Diverse: Issues In Higher Education’s Post

Meaty interview here from The Hechinger Report and GBH News with American Council on Education President Ted Mitchell. Some highlights: "If we can move toward real substantive questions and substantive issues, I think there’s a lot of a lot of ground that we could cover in a Trump administration." "And if you take a look, for example, at some of the more active members of Congress over the last year and ask the simple question: Did they go to college? Answer: Yes. Did they go to the very same colleges that candidate Trump was belittling? The answer is yes." "We are going to be the very best colleges and universities that we can be. And in doing so, we will protect democracy. We will grow a spirit of democratic citizenship. We will build America the way our founders wanted it to be built." #HigherEdBuildsAmerica https://lnkd.in/e68N-nQJ

The University of Missouri announced that it would eliminate its Division of Inclusion, Diversity & Equity. Mizzou’s decision comes after pressure from conservative state lawmakers who have shown hostility toward efforts to attract and retain students from historically underrepresented groups.   Mizzou’s decision and the closure of DEI offices around the country are steps backwards for higher education. Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives strengthen campus communities, not divide them. Everyone benefits when we value one another, honor and celebrate our differences, and seek to better understand one other.    Former Assistant Vice Chancellor for Civil Rights & Title IX for the University of Missouri and Mehri & Skalet, PLLC Managing Partner Ellen E. said:   “In 2015, students, faculty, and staff and administrators – led by Concerned Student 1950 - exposed the ongoing inequities on Mizzou’s campus and called for change. The IDE Division was Mizzou’s long overdue response. When Mizzou created the division it centralized resources and elevated diversity and non-discrimination principles to the highest levels of the institution with a seat on the chancellor or president’s cabinet. Now that leadership and the focus on implementing DEI values throughout the culture, research, and teaching of the institution is gone. This is a tragedy. To the staff that remain dispersed across campus, may you find strength and fortitude during these troubled times. You are true heroes.”   #DEI #UniversityofMissouri #CivilRights #TitleIX #Colleges #Universities   https://lnkd.in/dzyeve2G

https://lnkd.in/e252B2nx In the wake of recent discussions at UNC-Chapel Hill regarding DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies, it's clear that the conversation surrounding these initiatives is more crucial than ever. The article sheds light on the intricate dynamics within the education system, politics, and the broader social landscape. As someone who strides through the political and social sectors, the debate at UNC-Chapel Hill is a microcosm of the broader national discourse on DEI. Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts' attempt to maneuver through the politically charged atmosphere while focusing on serving all of North Carolina reflects the delicate balance leaders in academia must strike in today's polarized environment. The criticism faced by Roberts for his responses (or lack thereof) to questions about DEI policies and legislation in other states, like Florida and Alabama, underscores the expectation for educational leaders to be not only aware of but also engaged in national debates that affect their institutions. The active involvement and critique from student organizers at UNC highlight a generational drive to hold leaders accountable and push for transparent and informed governance. This engagement is commendable and demonstrates a rising demand for leadership that recognizes and navigates the complexity of DEI issues with informed sensitivity. In reflecting on this scenario, it's apparent that the discussion on DEI is not just a matter of policy but also leadership, accountability, and active civic engagement. The challenge lies in reconciling diverse viewpoints within a framework that respects and uplifts marginalized communities without sidelining the essence of academic freedom and open discourse. To further engage with this topic, I propose the following questions to spark conversation and deeper reflection among my LinkedIn comrades: 1. Do you believe university leaders should be well-versed in DEI-related legislation in other states? 2. How important is student activism in shaping university policies, especially concerning DEI? 3. Have you or someone you know ever faced a risk related to your or their DEI position? I encourage everyone to weigh in, share thoughts, and contribute to a robust discussion. Engaging in these conversations is not just about exchanging ideas but also about shaping the future of education and governance in a way that is inclusive, equitable, and reflective of our diverse society. #DEIPolicies #HigherEducation #UniversityLeadership #StudentActivism #AcademicFreedom #InclusiveEducation #EquityAndInclusion #GovernanceAndPolicy #CivicEngagement #SocialChange #TheMalbrueGroup #Policy #Advocacy

I here some people say they don't engage in politics, but I often wonder if they realize how political their lives truly are. In higher education, many of us simply want to do our jobs, serve, and create a positive experience for everyone involved. Unfortunately, the ongoing attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) are resulting in policies that jeopardize our ability to feel safe and inspired in our work. Boards wield significant influence over institutional priorities and decisions. Recent events at George Mason University and the exertion of power by Governors in different states are deeply troubling. Manipulating tenure processes for political motives is disheartening, and eliminating DEI initiatives only harms individuals. Moreover, altering curricula to include incomplete and biased information has detrimental effects. To my colleagues and peers in higher education, I urge you to stay informed about the actions of your board or leadership. It's crucial to be aware of the changes being made and the impact they may have on our community and the education we provide.

