Before reading this week’s newsletter, I have a confession to make. I fell into a trap thanks to The Atlantic’s sensational headlines (discussed below). The op-ed discussed here in The Harvard Crimson “pairs faculty members to write contrasting perspectives on a single theme.” The Atlantic manifested the headline “Abolish DEI Statements.” Since it was initially gated, I could only see Kennedy’s point of view.
I ask you to consider this a contribution to that pairing with a specific slant towards ESG.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has had a tough go of it over the past few years. Many companies reacted to George Floyd’s murder in 2020 with poorly executed DEI programs that are now unsurprisingly winding down. When you start with a crisis, you end up with a transient solution. In my book, ESG Mindset, I argue that it is more effective for the company to consider its material intersection with DEI and the broader role it plays in systemic social issues.
For example, last week, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, listed and defended the firm’s DEI efforts, stating, “We also believe our initiatives make us a more inclusive company and lead to more innovation, smarter decisions, and better financial results for us and for the economy overall.” Here, Dimon illustrates the materiality of these efforts to the company through employee stakeholders. Employee diversity is a commonly cited area of opportunity.
As with ESG, impact, and sustainability, there is much confusion about DEI, resulting in similar pushbacks to the anti-ESG movement.
Still, no place has me more baffled about this pushback than in academia. Over the past few years, we’ve seen the first Black president at Harvard, Claudine Gay, be ousted in a highly questionable manner and the US Supreme Court rolling back affirmative action in higher education. Efforts are even underway to dismantle DEI programs at universities, like the recent vote from the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, which oversees 17 schools.
Another area where DEI efforts are backpedaling is in hiring. When applying for faculty positions, some universities look for the candidate to post a ‘diversity statement.’ This is a brief write-up of the candidate’s work in this area or it could be used to inform students about DEI in the classroom. Why might this matter? Upon a cursory glance, it might appear that universities with values-based social justice objectives would care. Still, there are three sectors with stakeholders at the absolute center: the public sector, healthcare, and education.
Ideally, successful DEI programs in these sectors would run at the intersection of their critical stakeholders and the business or, for higher education, for university students.
As we’ll see, diversity statements mirror those in the corporate world published at the company level. Does that mean universities should avoid them entirely? Like with everything ESG-related, the answer isn’t so simple.
Pushing back on diversity statements
The latest pushback comes from Randall L. Kennedy, the Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School. In an op-ed in The Harvard Crimson, Kennedy promotes himself as a “scholar on the left committed to struggles for social justice,” yet equates social justice not to stakeholder value or systemic social issues but to a left-leaning political ideology throughout his piece. The op-ed is dripping with biased language, including words and phrases like ‘so-called,’ ‘faith in DEI,’ ‘coercion,’ ‘academic leftism,’ and ‘rhetoric,’ equating its support to liberal ideology while stating that the conservative perspective is shunned.
DEI, like climate change, isn’t a liberal ideology or aligned to a political agenda, making the op-ed an uncomfortable read. As with ESG, DEI remains a subjective term. In ESG Mindset, I define these terms as follows:
Diversity refers to who is represented.
Equity gives all people fair treatment.
Inclusion is the degree to which the company strives to include and empower people.
But we never get these definitions, and the terms are thrown around throughout the piece.
Kennedy opens with a job posting for the Assistant Professor in International and Comparative Education position at Harvard, which happens to be online. He lists out the requirements:
a CV
a cover letter
a research statement
three letters of reference
three or more writing samples
a statement of teaching philosophy that includes a description of their “orientation toward diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.”
It is that last one by which he takes issue.
In this particular case, one of the job requirements for the role is as follows:
We are especially interested in candidates who have conducted research with marginalized populations in: South Asia, South East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe & Central Asia.
Understanding how an applicant’s DEI practices would make a material difference in this role isn't a leap here. The same could be said for other jobs at Harvard that are currently open, including roles like Assistant/Associate Professor of Maternal Health and Demography. Yet, would it be material for roles like the Assistant Professor of Astronomy? If I were Kennedy, I would’ve picked that role as my example because, on the surface, the connection is harder to find. Still, DEI is also material here because of the intense stakeholder alignment at universities. It is a little less obvious, but Harvard has a place to go to find guidance on how to think about this topic.
In the article, Kennedy called out The Harvard Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. The Center gives guidance to professors on how to construct a diversity statement. They note that this does not require the individual to recognize their diversity (Yale differs here) but reflects on how the candidate will make the institution more inclusive and equitable. In other words, the Center defines diversity clearly while Kennedy, as stated earlier, flaunts the word around.
Per the Center:
Diversity does not mean a BIPOC individual or a homogenous BIPOC community. Diversity refers to the condition when individuals or communities from different backgrounds, cultures, frames of reference, social identities, or perspectives come together in a social context. It does not refer to a person (including yourself) or a homogenous community who experiences marginalization.
