Analysis: Board of Governors Moves Against DEI
Here is our initial understanding of the BOG's proposed policy.
We've written at length in recent years about initiatives at UNC institutions that center everything on people's immutable characteristics, most notably race. Just last month, we wrote about a UNC-Chapel Hill program that trains K-12 teachers and librarians about the "historical use of color-blindness as a rhetorical tool to prop up white supremacist ideals."
These concepts, ridiculous as they are, can certainly be bandied about in social sciences faculty lounges or niche college courses. The problem, though, is they've been embraced by the universities themselves through diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and bureaucracies. Millions of dollars are spent on staff and "chief diversity officers," who spend their days devising new ways to imbue these concepts in students, faculty, and curriculum covering everything from biology to history.
For that reason, the entire DEI bureaucracy has to go. And later today, the UNC Board of Governors (BOG) will consider a policy that goes a long way toward accomplishing that.
***
The proposed BOG policy should be read as an extension of a state law enacted a few years ago. Understanding that state law is critical to understanding the effect of the proposed BOG policy.
That state law prohibits state agencies from promoting to state employees, through trainings or other means, a list of 13 concepts generally associated with critical race theory. The list of concepts includes the following (the full list is at the end):
One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist.
Particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex.
These concepts are also contained within many university DEI initiatives. To attack university DEI initiatives, then, the proposed BOG policy references that state law and extends it to generally cover university bureaucracies (excluding course/curricular content).
In our understanding, the proposed BOG policy would largely do away with university-backed activities, training programs, and staff offices that exist to promote any of the 13 concepts to faculty and students.
We read the proposed BOG policy as fairly tight. One key section reads: "This policy further extends the nondiscrimination requirements for State government workplaces outlined in [state law] to university-led student orientations, training, or activities."
The language specifically calls out orientations and trainings, which is where much of the racially-steeped DEI evangelizing happens. But it also includes university-led "activities," which seems sufficiently broad to capture creative work-arounds.
Speaking of creative work-arounds, we're concerned about DEI-minded bureaucrats working to circumvent the spirit of this proposed policy. One section caught our eye as a potential loophole. It's about student wellbeing and it says, "campuses shall ensure that qualified students of all backgrounds are welcomed, included and supported..."
We agree wholeheartedly with that concept -- who wouldn't? -- but we were concerned some campus bureaucrats would redefine their DEI initiatives to fall under this provision. But the end of this section seems to foreclose that possibility: "...provided that programming complies with the institutional neutrality specified in Section VII of this policy."
And Section VII is very tight: "No employing subdivision or employment position within the University shall be organized, be operated, speak on behalf of the University, or contract with third parties to provide training or consulting services regarding: matters of contemporary political debate or social action as those terms are used in Section 300.5.1 of the UNC Policy Manual; any prescribed 'view of social policy' or 'political controversies of the day,' as those terms are used in G.S. 116-300 (3) and (3a); or in furtherance of the concepts listed in G.S. 126-14.6(c)(1)–(13)."
The "concepts listed" in the referenced state law are those that we discussed at the top, but this language seems to go even further than the referenced state law. The state law doesn't allow for "promotion" of those concepts, and promotion is defined as compelling people to "affirm or profess belief in" the concepts. The proposed BOG policy, though, doesn't say promotion -- it says "in furtherance of." In our initial reading, this seems even broader, and that's a good thing.
In sum, our initial review suggests the proposed BOG policy will go a long way toward rooting out DEI bureaucracies -- and the race-essentialist worldview those bureaucracies push -- from the university system. The policy is centered on existing state law that is well-reasoned, and it expands the spirit of that law to also include university bureaucracies and university-led initiatives.
Importantly, the policy has a carveout for "faculty’s pursuit of teaching, research, and service," which is a proper protection for academic freedom. Precluding university administration from embracing a race-essentialist worldview and pushing it on students and faculty is absolutely necessary, but so is protecting faculty's freedom to openly discuss, and even advocate, for that worldview, as abhorrent as we find it.
***
Here is the full list of the 13 concepts that the proposed BOG policy would not permit university bureaucracies to promote:
One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.
An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.
An individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.
An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
Any individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress.
A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist.
The United States was created by members of a particular race or sex for the purpose of oppressing members of another race or sex.
The United States government should be violently overthrown.
Particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex.
The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.
All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
