been obliterated. Unless a reevaluation of this phenomenon occurs and corrective measures are implemented, the United States risks evolving into a fully realized communist state.
In summary, implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion in education, mainly through Critical Race Theory, has sparked a major cultural conflict and caused further polarization in the United States. Despite what seems like commendable ideals, DEI’s influence on higher education raises concerns about its impact on free speech, inquiry, and academic integrity. DEI expands bureaucracy and budgets, contributing to additional burdens and unsustainability in an already-strained system. Rooted in Marxist principles, DEI opposes high academic standards and meritocracy, favoring mediocrity. Its impact on ideological conformity, limited exposure to diverse opinions, and potential censorship of dissenting views prompt legal questions about Title VI violations. The veil on DEI has been lifted, and thanks to social media, the debates are at the forefront of public and legislative agendas. As the war on DEI intensifies, with Republican lawmakers opposing its initiatives, the future of DEI programs remains grim and uncertain.
References
Friedman, Z. (2023). “Student Loan Debt Statistics In 2021: A Record $1.7 Trillion” Forbes.com, Student Loan Debt Statistics In 2021: A Record $1.7 Trillion (forbes.com)
Greene, J. (2022). “It’s Time To Roll Back Campus DEI Bureaucracies.” The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/its-time-roll-back-campus-dei-bureaucracies
Insight into diversity (2023). “The War on DEI.” Retrieved from: https://www.insightintodiversity.com/the-war-on-dei/
Pidluzny, J. (2023). “Reversing the Woke Takeover of Higher Education: Strategies to Dismantle Campus DEI.” America First Policy Institute, https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/research-report-reversing-the-woke-takeover-of-higher-education-strategies-to-dismantle-campus-dei
Poff, J. (2023). “Failing grade: What is DEI and how has it spread across college campuses?” Washington Examiner, Failing grade: What is DEI and how has it spread across college campuses? (washingtonexaminer.com)