DEI: Say What You Mean

In an emotional moment at UVA’s Friday afternoon Faculty Senate meeting, John T. Casteen IV―son of the late and well admired former UVA president―waded into the highly charged debate du jour on diversity, equity and inclusion. 

“DEI, of course, is not just an acronysm [sic], it’s a euphemism” said the younger Casteen, responding to fresh criticisms like that of Board of Visitors member Bert Ellis in a recent article by the Daily Progress.

“When we hear those arguments, let us make sure that we ask people to say what they actually mean,” he added. “Let us ask them not to substitute an acronym and not to say what they are against, but what they are actually for: that they are for decreased diversity, that they are for exclusion, that they are for inequity.”

In stunning contrast to Casteen’s call for candor from DEI critics, the Faculty Senate swiftly transitioned into debate over a resolution reacting to the BOV’s recent vote to excise DEI programs from the university. The senate’s deliberations included a robust discussion of how to parse the actual “buzzwords” associated with DEI.

The rhetorical tactic of “what do you mean by that” is a devious maneuver coming from those who have, themselves, mastered the art of the dogwhistle and of constantly shifting semantics that muddy the waters when it comes to hard and absolute, fact-based understandings of the common language.

Defining a term that is fluid and constantly evolving, often relative to the context in which it is being used, may be, in many ways, like trying to kick a field goal from a 20-foot treadmill.

But as the BOV’s unanimously passed resolution reveals, there is room for compromise and consensus when the parsing of words, designed to sow confusion, finally comes to a halt. 

There is no discussion at the university of removing handicap ramps or forcing Native American students on a figurative Trail of Tears, as some have sought to suggest. 

Indeed, acting provost Brie Gertler told faculty they were free to continue any current efforts to indoctrinate their own students. 

“None of this touches on academic freedom,” Gertler said.

That may lead some to wonder whether the BOV resolution will have any teeth at all. 

It may also invite questions as to whether DEI proponents are acting in good faith to uphold their end of the debate, or whether they should be tasked to say what they mean―and to justify it. 

If UVA’s faculty and administrators truly wish to comply with the spirit of the resolution, they need only to acknowledge what is problematic about the proliferation of DEI policies: 

Diversity

Critics understand this to mean the support of preferential treatment based on factors that would, if inverted, be flagrant violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter whom it is directed against. Identity politics and its cancel-culture counterpart foster a toxicity that is detrimental to the Jeffersonian precept that good governance requires access to a marketplace of ideas.

Equity

Critics are quick to point out that the “equity” in DEI relates to equity of outcomes, not opportunity. Brought to its logical conclusion, this leads to academic scourges like grade inflation and the eradication of standardized testing, ultimately reducing standards of rigor to their lowest common denominator.

Inclusion

“Inclusion” in DEI is understood to mean a sort of mandated political correctness that is harmful to the underlying cultural values and traditions. Demanding that the pagan idol Baphomet stand beside a Christmas nativity scene or that Latinos have their language butchered by gender-neutral suffixes are two recent examples. 

When “exclusion” is itself excluded, anything goes: The Title IX protections that women have enjoyed serve the opposite end once anyone is allowed to “identify” as female. And the hard-fought integration championed by civil-rights pioneers like the late UVA professor Julian Bond and Martin Luther King Jr. (the father of a current UVA professor) vanishes in favor of creating separate-but-equal “safe spaces” for those who wish to opt out of the common culture, a sort of inclusiveness through segregation.

What are DEI opponents for? In short, a society based on content of character, earned meritocracy and a collectively shared identity that embraces our highest virtues while rejecting qualities that undermine the pursuit of excellence. Such a system allows us to be both great and good, but without the bad and the ugly.

Ben Sellers is executive director of The Jefferson Council. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of TJC’s board or the organization as a whole.