Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: An Assessment of Value
Executive Summary
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) embraces a set of concepts, social theories, policies, and practices that have become the subject of extensive debate throughout both higher education and society at large. In an attempt to solve discrimination and create equality, DEI policies instead exacerbate them by marginalizing other groups and undermining public trust.
Americans — particularly Virginians — have expressed two pressing concerns about their public colleges and universities, namely skyrocketing costs and politicization. The loss of institutional neutrality is hostile not just to America but to Western Civilization. A 2023 Virginia Association of Scholars report shows that the major cause of both cost and politicization is DEI ideology.
At their core, policies and practices under the banner of DEI serve primarily to perpetuate and normalize racial preferences in admissions, employment, advancement, and academics. While diversity, equity, and inclusion are all fine values, they should not be primary end goals.
The University of Virginia confirmed its commitment to DEI practices as a matter of institutional policy and has disclosed personnel choices and funding to achieve these goals. However, an independent analysis concluded that the costs of these initiatives in both personnel and money far exceed the sums admitted by the University.
Proponents argue that DEI policies and practices are designed to compensate for years of slavery and racist policies at the University. Advancing the cause of social justice thus justifies the cost. Opponents counter that policies and practices implemented under the DEI umbrella:
Perpetuate and normalize racial preferences, potentially exposing the University to costly litigation for discrimination on the basis of race
Promote political indoctrination, chill free speech, and undermine academic freedom, thus violating the University’s educational mission
Impede the cause of justice, social or otherwise, for the claimed beneficiaries
Fertilize the seeds of antisemitism, threatening students, faculty, and employee safety
The Jefferson Council maintains that UVA’s DEI programs fail to contribute to, even undermine, the University’s educational mission. We call upon the Board of Visitors to defund the vast DEI infrastructure and redirect such resources toward mission-critical activities, including tuition reduction and financial assistance.
On Diversity
Contrary to contemporary wisdom, diversity for the sake of diversity does not make us stronger. Freedom — undergirded by the separation of powers and the equal protection of the laws — is our strength. Personal virtues, inculcated over a lifetime of moral and religious instruction, are necessary to preserve freedom. Education is necessary to perpetuate our experiment in self-government.
In the marketplace of ideas, diversity of thought is critical to creating an environment in which ideas are contested and explored in the pursuit of truth. However, targeted diversity as a proxy for diversity of thought has always been suspect.
The US Supreme Court rejected the diversity rationale which held that racial preferences violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and serve only to perpetuate harm on those they seek to help.
Despite this ruling, President Ryan doubled down on diversity as institutional policy. He wrote, “our commitment to diversity, in short, is not diminished.” Ryan defined diversity broadly “to include not just race, ethnicity, and gender, but a wide range of other factors and characteristics, including geography, socioeconomic status, first generation status, disability status, religion, age, sexual orientation, viewpoint, ideology, and special talents.”
However, in 2023, the Supreme Court specifically rejected the use of race-based admissions as unconstitutional, describing them as “overbroad,” “imprecise,” “arbitrary,” “undefined,” and “under inclusive.” So long as such classifications remain in place, then arbitrary preferences will persist despite claims to the contrary. The Constitution is color blind.
In order to avoid implications of preferential treatment in the admissions process based on various characteristics, University policy should be color blind as well. Accordingly, the BOV should abolish the collection, display or use of categories as a means of diversity. As a result, diversity of thought as a product of true freedom will flourish.
On Equity
Equity is the idea of being impartial or fair. The difficulty with this concept is that what is “fair” is a subjunctive thing, therefore policies aimed at achieving equity often treat groups or people differently. In contrast, equality is the idea that everyone is treated in the same manner with the same resources. Where equality focuses on opportunity, equity focuses on outcome.
Notably, President Ryan has stated that equity means “equal opportunity” and has dismissed claims of his critics that equity means “equal outcomes.” In a rejoinder, he wrote “I have no idea where this notion came from, but it ought to be rejected out of hand. I know of no college that guarantees equal outcomes.” Of course this is true, but when equality and equity are confused, policies can also be problematic.
“Where equality focuses on opportunity, equity focuses on outcome.”
