Michigan has poured roughly a quarter of a billion dollars into DEI since 2016…
Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement DEI programs, in theory, are meant to foster.
Instead, Michigan’s D.E.I. efforts have created a powerful conceptual framework for student and faculty grievances — and formidable bureaucratic mechanisms to pursue them.
Several years ago, affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in Michigan. Since then, U of M’s student body has become less diverse, ethnically.
We have a major subset of the entire population of the country that seems to be primarily motivated by grievance. Why should the U of M student body be different from the population from which it is drawn?
University of Michigan Ends Required Diversity Statements https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/05/us/university-of-michigan-dei-diversity-statemements.html
The University of Michigan will no longer require diversity statements as part of faculty hiring, promotion and tenure decisions, the school announced on Thursday, marking a major shift at one of the country’s leading public research institutions.
The new policy, issued by Michigan’s provost, comes as the university’s regents weigh a broader overhaul of its sprawling diversity, equity and inclusion programs, among the most ambitious and well financed in the country…
Michigan’s decision may add momentum to growing efforts to restrict the use of diversity statements, which have proliferated widely in academia in recent years. Schools that employ them typically ask job applicants to discuss how they would advance diversity and equity through their scholarship, teaching or community service. In states like Michigan and California, which ban direct racial preferences in hiring, the statements have been credited with helping public universities hire more diverse faculties. Critics view them as a form of compelled political speech that are often used to evade legal restrictions on affirmative action.
The critics don’t know what they’re talking about. If a university recognizes that their student population is becoming more diverse, why wouldn’t they want to ensure their faculty has experience in teaching / mentoring diverse students?
You don’t get it. Colleges and universities should stick to what they do best. Affirmative should always be limited to male progeny of rich, white contributing alumni.
Anti-DEI efforts are hurting companies, not helping them. That shouldn’t be surprising given that they’re driven by anti-woke nutjob idealogy, not what’s in the best interest of employees and shareholders.
Costco’s Board of Directors is urging shareholders to vote against a shareholder proposal by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) that would require the company to “conduct an evaluation and publish a report, omitting proprietary and privileged information, on the risks of the Company maintaining its current DEI (including “People & Communities”) roles, policies and goals."
If the company’s BoD is sure of its position then an evaluation and report should not be a problem.
The good ole days when you move out of neighborhoods that are ‘too black’ so you can avoid sending your kids to schools that are ‘too black’ and then send them to colleges that give preferential treatment to children of alumni who happen to white, all the while justifying your actions by denying the existence of systemic racism while you are personally perpetuating systemic racism. I have never met a bigot who could admit to their bigotry.
I have seen shareholder proposals like that in proxies from some of the companies I hold, recently. What is happening is that companies who try to treat everyone fairly, are finding themselves on the wrong side of TPTB.
Companies that promote good governance (ESG) standards are finding themselves in the kimchee as well.
What is that saying about the “preferred” environment in this country? Is corporate racial/religious bigotry and corrupt, rapacious, management practices the standard everyone is supposed to align with?
As someone who has written a DEI statement or two and been on hiring committees evaluating candidates who have written such statements I think they are silly, pointless, and totally ineffectual. It’s like requiring a statement describing how one’s research can make America great again or improve the prospects of world peace. More to the point, it is no different than asking for a statement about how one’s work advances Christian ideals or supports a Northern Eurocentric American culture.
I consider myself an old-fashioned FDR/JFK/LBJ liberal and feel that if today’s Left were genuinely interested in meaningful diversity it would forget about racial identity politics and focus on the economically disadvantaged.
There is a very simple way to not only increase racial diversity in universities but also improve the outcomes of disadvantaged groups in college (who dropout or switch to an easier major, e.g., from premed to sociology, at a much higher frequency than average). Take all the resources spent on DEI and create a remedial program that will get smart kids from bad school systems up to speed where they can now compete with rich white kids. The great majority of these will be disadvantage minorities and will also include a lot of poor white kids from fentanyl addicted broken families who are equally disadvantaged.
One cost-effective way to do this is for major universities to prop up the curriculum of neighboring two-year colleges, creating joint programs that will allow a significant number of students to transfer as third year students into the university.
The admissions committee at Big-Time University could identify students from disadvantaged schools or backgrounds who demonstrate potential but have poor preparation. These could be provided provisional acceptance if they complete 2-years at the local junior college in a college prop curriculum, taking the general ed, math, and language courses needed for Big-Time University. They could then transfer to Big-Time University and have three years to complete their degree, but this time with the preparation to compete on an even playing field with their peers. Heck, give them a free 4th year if they want to spend a year abroad in an exchange program.
Some universities do that now. The moment some white, upper class, but lazy, kid loses out to a POC from the 'hood, the screams of “affirmative action” will rise again.
The white, upper class kid is not going to want to spend two years in a community college taking remedial courses. Not a whole lot of upper class kids joining the military to get all those Veterans benefits.
You were talking about “big-time” universities. In this status obsessed society, if you don’t have a “big time” degree, you’re nowhere. I have posted before how U of M and Michigan State have seen increases in enrollment, while the second tier state universities have seen enrolment fall 30-40% in recent years.
If you transfer in from a community college as a junior you will get your big time degree while saving a ton of money.
The simple fact is that with respect to college admissions, classic affirmative action didn’t work very well. Sure, you might have a more representative freshman class, but a much higher percentage of those from disadvantaged groups will dropout and a similar percentage will shift to easier majors that lead to lower paying careers. If disadvantaged groups (because of poorer pre-college preparation) are consistently the lowest performers in college classes, it continues the perception that these groups are inferior.
Community colleges are designed to facilitate the preparation of students for college who need the extra help for whatever reasons. I think Michigan should improve and better advertise that cost-effective pathway into UM. UM could certainly do more.
Both UCLA and the University of California, Berkeley are at least as respected as UM nationally and both accepted about 4X the number of community college transfers as UM. Even the University of Florida with its red state governor accepted twice as many CC transfers.
At UCLA, 92% of the approximately 6,000 transfer students are from a CA community college; 34% are from under-represented groups; and 40% are first generation college students. Transfer Profile — Fall 2023 | UCLA Undergraduate Admission
That is interesting. I cite universities in Michigan, because that is what I am familiar with.
Has California or Florida seen the same sort of enrollment concentration in the most prestigious state universities, while the second tier schools starve, like Michigan has?
I couldn’t find information, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they did over that time frame.
The infographic you cited measures enrollment decline from 2010-2011. That’s probably not an accidental choice of start date. Total college enrollment in the U.S. peaked in 2010, and it’s been declining ever since. College enrollment fell from 18.1M in 2010 to 15.4M in 2022, about a 15% decline.
With so many fewer students enrolling across the board, you’re going to see declines in enrollment in most non-selective universities. You just won’t need as much capacity in the state university systems generally, and the least selective schools in that system are going to see the biggest declines. And it’s certainly not going to be much worth expanding capacity at any but your flagship school, where you know you’ll be able to fill those seats - so all expansions are going to go to the top ranked schools.
<Florida’s population over that time period increased by a lot more than Michigan’s (or California’s) - so it’s entirely possible that we saw smaller declines in overall enrollment. >
