DEIA Myths and Facts

On Monday of this week, in the matter of NADOHE v. Trump, a U.S. District Court judge reaffirmed a nationwide preliminary injunction of Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” as well as Executive Order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” As noted by Democracy Forward, the decision “protects the ability of universities, workplaces, cities and communities to continue fostering diversity and inclusion without fear of retaliation or lost funding.”

Last week, I attended the annual conference for the National Association for Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) in Chicago, Illinois. Given the current political climate and the escalating rhetoric around the value and legitimacy of diversity, equity and inclusion, it was especially important for me to connect with my professional community and hear from industry experts about the state of the field and the best strategies to consider as we navigate these turbulent times. I have been a member of NADOHE for the last five years and not long after my arrival at Whitman, established Whitman College as an institutional member of the organization. 

Posted on the door to my office are the NADOHE Standards of Professional Practice. These standards have informed the approach to my work over the last 3 ½ years. Explicit in those standards are a commitment to defining diversity in broad and intersectional ways, being strategic and intentional in managing institutional change efforts, promoting inclusive excellence in teaching and learning practices, collaborating with senior leaders on the development of inclusive excellence infrastructure, the importance of senior inclusion administrators modeling professional ethics, and a number of other critical elements for engaging in this work with integrity and a persistent focus on equity, belonging and civil rights compliance.

The recent executive orders regarding diversity, equity and inclusion do not, I repeat, do not make diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or offices illegal. As Art Coleman, education law expert and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, noted in a published letter, “Nothing in federal discrimination law forbids maintaining diversity, equity and inclusion as core to an institution’s mission or including race- or gender- related topics as part of teaching, programming and training.”

The executive order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” seeks to eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) programs “in the Federal Government.” The purview of this executive order is limited to federal government agencies and does not apply to higher education institutions. There is a reference in the executive order to the development of a list of “Federal grantees who received Federal funding to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or ‘environmental justice’ programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021.” Funding for such programs has not been cut. The executive order only calls for the construction of a list of such grantees.

The executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” effectively eliminated a previous executive order that required companies doing business with the federal government to take “affirmative action” or engage in efforts to “recruit and advance” qualified women and minorities. To be clear, this executive order does not mean that companies cannot have diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. What it does assert is that companies or institutions working with the federal government are not required to engage in affirmative action practices and must not engage in any activities that violate federal anti-discrimination laws. 

The executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” seeks to erase our trans and gender non-conforming siblings, neighbors and loved ones. It asserts that the current federal administration “will enforce all sex-protective laws” based on a binary interpretation of sex and gender. The removal of federal protections, minimal as they were, for the transgender community places an already vulnerable community at even great risk.  

Whitman is committed to following federal civil rights laws, including Title IX, Title VI, the Clery Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition to federal law, we also abide by Washington State non-discrimination laws, as well as our own institutional policy regarding non-discrimination. In the absence of federal protections, the Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodation, credit and insurance.

In recent years, Whitman has made significant progress in terms of promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. We have established the Queer Resource Center, Third Space Center, the Special Assistant to the President for Native American Outreach position, convened the College Accessibility Committee, hosted the College’s first Powwow, coordinated the Dialogue and Dignity initiative, launched a First Foods Station, held workshops to address Antisemitism and Islamophobia, partnered with Posse Chicago, rolled out the First Gen Too! campaign, and provided numerous opportunities to faculty, staff and students for continuing education and capacity building related to the principles of inclusive excellence, to name just a few of the initiatives. As a result of these efforts and several others, the diversity of our community has grown substantially. 

Since the summer of 2021, we have seen a 16% increase in our staff of color, a 35% increase in first-generation students, a 38% increase in international students, a 41% increase in Hispanic/Latino students and a 48% increase in Pell-eligible students. We’ve been able to recruit some exceptional faculty scholars and have seen our Asian faculty numbers grow by 64%, along with a 100% increase in the number of Hispanic/Latino faculty, and a 300% increase in Black/African American faculty. While our numbers may have been small at the start, our advances in diversity have been large. These achievements were not accomplished by essentializing or privileging a particular aspect of a prospective student, faculty or staff candidate’s social identity—despite offensive rumors to the contrary. Rather, we’ve been guided by our mission and values, and have taken action informed by our own institutional data and in full compliance with the law.