Kennedy assumes that asking for a diversity statement is pledging allegiance to an ideal that leads with social values. Still, the Center gives an example of DEIB as “Everyone is included, visible, heard, and considered,” which would appear more common sense for a civil society than anything else, especially for the microcosm of society that universities represent. Indeed, a university with student stakeholders at its core would view different backgrounds/etc. as table stakes at worst and a differentiator at best.
This is precisely what the diversity statement affords a professor. It is a chance to show that they are doing the work and perhaps differentiate themselves based on their actions rather than who they are. In exploring the Center’s suggestions, constructing a diversity statement leads to interesting material explorations and perhaps a solution to a more meaningful alternative.
Material or not, what are the questions?
Kennedy moves into the questions that the Center recommends exploring. Let’s add a little ESG mindset to each to find a material perspective on why these questions might matter to a hiring committee or university.
How does your research engage with and advance the well-being of socially marginalized communities?
Supporting marginalized communities is essential for a faculty search committee member to know if it is undoubtedly interesting, but the door swings both ways. By understanding this research, the committee could assess it to align with the university’s purpose/values or determine whether it might be a high risk to be associated with.
This might not be as relevant for a job in astronomy, but it is material for the Assistant Professor in International and Comparative Education position.
Do you know how the following operate in the academy: implicit bias, different forms of privilege, (settler-)colonialism, systemic and interpersonal racism, homophobia, heteropatriarchy, and ableism?
From a material perspective, these issues can impact product development, which is what a university class is. If a professor isn’t familiar with DEI topics and serves diverse stakeholders, how could they deliver that product well?
We saw an example of privilege just last week with embarrassing comments made to Caitlin Clark by a reporter. That reporter was roasted on social media and apologized.
Kennedy’s write-up is full of implicit bias for DEI as a political leaning instead of an issue around a social contract that any civil society should have. This creates a false equivalency, which Kennedy also latches on to as he connects to an opposing hypothetical scenario: what if universities forced a far-right agenda? Again, DEI isn’t about pushing an agenda but ensuring that voices are heard.
How do you account for the power dynamics in the classroom, including your own positionality and authority?
Power dynamics is absolutely 100% a material issue and plays a vital role in the classroom. This should be a well-recognized issue for any leader. In 2022, several Harvard students accused a professor of sexual harassment and accused the university of ignoring it. There is currently a lawsuit about the whole affair.
How do you design course assessments with EDIB in mind?
(Note: the B is for Belonging)
This is easily a material issue, but corporates also overlook it. You don’t manage reputational risk; you manage the problems that create the risk. Feedback on a professor’s inclusivity performance could inform that class’s enrollment numbers. Word will travel quickly around professors in these (think non-financial if you work at a corporate) areas.
United Educators’ 2023 risk report lists enrollment as the second highest risk. This link provides access to a reputational risk toolkit and infographic. It opens with the insight, “In an era in which social media can shatter or strengthen a reputation in a matter of minutes, colleges and universities are increasingly mindful of situations that threaten their reputation.”Feedback like this can also uncover areas of improvement through continued learning, which is what higher education is all about.
How have you engaged in or led EDIB campus initiatives or programming?
This may be the least material in some ways, but it could also be one of the most material. This shows a faculty search committee what efforts a professor has undertaken if they are interested in seeing leadership in material or non-material social justice efforts. It could help uncover those who have acted on the material intersection of these issues with a university.
These questions are suggestions for a specific purpose around faculty search. One could argue that an applicant should be leading with material expertise, but I see this as helpful guidance aligned with students’ wants and needs and the university’s mission. In this case:
Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.
If the Center’s advice fails here, it may be because it lacks this explanation through examples or purpose alignment. Here, we may find a viable alternative to the diversity statement, including a mix of the table-stakes requirements for operating a civil class and the more material intersection of the professor’s perspective with the topic.
In practice, this would translate like this:
The university mainstreams and upholds DEI principles and power dynamics through ongoing training, policy, and class assessments (as recommended by the Center, perhaps).
Each professor maintains an optional stakeholder and DEI statement built on the university’s perspective as it is relevant to their teaching topic.
If the faculty position or class has a material intersection with a DEI topic or if that understanding would enhance the class experience, the applicant must submit a diversity statement to show their perspective on the connection and maintain a diversity statement for the class.
Higher education has fallen into the same trap that corporates have with DEI. Its poor definition and the bias of those held to its requirements have lost the intention entirely.
What is Yale doing?
Wait, why am I dragging Yale into this? Well, coincidentally, Harvard’s 2024 application numbers are down 5%, but Yale’s are up 10% (Source). From the most material perspective (think financial), enrollment alone would be the north star. If these diversity statements were a detriment to the university, it would show up materially somewhere, like enrollment numbers, no?