At least eight votes of no confidence in college leaders have been taken or proposed in the last month, many of them prompted by their handling of pro-Palestinian encampments. Many of the votes centered around police intervention in encampments, more-traditional issues, like concerns about shared governance, have been factors, too. While the votes hold no power, they have in the past put presidencies on the ropes: A 2022 Chronicle analysis found that about 51 percent of the time, a president on the receiving end of a no-confidence vote winds up leaving office within a year. For college presidents, this indicates that displeased faculty members are just another audience presidents must face at a moment when students, donors, and politicians are already closely scrutinizing their actions.

ICYMI | One of President Donald Trump’s latest executive orders aims to end “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion policies and could upend programs that support underrepresented groups on college campuses. Whether the order, signed late Tuesday night, will be effective is not clear, some experts cautioned Wednesday. Others celebrated it as the end of DEI in America. The order calls on all agencies to “enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities,” though it doesn’t define DEI. Additionally, the order directs the attorney general and education secretary—neither of whom have been confirmed—to create guidance for colleges and universities on how to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, which banned the use of race-conscious admissions policies. Read the full story ➡️ https://bit.ly/4jlh00J

When I accused the University of Kentucky in Inside Higher Ed of caving to legislative jawboning against DEI, the college spokesman confirmed it: "If you’re hearing concerns from policymakers…you should act." No. If the government demands ideological control of your campus, you should fight. There are plenty of areas where lawmakers SHOULD be involved in the workings of a college campus: outcomes, completion rates, access, community relations, budgets, safety. What ideas are expressed on campus? None of the government's business. A key responsibility of a college president is to determine which issues are areas of legitimate compromise with politicians, and which are the zealously defended prerogatives of the college. Too many presidents are getting this wrong: defending funding and budgets without compromise, caving on ideas and governance. A college without a new building is an underfunded college. A college without freedom of ideas is not a college, but a government propaganda factory. You can be a responsible president, understand realpolitik, and still use your limited political capital to defend your campus from government ideological control. In fact, it is imperative that presidents do so. This instance of jawboning is part of a nationwide trend. And it will not stop unless college presidents stand up and say no to threats of ideological control by the government. https://lnkd.in/eN4vj3af

Kevin R. McClure and I wrote about this phenomenon of "leaders" selling out their students and employees by caving into authoritarian demands. https://lnkd.in/e5SV-pNT There's so much I can say about this alarming trend, but I'll keep it to this (and let you read the linked article for more): If you are an upper-level university administrator who is eliminating DEI work at your institution--even when there are no extant laws mandating such action--because you want to "adjust to the current political climate", you are either: a. a coward who willingly sells out your employees and students rather than take a principled stand and protect your institution's mission, or b. secretly in agreement with these authoritarian impulses, and thus ready to betray your employees and students to satisfy your own prejudices. Either one of these is disqualifying. Higher-ed eaders are paid salaries that are orders of magnitude higher than faculty and staff members, because they are supposedly "bold leaders" ready to "make the tough calls." But lately, I've seen precious little boldness or integrity in the higher-ed leadership class.

In this group of reflections from higher ed leaders on the new administration, PEN America’s Jeremy C. Young writes: “Scientific discovery, cultural creation, the fostering of critical thinking skills employers seek in new graduates and the promotion of democratic pluralism among the rising generation—these outcomes are only possible if colleges and universities remain places where all ideas are open for debate, not just those the government agrees with.” https://lnkd.in/gKwfXknE

Higher education is intertwined with, not separate from, the institutions being challenged. Re-upping this piece I wrote for @insidehighered two years ago. We cannot find work-arounds, but rather must lead for our sector to deliver on its democratic promises. Our greatest thinkers, from Frederick Douglass to MLK, from Gloria Anzaldua to Sherman Alexie have taught us access to knowledge is how freedom spreads. Limiting access to knowledge and a better life through curricular gag orders, defunding retention-focused offices, and dehumanizing students and employees through rhetoric that intentionally mischaracterizes our work in higher education limits our possibilities as a democratic nation. We don’t need work-arounds so much as we need coalitions that assert (not defend) exactly what it is we do and why. We have serious jobs, and serious work to do. https://lnkd.in/gxyHp6wK