UNC Board of Governors cowers behind “institutional neutrality” in gutting DEI initiatives

Last week, the UNC Board of Governors voted to repeal a 2019 regulation that outlined diversity, equity and inclusion positions and initiatives for the state’s public universities. The board is justifying the move, which could result in diversity strategists  across the state losing their jobs, with their favorite scape phrase: “institutional neutrality.”

According to an FAQ about the policy distributed by the UNC System Office, universities are “not here to require everyone to think the same way about race, gender, or any other challenging topic. The university, through its administrative programs and mandates, cannot prescribe a narrow ideology, a single conception of progress and justice in society.”

So, what do DEI policies, initiatives and positions really do in the UNC system? Do they force political, ideologically-driven concepts on our students? 

How DEI initiatives take shape at NC State

Most of the University’s DEI-aligned efforts operate through the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity. This office oversees a number of campus community organizations, such as the African American Cultural Center, Multicultural Student Affairs, the Women’s Center, the LGBTQ Pride Center and eight different campus-wide committees composed of faculty and students. Their work also encompasses anything from accessibility provisions to veterans services.

According to the annual Diversity and Inclusion report presented to the Board of Trustees in March of this year, D&I personnel, operations and expenditures accounted for $3,417,677 of the University’s two billion dollar budget in the last financial year — less than one-fifth of one percent (0.17%) of the total budget.

Despite its almost negligible financial position, OIED and corresponding community spaces had a vast impact on campus. In the same year, the office reconciled almost 500 reports of discrimination and harassment towards students, faculty and staff. The Women’s Center provided interpersonal violences response services to 92 survivors of sexual harassment and violence.

Cultural centers organized dozens of events, workshops and trainings that engaged thousands of students and faculty across the University. These themes are also a fundamental component of the NC State’s ten year strategic plan, wherein the aim to “Champion a culture of equity, diversity, inclusion, belonging and well-being in all we do” is one of seven overarching goals for the University in the next decade.

In sum, this office and the related impacts of DEI initiatives at NC State offers spaces and resources for our community’s historically marginalized groups. The presence of these centers for our campus have both qualitative and quantitative positive effects on our community. So where is the outrage and call to dismantle these systems coming from?

The UNC Board of Governors and partisan affiliations

Despite the insistence of the Board of Governors to move universities towards neutrality, the move is based entirely in partisan intentions. Chris Cooper, professor and director of the Haire Institute for Public Policy at Western Carolina University, says the policy change is implicitly political.

“I think that whenever you're talking about how state resources are spent, it is by definition, political,” Cooper said. “So whether it's neutral or not, or promotes institutional neutrality, I'll probably leave it to the advocates on either side to weigh in. But I think I would say that just like anytime we're deciding how to spend public dollars, it is inherently political.”

The insistence to zero in on these public dollars, which constitute some of the most minimal funding areas at institutions across the state, is nothing more than a conservative song and dance in the same old tune opposed to progress and inclusion for all people. 

The UNC Board of Governors are appointed by the state’s General Assembly, which has been controlled by the Republican party since 2011. The political influence of this system has become more apparent and intrusive in the last decade. Cooper said our governing educational body has much more power compared to other states. 

“We have more central oversight of our university system than many other states do,” Cooper said. “So to me there’s a lot of lessons here. There’s the specifics of DEI, but then there’s also the institutional decisions we’re making as a state and how that’s affecting people’s lives in real time. … There's no question that our board members have more power than they do in many other states.”

Republicans across the country have railed against DEI, affirmative action, critical race theory and anything identity-based in education as one of their favorite culture war battles. Board member Gene Davis told CNN that he is aware of things done in the name of DEI that make him “uncomfortable,” but did not follow up with any examples of what has given him discomfort. 

How will the policy change be enforced, and how will it affect UNC schools?

Davis’ ambiguity is no mistake. Not only do the fears of DEI exist solely in the heads of the BOG members, but the guidance for eliminating them seems equally nonexistent. 

Naila Din, chair for the Student Senate’s Standing Committee on Diversity, Inclusion and Outreach, works closely with groups like the Multicultural Students Affairs Center and the Disability Resource Office. Din is unsure of how the UNC policy change will affect her work, but fears that students who benefit from these offices won’t be able to get the resources they need.

“It was really kind of a gut punch that all the work universities and student governments have been doing was for nothing,” Din said. “I feel pretty clueless and afraid of what the next steps mean in terms of what's occurring, at a University level, because a lot of it is up in the air of what that means that students can do, how that affects our partnerships and what we're able to work with in the University with DEI initiatives and centers.”

No one seems to really know what the policy move is supposed to do — especially those who constructed the change. The language revolves around infringements of “academic freedom,” equality of all “viewpoints” and “institutional neutrality,” all typical Republican dog whistles for a bunch of nothing. 

As has been the case with other states that have adopted similar policies, the immediate effect on campus will likely just be shifting around position titles and program descriptions. But the ambiguity also lays the groundwork for broad interpretation down the road. 

Though the current adaptation of the policy is more of a macro-aggression than anything, the continued overreach of the Board of Governors in the name of Republican ideology could have dramatic future implications. There should be no surprise if harsher changes come down on cultural campus centers, academic programs studying identities are eliminated and books start to get banned.

DEI initiatives at NC State have nothing to do with indoctrinating students and faculty or forcing some sort of ideological agenda on the campus. What they do is provide resources and structures for minority groups on campus to get support. 

There is no reason to fixate on such a minuscule component of university funding without  serious political intentions. This is apparent based on the policy’s ignorance to the purpose of on-campus DEI offices and the absence of genuine guidance for changes. This policy change is a virtue-signaling attempt to appease the Fox News drumbeat that has seeped into the heads of our far-too powerful governing UNC body.  

In “attempting” to uphold institutional neutrality and allow space for all opinions, they systematically carve out people who disagree with them on — what they have spinned into — a political position. Removing practical support systems for people who don’t look like them or align exactly with their values, ironically to what they decry, is the result of an ideological agenda. It cannot be confused that these moves seek to dismantle diversity of opinion, not expand them.