In August 2020, President Ryan submitted the report of his Racial Equity Task Force (hereinafter, the “Report”) to the Board of Visitors. The Report states explicitly that “Black Americans remain grossly underrepresented among students and faculty of all ranks and among administrators and staff at senior ranks” and that UVA’s student population should “reflect the racial and economic demographics of the Commonwealth of Virginia.”
In other words, equity can only be measured by counting minorities and comparing their population at the University to their population throughout the Commonwealth. The Report offers no other measures of achieving desired equitable outcomes. Because the University may not be able to guarantee this outcome immediately, it becomes a measurable outcome and the explicit goal of all University equity initiatives.
Additionally, the Report clearly states its rationale for measuring such outcomes: throughout the University, “...structural racism is pernicious and persistent, and it requires that we commit to a level of intention and rigor that ensures our investments, policies, practices, traditions, and the landscape we inhabit cannot quietly reproduce past inequities.”
“Structural racism” is an academic theory that attributes to “racism” any disparate outcome in life. Yet the Supreme Court has never recognized the principles of structural racism for legal redress. Most of the personal and societal factors that result in disparate outcomes — including but not limited to competence, character, economics, family structure, and culture — are reflected in the applicant pool and well beyond the capacity of the University to resolve. Academic preparation, personal character, and a history of achievement drive the probability of success.
Yet the Report ignores the true determinants of individual success and provides no evidence to support its own biases. Instead, it states explicitly, “The single most important determinant of success will be the quality of UVA’s commitment to achieve racial equity.”
Furthermore, the Report cites neither instances of “contemporary racist practices within UVA” nor evidence sufficient to demonstrate how the University’s current “investments, policies, practices, traditions, and the landscape” operate to “quietly reproduce past inequities.” Thus the blanket charge of systemic racism is without example and undermines every University employee who works in good faith every day to treat all others with fairness and respect regardless of the color of their skin or their ethnic background.
In practice at the University, equity promotes the subtle use of racial preferences in admissions, hiring, promotions, and academics in pursuit of racial parity as measured by population demographics. Equity, as implemented, encourages the use of unlawful means to achieve specific and measurable outcomes, and it is not “equal opportunity” President Ryan purports it to be.
Perpetuating and normalizing racial preferences in violation of the law exposes the University to potential costly litigation for discrimination. Thus, in any foreseeable litigation, the Report will undoubtedly be offered as evidence of University policy intentionally to discriminate on the basis of race.
On Inclusion
Inclusion is the practice of providing equal access to opportunities for those who may possibly be excluded. For many, this extends to the concept of ensuring that people feel respected and valued regardless of who they are or where they come from.
For President Ryan, “Inclusion begins with the recognition that it is one thing to recruit a diverse group of students to attend college, or to hire a diverse group of faculty and staff, but it is another thing to help make them feel at home.” However, the mission of the University is educational, not therapeutic. The capacity of the University to affect a person’s feelings is limited at best.
“The mission of the University is educational, not therapeutic. The capacity of the University to affect a person’s feelings is limited at best.”
The University markets the concept of inclusion by resorting to a phrase, “inclusive excellence.” And yet, excellence by its very nature is exclusive. If students are accepted solely on their merit as advertised, then each one will be given the equal opportunity to demonstrate his or her excellence through actual performance. Likewise, if faculty are hired and promoted on the excellence of their scholarship and their performance in the classroom, they should have no problem not just feeling included but actually being included. Excellent performance is the greatest antidote to disrespect.
If the University stands by the assertion that race plays no role in student admissions or faculty hiring and promotions, then feeling included will be a natural byproduct of their excellence without the need for special policies.
Indoctrination Versus Education
Stated goals aside, DEI programs chill free speech and undermine a culture of civil dialogue, the free exchange of competing ideas, and intellectual diversity throughout the University.
