Deemphasizing DEI at UW was the right decision

Three cheers for the University of Wyoming and its board of trustees. They did the right thing in decommissioning the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, thereby deemphasizing “DEI,” and relegating it to a less prominent place in UW affairs. The university’s administration and board may have been compelled to take the action by the Wyoming Legislature, but they took it nevertheless. 

What became clear by the public discussion of the issue is that in many instances, both the proponents and critics of the action were “shadowboxing.” That is, proponents and critics alike were dealing with perceptions of diversity, equity and inclusion, rather than what UW’s DEI office was actually doing.

WyoFile carried articles about UW’s decision, an opinion piece critical of the board’s decision, and considerable commentary, some quite passionate and emotional. The administration’s recommendation to eliminate the DEI office, and the board’s decision to adopt the recommendation, were the result of what amounted to a directive by the Wyoming State Legislature driven by public perception of the meaning and purpose of “DEI.” That acronym, and what it stands for, have become a pejorative in the minds of many concerned about the direction of our nation generally and U.S. higher education specifically.

The acronym “DEI” and the words mean little by themselves. “Diversity” simply means “diverse” which means unlike or different. “Equity,” a legal term, means the act of being fair and impartial. “Inclusion” means the act of being included, which in the context we are discussing means being accepted, even embraced. Most would agree that diversity, equity and inclusion are aspirational. Who could argue with such aspirations? No one I know disavows diversity, equity or inclusion as those terms are defined above.

The reason the acronym and its constituent words are viewed negatively by a large segment of Wyoming, and specifically, the Wyoming Legislature, is because those fine and aspirational words have been hijacked to disguise a number of programs at elite universities to which there is, in my opinion, justifiable objection. The concern about indoctrination and promotion of radical causes has manifested itself across the country. 

So, it is not “DEI” that is objectionable, but what has been proposed and implemented via its Trojan horse — a sort of no-boundaries approach to programmatic selection or evolutionary development. In many institutions of higher learning, the argument has become, “as long as it furthers DEI, it’s good.” 

So, who decides what’s good and what’s not? When imagining DEI programs and activities, who decides if there are boundaries or not? And, if there are boundaries, where they are? Do we follow cultural norms or not? If so, whose culture? Do we embrace deviancy or not? According to many proponents of DEI, the answer to these questions depends on “equity,” the second leg of the three-legged DEI stool. Equity is fairness, but who decides what is fair? Now we are getting to the nub. 

The answer to the question, “who decides what is fair” in the context of DEI, is what makes DEI so objectionable in the eyes of so many. The judge of fairness as to matters of diversity, inclusion and social justice (a term used interchangeably with “equity”) are most often the bureaucrats that populate the offices, divisions and departments wherein DEI programs are imagined, planned and implemented. Critical thinking about supervision of DEI programs and departments is difficult because there is a constituency for every initiative and program once started plus the subject matter is fraught with public relations peril. Often it is emotionally charged. 

Wyoming is not the first state and the University of Wyoming is not the first institution to discard or deemphasize DEI. State lawmakers in nearly half the states are proposing, or have proposed legislation to curtail DEI programs and offices at public institutions. A number of universities have moved in that direction, the most recent being the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Just last month the UNC board took the DEI budget of $2.3 million and moved it to public safety at the university. One board member indicated he considered the UNC DEI program to be “disharmonious.” 

“I think that DEI in a lot of people’s minds is divisiveness, exclusion and indoctrination,” trustee Marty Kotis said. “Though guised as a student success support system, the reality is that on some campuses, the DEI regime has become the enforcement mechanism with which to push radical ideology,” another trustee said. “Under the auspice of righting past wrongs, it has been weaponized to allow discrimination, and it pits races and genders against each other.”

It should be obvious that DEI at each institution manifests in different ways with varying degrees of objectionable and non-objectionable content. What is objectionable at one campus may not be at another. The University of Wyoming’s programs under the umbrella of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion appear, from my perspective, mostly but not entirely, moderate and non-threatening. Some programs are student-centered and probably beneficial. Some appear to be ideological and run the risk of becoming indoctrination. 

It appears that UW’s Office of DEI had a budget somewhere between $500,000 and $850,000. The money expended by that office is money that could be spent for academic purposes, which is after all UW’s core mission. 

The decision to eliminate the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at UW is welcome news to many university supporters, myself included. Meritocracy has been reaffirmed to the end that all faculty, staff and students should be assured of nondiscriminatory practices where all are afforded the opportunity to succeed in accordance with their imagination, skill, talent and ability.