Like Harvard, Yale University has a page on its Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning page that explains the purpose of a diversity statement. Unlike Harvard, Yale’s page cites research sources that back a diverse community of students while openly admitting the following:
Research into the impact of syllabus diversity statements on classroom behavior remains slim, but the practice is widely accepted and deemed advantageous.
Yale also includes examples like this one.
University of Iowa - College of Education: “Respect for Diversity: It is my intent that students from all diverse backgrounds and perspectives be well served by this course, that students’ learning needs be addressed both in and out of class, and that the diversity that students bring to this class be viewed as a resource, strength and benefit. It is my intent to present materials and activities that are respectful of diversity: gender, sexuality, disability, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, race, and culture. Your suggestions are encouraged and appreciated. Please let me know ways to improve the effectiveness of the course for you personally or for other students or student groups. In addition, if any of our class meetings conflict with your religious events, please let me know so that we can make arrangements for you.”
Coincidentally, this isn’t far removed from what is found in the corporate world. A recent job posting from JPMorgan Chase for a Lead Security Engineer - Generative AI/ML Developer
We recognize that our people are our strength and the diverse talents they bring to our global workforce are directly linked to our success. We are an equal opportunity employer and place a high value on diversity and inclusion at our company. We do not discriminate on the basis of any protected attribute, including race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital or veteran status, pregnancy or disability, or any other basis protected under applicable law. We also make reasonable accommodations for applicants’ and employees’ religious practices and beliefs, as well as mental health or physical disability needs.
Kennedy states, “demands for mandatory DEI statements venture far beyond that obligation (duty around misconduct) into territory full of booby-traps inimical to an intellectually healthy university environment.” The example above, and the many other examples, don’t appear to be that. Again, these seem to be blanket statements that could be enforced at the university level and should have a material perspective at the classroom level.
Diversity statements aren’t a trap, but they require an investigation under the surface to find the intention behind the Center's points.
What is the Atlantic doing here?
There is a risk in this type of rhetoric, which is the trap I fell into. Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic picked up this pair of op-eds and created this sensational headline.
The title makes it seem like academia is calling to abolish any DEI statement, not ones specific to the new hire process. While a clever ploy, this gated sensationalism fuels the counter-narrative more than anything else.
The article can be read here thanks to syndication, which I discovered too late.
This type of headline declaration, paired with the rhetoric found in the op-ed in a polarized world, goes against Kennedy and Friedersdorf’s intentions. Even Friedersdorf states his position clearly, “Colleges should fully abolish diversity statements in hiring––while noting that by doing so, they aren’t in any way implying that diversity, inclusion, or any other value is irrelevant to good teaching.”
My suggestion goes further than simply reversing DEI’s change. Backing away entirely from the diversity statement while proclaiming support for DEI is not only a poor substitute for action as social norms evolve but also fuels inertia and a counter-political movement.
In his op-ed, Kennedy used a specific phrase: “the proliferation of diversity statements poses a profound challenge to academic freedom.” If you look at the comments on Kennedy’s op-ed, you can see how his position inadvertently empowers others with a surface understanding of the political agenda.
Harvard should hire an equitable number of liberal and conservative faculty members. Woke totalitarianism is an utter betrayal of everything Harvard has championed for centuries. It's time to dismantle/defund the DEI bureaucracy!
and
Is it not obvious that this is patently illegal, a gross violation of our constitutional rights of free speech and free expression, of what our nation fundamentally stands for? Is it not OBVIOUS that DEI statements are a new manifestation of the gross human rights violations in communist regimes, just a "softer" form of mass coercion and indoctrination?
Academics, especially those trying to understand the intersection of DEI and higher education, must be careful and thoughtful about their language. Otherwise, they may contribute significantly to a counter-narrative with broader implications.
There is an ongoing debate brewing around shareholder vs. stakeholder capitalism. The analog in higher education might be donors vs. students, which has surfaced specifically at Harvard around Claudine Gay’s departure. Higher education is currently in the aftermath of this struggle. Academics calling the value of DEI into question, like company leaders, must be responsible with their voices. Otherwise, they risk pushing both material and social justice issues back.
We can’t afford to be comfortably numb on DEI because the effects are already playing out. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that companies are pulling DEI phrasing out of their 10-K reports. Many are tiptoeing around sensitive conservative voices to manage reputational risk. Yet if they ignore DEI, risk is created because they missed the material intersections, and if they instead approach it from the material lens, defensibility and value are created.
Again, for the public sector, healthcare, and education, DEI’s material connections are apparent through the stakeholder lens. Like with many companies though, universities appear to be missing the relationships but have an opportunity to catch up in the diversity statement debate. They just need a little courage and an ESG mindset to get started.