Climate assessments conducted over the last few years have revealed racialized disparities in the Whitman experience. These results prompted reflection, interrogation and modifications to our outreach and recruitment practices. Our market research with Art & Science also indicated that a broad institutional commitment to inclusive excellence would be appealing to students across a range of demographic categories. In other words, by building a community that was more inclusive and deserving of a wider range of people, we have been able to attract a more diverse pool of talent than we previously would have been able to recruit to the institution.

In the document, “Truths about DEI on College Campuses: Evidence-Based Expert Responses to Politicized Misinformation,” education scholar Shaun Harper explains that “decades of research has concluded that sexism, sexual harassment, gendered pay inequities, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, sizeism, Antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of discrimination and harassment are harmful to students and employees. These are among the numerous problems that most DEI initiatives aim to fix.” At Whitman, we have been cultivating a community where all members feel valued and affirmed. While we still have much work to do, our efforts resulted in the receipt of the HEED Award for Higher Education Excellence in Diversity and our accreditor, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, lauded the institution’s “broad and deep commitment to equity and inclusion across campus” with a formal commendation during their most recent site visit. 

While rhetoric regarding diversity, equity and inclusion seeks to harm the reputation and undermine the work of higher education professionals in my field, we would all do well to remember that any need-based scholarship is an equity initiative. A campus office to support veteran students is a diversity program. An effort to provide first-generation students with access to important and valuable information about the hidden-curriculum or insights on how to navigate higher education environments is inclusion. Efforts to address persistent racial outcome gaps in higher education, at least those that do not deploy a harmful deficit narrative, are not charity or handouts, but essential process improvement strategies. The Clery Act requires higher education institutions to provide students and employees, on an introductory and ongoing basis, with prevention and awareness programs concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. As Amanda Nguyen reminds us, the prevalence of intimate partner violence and sexual misconduct on our campuses cannot and should not go unaddressed. The college’s ongoing work with RVCC and NASPA’s Culture of Respect initiative serve as examples of vital institutional action in the area of diversity, equity and inclusion. 

It is also imperative that we provide our campus community with content and resources for prevention and awareness related to other types of persistent identity-based harm. A mountain of scientific research in education and social psychology would argue that learning is difficult under conditions of threat. When students are concerned about their safety, security or general well-being, it is increasingly hard for them to learn. This is true for students with historically marginalized identities who encounter a range of indignities and assaults to their humanity on our campuses based not on the identities they hold, but the subtle and overt negative regard for those identities in a given environment. Institutional efforts to interrupt and protect students from these kinds of harm are necessary to achieve our educational mission.

Similarly, we know we also have a duty to protect our employees from identity-based discrimination, harassment and other forms of harm. As we seek to build the vibrant and affirming workplace environment that our faculty and staff deserve, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Workplace Mental Health and Wellbeing framework reminds us of the importance of belonging, dignity and safety among the different factors essential for constructing a sustainable and inclusive workplace.

While the National Association for Diversity Officers in Higher Education served as the lead plaintiff in the case of NADOHE v. Trump, we were joined by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), as well as Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and the City of Baltimore. With diversity, equity and inclusion among the core values at Whitman and a stated mission to provide a rigorous liberal arts education of the highest quality to passionate and engaged students from diverse backgrounds in a supportive scholarly community, we must understand that an attack on one is an attack on all. We must face these challenges to diversity, equity and inclusion with a collective resolve and the understanding that these executive orders and ongoing efforts to dismantle “DEI” are not simply intended to diminish or deride the work of the team in Inclusive Excellence, but an attempt to undermine our common purpose and ability to exist as an institution. I remain confident that in the final analysis, if we stand together, we will prevail. Because together we are Whitman Strong!

Go Blues!