In January 2022, a University alumnus who had served on multiple UVA boards and chaired numerous fundraising efforts described disturbing evidence of “inappropriate and dangerous indoctrination flourishing at UVA.” As a member of the Free Expression Committee formed by President Ryan, the alumnus wrote:
“Our committee heard from numerous faculty members and students both in written statements and at a community call-in session. Many professors recited a ‘parade of horribles’ that truly challenged the foundations of what an institution of higher learning should be. There were descriptions of the growth of mandatory training which was becoming increasingly ‘political’ and ‘doctrinal’ and in some cases constituted ‘compelled speech’ and ‘indoctrination’; how teaching and research are becoming more ‘homogenized’; how the University’s institutional ‘substantive commitments’ are becoming more ‘specific’ and ‘contestable,’ especially its notions of ‘social justice’ which are becoming more ‘normative’ and ‘hegemonic;’ and even how administrators are promulgating more and more advice about ‘the character and conduct of classes,’ including instructing faculty to use more ‘inclusive’ language. For example, instead of using the terms ‘husband and wife’ or ‘boyfriend and girlfriend,’ faculty are instructed to use the term ‘significant other’ instead. Another tenured professor, who insisted on remaining anonymous for fear of retribution, described how more than a dozen students had indicated to that professor that ‘they were silenced and shamed in class because of how they were born, as they were told by both professors and/or students that they had ‘male privilege’ or ‘white privilege’...one of the most revered professors in UVA’s two-hundred-year history, who has taught more students than any other professor since 1819, described the current state of affairs at UVA as ‘tragedy.’”
Requests for the committee’s records were denied due to classification as “working papers,” making them exempt from FOIA. Nevertheless, The Jefferson Council has independently confirmed the credibility of the foregoing description of the current state of affairs at the University. It is concerning that policies and practices pursued by the University, through its extensive DEI infrastructure, extend into the classroom by promoting ideological inculcation, thereby undermining the concepts of free speech and civility required to further its educational mission.
Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights
The UVA administration has argued that the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights (EOCR) is a component of the DEI infrastructure and required to enforce federal law. However, employees of EOCR have expanded their writ beyond the bounds of federal law.
A prime example is a case involving “MB,” who was charged with harassment on the basis of race. It was alleged that MB had uttered a threatening comment during a street protest in downtown Charlottesville. No University program, activity, or function was involved. MB moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that EOCR lacked jurisdiction because (a) the comment was protected by the Constitution and (b) the comment occurred on public property at an activity unrelated to the University or its programs. MB also moved to dismiss the Complaint on substantive grounds, namely that the Complaint failed to allege — and no reasonable person could infer — severe and pervasive conduct as required by law. The University overruled MB’s objections, upheld jurisdiction, and opened a formal investigation. For the better part of the following year, EOCR investigators subjected MB to excessive questioning for signs of unconscious bias. MB objected to the questioning as irrelevant, condescending, and biased.
MB explicitly informed EOCR that the investigation was having a deleterious effect on MB’s health. The investigators ignored MB’s well-being and continued their investigation. In the end, EOCR dismissed the complaint against MB, finding facts that validated each of the jurisdictional and substantive reasons MB had cited to dismiss the complaint at the outset. Despite the favorable outcome, EOCR violated federal law by knowingly and intentionally investigating speech protected by the Constitution, investigating allegations of speech unrelated to the workplace, and investigating speech without any allegation of it being severe and pervasive.
“[The Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights] violated federal law by knowingly and intentionally investigating speech protected by the Constitution.”
The University, in part through the unlawful conduct of EOCR, subjected MB to a hostile work environment in violation of the law and contributed immeasurably to the damages alleged in MB’s lawsuit. Attorneys associated with The Jefferson Council have confirmed that the MB case does not represent an isolated instance of overreach by EOCR.
Even an informal inquiry initiated by anonymous complaints through the “Just Report It” system poses the threat of a formal investigation and operates to deter free speech. Since the Office of EOCR is required to enforce federal law, the University must ensure substantive legal training and certification for its employees, require some form of continuing legal education, and institute procedures to cabin their reach and ensure strict compliance with the law.
Anti-Racism and Anti-Semitism
The Report does not explicitly identify any “racist policies” or “contemporary racist practices within UVA.” Nonetheless, it states that, “(s)tudents, faculty, and staff are eager to be courageous and clear in their work to dismantle racist policies and practices in the systems around them but need more anti- racist education to develop these skills and to foster a culture of belonging at UVA.”
