If the recent Act 641 report fools policy-makers into thinking all is clear from the perniciousness of diversity, equity, and inclusion inculcation into every day business at Louisiana higher education institutions, then it will serve as a distraction and not as a tool to counter that perniciousness.
This report, promulgated as part of a recent law, mandates institutions to report spending on activities that classify individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, culture, gender identity, or sexual orientation or promotes differential or preferential treatment of individuals on the basis of such classification. It is for fiscal year 2024 and shows for that year that about $3.5 million spent on DEI activities, a good chunk of which went to programs for international students and study of Acadiana culture.
It's interesting trivia and a cudgel defenders of DEI can use as the tip of an iceberg that they disingenuously claim the underwater body of which doesn’t exist by saying the money spent is but a tiny fraction of total academic spending. This line of argument about foundational DEI misdirects not only by stumping for the idea that spending proportion as an indicator shows it has little sway but also in deflecting from the fact that spending tells us next to nothing as an indicator of DEI spread.
DEI as a response to a certain theoretical worldview of societal relations and power distribution in societies is worthy of academic explication and scrutiny, but when it becomes foundational as an outgrowth of this worldview assumed to exist in the real world it becomes harmful and contradictory to its stated goals. In reality, it becomes used as an ideological cudgel to disparage policy based upon equality of opportunity and meritocracy by assuming, usually by appeals to outcomes real or imagined while ignoring processes and behaviors, automatically that certain groups are positioned hopelessly outside of policy-making structures by groups with different characteristics which will change only with tremendous and enlightened state intervention. If it sounds like mutilated warmed-over Marxism with socioeconomic class replaced by any or all of race, sex, gender orientation, etc., that’s only because it does and carries with it the same scant empirical verification baggage that makes belief in it an act of faith rather than reason – but which too often has become the official state ideology of a large swath of those with power in academia.
Dollar amounts associate very little with expression of this attitude in academia, not only becomes so much activity involved in it has nothing to do with spending, such as classroom instruction or personnel decision-making, but also as it can be fundamentally difficult to detect. For example, at my home institution the report outlines the purpose and activities of our Diversity, Inclusion, Community Engagement Center that spent about $190,000 – and then states that it was “disbanded” as of Jun. 30, 2024.
Except that it wasn’t. Instead, it morphed into something called the Office of Community Engagement. It still is lead by my department colleague who still maintains her associate provost rank. Scroll through its Facebook account and you’ll see it’s largely doing and promoting the same stuff – most of which didn’t touch on foundational DEI – as it was prior to the middle of last year. Indeed, those older posts reference the old DICE center. The declaration that LSUS is out of the DEI spending business, as defined in the law, is nothing more than a feint that places old wine into new bottles.
Undoubtedly that is replicated by magnitudes across the Louisiana higher education landscape, and to a much more virulent degree than my institution’s blessedly mild incantations. And while that suggests a certain degree of mendacity, the important thing to remember is that these data don’t convey much genuine information. It costs zero, for example, to have academic departments wink-and-nod at the Louisiana State University System’s recently-adopted prohibition of diversity statements (explication of how a job candidate shows commitment to DEI principles through teaching, research, and community service) in hiring by vetting vita for papers written, organizations joined, classes taught, etc., if not outright asking job candidates about their views related to DEI, that show friendliness to DEI and making job offers accordingly.
Louisiana policy-makers can’t let themselves be distracted by Act 641 numbers, nor listen to deceitful claims that DEI isn’t problematic by those numbers within the state’s higher education system. They must keep their eye on the ball and do what has been done in other states: legislate to ban foundational manifestations of DEI in higher education, in order to keep the movement from devaluing not only the mission of the university, but people as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment