U Florida terminates DEI positions

[Hegemony]

So I'm curious. Other that those "stick-in-the-mud codgers", what value did he provide everywhere else? As those codgers retire, what else needs to be done that requires ongoing staff and infrastructure, presumably in perpetuity?

I don't know anything at any university that is preserved in perpetuity. But sadly, it's not only the old codgers who have retrograde ideas about which demographics are fit to be hired. I'd love to see initiatives against bigotry discontinued because all bigotry has ceased and all groups of people have equal access and opportunity. I know many people in the top group already think it's all hunky-dory out there and all this DEI is just a lot of fuss over nothing. The real problem with DEI, as I see it, is not that there's no need for it: it's that it hasn't found a widespread, replicatible way of changing a lot of people's minds. Some people's minds, yes. But not as many people as need to be changed for the playing field to be level. You can go through any thread on the subject on these boards and see solid evidence of that. And even if the people here don't have hiring power, there are plenty of people with hiring power, and grad-student-supervising power, and undergrad-mentoring power, who feel that only certain kinds of people should be let in through the gates. It's not always easy to spot if you haven't been on the receiving end of the bigotry. I applaud the DEI people who can make headway, but a lot of headway remains to be made.

[apl68]

One was a summer program, at the university, for high school students from traditionally underrepresented groups to explore what careers in certain fields might look like, and to show them such careers were possible. A huge success!

Now that sounds like some useful initiatives that could bring a lot to benefit some without needlessly alienating others.  So it looks like there is such a thing as DEI done right.

That kind of thing has been around for decades, long before "DEI". I used to help with such a program to encourage girls in high school to consider STEM, and that was in the 90's or so, as I recall.

Which indicates that DEI is not actually anything new.  Certain approaches to it, and certain jargon surrounding it are.  If some approaches turn out to be counterproductive, there are ways to work toward the desired goals that might be more productive. Issues with the DEI "brand" becoming unwelcome in some places don't mean that the goals have to be abandoned.  The problematic strategies might need rethinking.

[jimbogumbo]

Clearly not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upward_Bound

[Wahoo Redux]

So I'm curious. Other that those "stick-in-the-mud codgers", what value did he provide everywhere else? As those codgers retire, what else needs to be done that requires ongoing staff and infrastructure, presumably in perpetuity?

I don't know anything at any university that is preserved in perpetuity. But sadly, it's not only the old codgers who have retrograde ideas about which demographics are fit to be hired. I'd love to see initiatives against bigotry discontinued because all bigotry has ceased and all groups of people have equal access and opportunity. I know many people in the top group already think it's all hunky-dory out there and all this DEI is just a lot of fuss over nothing. The real problem with DEI, as I see it, is not that there's no need for it: it's that it hasn't found a widespread, replicatible way of changing a lot of people's minds. Some people's minds, yes. But not as many people as need to be changed for the playing field to be level. You can go through any thread on the subject on these boards and see solid evidence of that. And even if the people here don't have hiring power, there are plenty of people with hiring power, and grad-student-supervising power, and undergrad-mentoring power, who feel that only certain kinds of people should be let in through the gates. It's not always easy to spot if you haven't been on the receiving end of the bigotry. I applaud the DEI people who can make headway, but a lot of headway remains to be made.

What should people change their minds from and to?

What should they believe?

[Hegemony]

What should people change their minds from and to?

What should they believe?

Oh come on, that's just a disingenuous question. You know what racism and bigotry is, even if you think it's "all overblown" or "White men are the most victimized group there is!" or whatever. But come off that "I have no idea what the issues are" facade.

[dismalist]

Clearly not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upward_Bound

Interesting. I hadn't heard of these programs to support some high school students.

What is notable is that nowhere is race mentioned. Support is conditioned mainly on income. First generation college potential status is also supported. [That's the sop to the educational establishment -- us.]

If support were based solely on income, the racial mix of those supported by any program would not be changed much and nobody would have anything against such programs. So it has nothing to do with DEI.

[Wahoo Redux]

What should people change their minds from and to?

What should they believe?

Oh come on, that's just a disingenuous question. You know what racism and bigotry is, even if you think it's "all overblown" or "White men are the most victimized group there is!" or whatever. But come off that "I have no idea what the issues are" facade.

Well, okay.  I did not want to proverbially put words in your mouth or misstate what you said if I responded (as you just did to me).  I was thinking of things much more complex than "white men are victimized."

My questions were too general, I see.

So: I'll just respond.

I've never met anyone in academia who thinks "all bigotry has ceased" or "the top group already think it's all hunky-dory out there and all this DEI is just a lot of fuss over nothing."  What I see are well-compensated Diversity Officers, a lot of forced training, "diversity hiring" strategies and job postings, a lot of expensive diversity recruitment, and a great deal of rhetoric. I also see relatively diverse campus cultures and students who are very invested in the idea of diversity, even if it is not all of them.

And while I would never hyperbolize to the extent of "White men are the most victimized group there is!" (which is, of course, ridiculous and I personally have never heard anybody say that) but I have seen some double-standards reified whether or not we want to admit that this happens. 

Outside of academia I have met a couple of unapologetic hardcore bigots, many in my youth in the conservative small town I grew up in.

The problem with "people need to change their minds" is that someone assumes they know what other people are thinking and should be thinking instead.  I find that people very involved with DEI are often very inflexible and self-righteous thinkers who are still fighting the problems of inequality like it is 1965 and not 2024.

Are the people who want to change other people's minds capable of changing their own, even a little?   

[apophenia]

I find that people very involved with DEI are often very inflexible and self-righteous thinkers who are still fighting the problems of inequality like it is 1965 and not 2024.

That's because the vast majority of DEI officers are admincritters with Ed.Ds or similarly lightweight credentials who never actually received a proper training in history, psychology, the social sciences, or a similar field employing more rigorous methodologies than the mad libs "dissertations" that come out of so many education programs. (As someone who's been doing DEI work for over a decade).

[Wahoo Redux]

I find that people very involved with DEI are often very inflexible and self-righteous thinkers who are still fighting the problems of inequality like it is 1965 and not 2024.

That's because the vast majority of DEI officers are admincritters with Ed.Ds or similarly lightweight credentials who never actually received a proper training in history, psychology, the social sciences, or a similar field employing more rigorous methodologies than the mad libs "dissertations" that come out of so many education programs. (As someone who's been doing DEI work for over a decade).

Fair enough.  That seems to fit with what little I've seen.

What should a DEI official be doing?

[MarathonRunner]

Clearly not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upward_Bound

Interesting. I hadn't heard of these programs to support some high school students.

What is notable is that nowhere is race mentioned. Support is conditioned mainly on income. First generation college potential status is also supported. [That's the sop to the educational establishment -- us.]

If support were based solely on income, the racial mix of those supported by any program would not be changed much and nobody would have anything against such programs. So it has nothing to do with DEI.

Umm, it has everything to do with EDI. EDI isn't just about race, it's about providing opportunities to communities that have been traditionally marginalized or underserved or underrepresented. That includes race, but also socioeconomic status, ability/ disability, Indegeneity, etc.

[ciao_yall]

Clearly not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upward_Bound

Interesting. I hadn't heard of these programs to support some high school students.

What is notable is that nowhere is race mentioned. Support is conditioned mainly on income. First generation college potential status is also supported. [That's the sop to the educational establishment -- us.]

If support were based solely on income, the racial mix of those supported by any program would not be changed much and nobody would have anything against such programs. So it has nothing to do with DEI.

Umm, it has everything to do with EDI. EDI isn't just about race, it's about providing opportunities to communities that have been traditionally marginalized or underserved or underrepresented. That includes race, but also socioeconomic status, ability/ disability, Indegeneity, etc.

Although race and income are highly correlated.

[jimbogumbo]

Clearly not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upward_Bound

Interesting. I hadn't heard of these programs to support some high school students.

What is notable is that nowhere is race mentioned. Support is conditioned mainly on income. First generation college potential status is also supported. [That's the sop to the educational establishment -- us.]

If support were based solely on income, the racial mix of those supported by any program would not be changed much and nobody would have anything against such programs. So it has nothing to do with DEI.

In practice it does. I have seen Upward Bound students for decades, and at least in the Midwest they have been overwhelmingly students of color.


Anyone who pays attention to income disparity is of course not shocked. Unless I'm addled Upward Bound was also connected to the Civil Rights Act, which like it or not was born of the struggles of African Americans.

[dismalist]

Clearly not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upward_Bound

Interesting. I hadn't heard of these programs to support some high school students.

What is notable is that nowhere is race mentioned. Support is conditioned mainly on income. First generation college potential status is also supported. [That's the sop to the educational establishment -- us.]

If support were based solely on income, the racial mix of those supported by any program would not be changed much and nobody would have anything against such programs. So it has nothing to do with DEI.

Umm, it has everything to do with EDI. EDI isn't just about race, it's about providing opportunities to communities that have been traditionally marginalized or underserved or underrepresented. That includes race, but also socioeconomic status, ability/ disability, Indegeneity, etc.

Although race and income are highly correlated.

Absolutely. Indigeneity would be correlated like race. "Socioeconomic status" and income must be near perfectly correlated. Same with disability.

I have seen Upward Bound students for decades, and at least in the Midwest they have been overwhelmingly students of color.

Which is exactly what one would expect using income as a selection criterion.

[ciao_yall]

Clearly not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upward_Bound

Interesting. I hadn't heard of these programs to support some high school students.

What is notable is that nowhere is race mentioned. Support is conditioned mainly on income. First generation college potential status is also supported. [That's the sop to the educational establishment -- us.]

If support were based solely on income, the racial mix of those supported by any program would not be changed much and nobody would have anything against such programs. So it has nothing to do with DEI.

Umm, it has everything to do with EDI. EDI isn't just about race, it's about providing opportunities to communities that have been traditionally marginalized or underserved or underrepresented. That includes race, but also socioeconomic status, ability/ disability, Indegeneity, etc.

Although race and income are highly correlated.

Absolutely. Indigeneity would be correlated like race. "Socioeconomic status" and income must be near perfectly correlated. Same with disability.

I have seen Upward Bound students for decades, and at least in the Midwest they have been overwhelmingly students of color.

Which is exactly what one would expect using income as a selection criterion.

And which is why many anti-poverty programs have been fought over the years. Because it must be "those people's" fault they are low-income. Not that they were denied education, access to jobs, ability to buy homes, etc etc etc.

Easier when they don't look like you.

[marshwiggle]

Clearly not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upward_Bound

Interesting. I hadn't heard of these programs to support some high school students.

What is notable is that nowhere is race mentioned. Support is conditioned mainly on income. First generation college potential status is also supported. [That's the sop to the educational establishment -- us.]

If support were based solely on income, the racial mix of those supported by any program would not be changed much and nobody would have anything against such programs. So it has nothing to do with DEI.

Umm, it has everything to do with EDI. EDI isn't just about race, it's about providing opportunities to communities that have been traditionally marginalized or underserved or underrepresented. That includes race, but also socioeconomic status, ability/ disability, Indegeneity, etc.

Although race and income are highly correlated.

But dismalist's point is that income is actually causal, rather than correlated with something causal, and if that is actually used as the criterion it will serve essentially the same population without facing the criticism of it being segregationist.

It makes far more sense because it's focused on the more relevant issue.