As a result, in April 2021, the office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion paid Ibram X. Kendi $32,500 for a one-hour virtual speech on racial equity attended by 876 people. At the time of his contract with the University, Kendi was the leading national figure of the contemporary “anti-racist” movement and a clear favorite to provide “anti-racist education” to an eager audience. Thus, by this time, the Ryan administration had embraced an anti-racist ideology. More recently, anti-racist ideology has been attributed to the rise of anti-semitism on college campuses.
An independent review of social media posting of hundreds of DEI staff members found evidence that “university DEI staff are better understood as political activists with a narrow and often radical political agenda rather than promoters of welcoming and inclusive environments ... Many DEI staff are particularly unwelcoming toward Jewish students who, like the vast majority of Jews worldwide, feel a strong connection to the state of Israel.” Though the University is not explicitly mentioned in the above report, it raises valid concerns in light of the recent events in the Middle East.
Similar concerns have been raised elsewhere. Suzanna Sherry, Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law Emerita at the Vanderbilt University Law School, wrote, “Progressive or ‘woke’ culture –as exemplified by critical race theory, anti-racism of the Ibram X. Kendi variety, and, especially on college campuses, the DEI juggernaut – is necessarily and inevitably antisemitic at its core. That these related movements have now exposed their antisemitism publicly is no surprise: antisemitism is bred in their bones.”
Likewise, in February 2024, Hannah E. Meyers, a fellow and director of policing and public policy at the Manhattan Institute, wrote that anti-racist ideology holds that racial parity based on demographics is a legal or social entitlement rather than an outcome earned through old fashioned virtue and that Jews have never succumbed to the entitlement mentality but have cultivated virtue based on self- restraint. Like the minority Asian students who brought their case against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Jews do not ask for preferential treatment. Thus, instead of demanding entitlements based on grievances, Jews have achieved.
Despite constituting 0.2 percent of the world population and two percent the American population, Jews have amassed, inter alia, twenty-three percent of the Nobel prizes, fifty-one percent of the Pulitzer prizes for nonfiction, thirty-three percent of the symphony conductors, thirty-seven percent of Academy Award directors, five percent of history’s great inventors, thirty-one percent of Forbes 400, and thirty-eight of Business Week Philanthropic 50.
Any academic theory or worldview which pigeonholes minorities such as Jews into a permanent class of oppressed people with persistent and recognizable grievances is refuted by the facts. The racial composition of Jews has shifted over time. However, despite their minority status, their culture of success precludes a classification as an oppressed minority. Therefore it is appalling that Jews are identified as white oppressors regardless of their racial, ethnic, sexual or religious identity. The anti-racist ideology promoted by the University exacerbates the differences in expectations for Black individuals and Jews on Grounds and has bred latent anti-Semitic sentiments that were exposed following the Hamas attack on Israel.
As summarized by Sherry, “Standing alone, critical race theory and the anti-racism movement – and even “wokeness” – are mostly impotent, commanding outsized media attention but not really affecting many Americans. It is the proliferation of DEI offices, requirements, and administrators – not only on college campuses but in classrooms and corporations across the county – that gives their dangerous ideas real purchase and allows them to spread.”
Unfortunately, the UVA administration and DEI policies have contributed immeasurably to the hostile work environment for Jews and once again exposed the University to costly litigation. John McWhorter, a Columbia University linguist and public intellectual who happens to be Black, insightfully argues that the whole movement that includes DEI, anti-racism, and wokeness is — in all but name — a religion, and is trying to cleanse the society of heretics.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, The Jefferson Council advises the Board of Visitors to defund the DEI infrastructure and redirect the resources to more productive and cost effective means that further the educational mission on behalf of the people. The programs and policies directed or encouraged by the Division for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion or otherwise pursued under the DEI umbrella:
Fail to advance the educational mission of the University
Undermine the culture of a free exchange of ideas
Violate the Constitutional right to free speech
Promote discrimination on the basis of race
Breed a hostile work environment for those not deemed to have been historically marginalized
Subject the University to costly lawsuits
We recommend that the University defund and eliminate the Division for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and all permanent positions therein. The resources would be reallocated toward educational activities including, but not limited to: tuition relief, a long-term tuition freeze, or additional need-based scholarships.
The Board of Visitors should further institute substantive legal training for the employees of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights and establish review procedures to ensure strict compliance with the law.
Finally, the University should take other such actions deemed necessary or appropriate to curtail the offense noted herein.