Opinion: Why Utah political leaders are right to take action on DEI
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Editor’s note: The Deseret News is committed to providing meaningful commentary both for and against HB261, which would reform diversity, equity and inclusion programs at public institutions in the state. This opinion piece argues in favor of the bill.
The well-being of minority groups should be an important societal concern that draws together communities with varying perspectives on how to best offer support. But over recent decades, one particular view has become dominant in the U.S., represented by the acronym “DEI,” standing for “diversity, equity and inclusion.”
In recent years, this approach has largely been taken for granted as a prudent pathway for supporting the economic advancement of various minority groups in American institutions. Increasingly, however, objectors in the workplace and higher education have come to believe that DEI represents discriminatory measures that lack evidence for their effectiveness.
Regarding this billion-dollar DEI industry, Jesse Singal wrote this summer for The New York Times that diversity workshops and other efforts are designed to “foster better intergroup relations, improve the retention of minority employees, close recruitment gaps and so on. The only problem? There’s little evidence that many of these initiatives work.”
Many who advocate for DEI efforts have altruistic intentions, but too often such heartfelt advocacy overlooks long-term implications.
Diversity — racial, ethnic or ideological — is a virtue that is desirable and valuable to our human experience. And clearly, there are also immense benefits that come from finding ways to ensure that all belong, feel included and achieve greater economic equality. But how public institutions go about achieving these goals matters.
That word “equity” has sometimes been presented by DEI advocates as more or less synonymous with the phrase “equality.” However, when understood in the context of what many DEI thought leaders have said, there is a more precise definition of equity at play here involving efforts to ensure equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity.
Another term, “anti-racism,” has also found its way into the DEI-related lexicon, ever since Ibram X. Kendi popularized it in his book, “How to Be an Antiracist.” DEI programs throughout the country, such as at the Harvard Kennedy School, use this term in conjunction with DEI and related programs.
“Equity,” in Kendi’s telling, is ensuring “equal footing” between groups — or said more plainly, equal outcomes.
As Vice President Kamala Harris similarly stated in a video posted to X, “Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.” In other words, regardless of where you started the race, everyone presumably ought to finish at the same time and in the same spot.
On the surface, this doesn’t sound too menacing. But in practice, and particularly when applied across demographic categories, this can have broad implications. For example, does this mean putting a cap on how many people from a certain race are admitted to a certain college? Should every job, from construction to ballet instruction, be evenly split 50-50 between men and women? And don’t such practices eventually end up unintentionally incentivizing discriminatory practices?
What DEI means for Utah
A bill going through the Utah Legislature looks to reform DEI at public schools and institutions controlled by the state government. An overview of the bill states, “This bill prohibits an institution of higher education, the public education system, and a governmental employer from taking certain actions and engaging in discriminatory practices.”
This general statement seems like something that should be widely accepted. However, disagreement has emerged in the details of the bill’s proposal to change DEI offices and programs to “student success and support” centers. If passed, this bill would also do away with any required affirmation of DEI statements by new hires at public institutions.
Related
Back in December, Gov. Spencer Cox stated that some universities have made new hires “sign” diversity statements. At the time, several colleges denied this was happening — with one news article insisting that “Gov. Cox shares no evidence that Utah colleges require DEI statements.”
But as John Sailer, a senior fellow and director of university policy at the National Association of Scholars, pointed out in a Deseret News op-ed, when Utah State University sought a professor in solid earth geohazards, “scientists had to submit a ‘statement of contributions and vision of approach toward diversity, equity, and inclusion.’” And, for “a position in insect ecology, the university likewise sought scientists with a ‘demonstrated capacity; to contribute to ‘justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.’”
For many, these kinds of DEI statements become a thinly veiled political litmus test, reminiscent of the “Red Scare” era of McCarthyism that many academics denounce.
This is not diversity arising and resulting from some greater goal. It’s forced diversity as the goal. This kind of “forcing people into a political framework before they can even apply for a job in the state,” as Cox recently put it, really is “bordering on evil.”
Some have cheered reports claiming that DEI only made up .015% of the budget of the University of Utah — arguably representing but a speck in the budget of one of Utah’s largest public universities.
But these numbers have been questioned. Yes, there is a main campus DEI office. But there are also countless committees that have met to create individual DEI department statements, DEI department trainings, DEI awareness campaigns by college and DEI policies at various levels and majors within the university. There are even DEI (or diversity) credits at some universities that can be required for a major.
All these extra costs are not easily quantified on a budget, but, big and small, they are all ultimately subsidized by taxpayers — worsening the return on investment in higher education, which should be a vehicle for lifting people from all backgrounds and demographics.
The truth about DEI is it creates waste and bloat in institutions precisely because of its firm commitment to getting “equal outcomes.” When your goals are not merit based, the expenses go well beyond what’s stated in a central budget analysis.
If institutions in Utah want to promote honesty and excellence, they cannot continue to simultaneously promote DEI as it has been popularly defined. State institutions must be smarter and wiser — taking stock of what each individual has been given in their specific circumstances, and then finding ways to help them grow and succeed.
In our search for more productive views of belonging and inclusivity, we could take some inspiration from this “DEI statement” by the rapper, Zuby’s “Marvelous”:
“Could be dealt a different hand, a different land, a different summer. / Or had an absent dad, a distant fam, a different mother. / I care about your heart and I don’t care about your color. / White or brown or black or yellow, if you decent, you’re my brother.”
Thomas Stevenson is an editor at The Post Millennial. He is also an alumni of Campus Reform and co-founder of the Cougar Chronicle.
