Barrier-breaking or Box-ticking

This piece was developed in collaboration with Elizabeth Duan from the Department of Biology, with her piece, “Reading between the lines: A perspective on how language can influence academic culture”, from Biology’s SciPos. 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a comprehensive term that encompasses initiatives aimed at fostering equitable treatment and opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds and identities. In higher education, DEI initiatives have historically served as a foundational element within institutional mission statements, protecting the diversity of an institution against discrimination and prejudice while embracing the evolving academic landscape. They play an instrumental role in fostering an inclusive and equitable environment that prioritizes the well-being and success of students, faculty, and staff. The exact history of diversity mission statements in higher education is hard to pinpoint exactly, but there are key events that propelled the broader diversity initiative, catalyzing the development of what later became known as the DEI initiatives of today. 

The landmark Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 marked a significant turn in the fight against segregation in education. This historic ruling declared that the laws enforcing racial segregation between black and white students were unconstitutional, setting a profound precedent by acknowledging the inherent injustice in segregating students based on their race. Later, in 1964, another pivot in this fight for equity was marked by the passage of the Civil Rights Act. This comprehensive legislation prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, laying the groundwork for higher education to also take the step forward in protecting the equity in its admissions. It also served as a foundational pillar for advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education. 

Building upon these legal milestones, the case of Bakke v. University of California in 1978 established Affirmative Action (see regents here) in college admissions: it underscored the importance of institutions actively promoting diversity and inclusion by actually considering race and ethnicity as factors in admissions decisions, acknowledging groups that have been previously disadvantaged due to discriminatory practices that had persisted throughout the history of the country (note: the history of Affirmative Action is particularly important considering Students for Fair Admissions, inc. v. President and fellows of Harvard College in 2022, overruling Affirmative Action in 2022). Bakke v. University of California served as a clear signal that institutions needed to not only recognize the value of diversity but also take concrete steps to demonstrate their commitment to it. 

Although the legal and legislative developments that collectively contributed to the ongoing efforts to create a more equitable and diverse educational landscape in the United States are certainly not limited to these three, they play important roles in marking the key developments in the past couple of decades. However, in the wake of the recent overruling of Affirmative Action, a pressing question that looms larger than ever: do diversity mission statements hold tangible significance in guiding meaningful initiatives, or have they increasingly evolved into obligatory declarations of equity, lacking substantial action? The variations in DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) statements across institutions, departments, and even organizational subunits are interesting to consider, particularly if we acknowledge that the ultimate objectives do not differ— to promote equity, protect university personnel from discriminatory practices, to celebrate diversity and individual backgrounds. 

For the majority of us, we have seen and read the mission statements from past and present institutions, and perhaps discerned disparities in their phrasing. What are these mission statements conveying; do they address an issue, or do they take a stand or make resolutions? 

In a study that looked at institutional mission statements across about 80 institutions, 59 of them made references regarding diversity. However, when it came to explicit mentions of race and ethnicity, fewer than 20% of these institutions did so; even less mentioned international heritage. Class affiliation was only referenced by 8% of the studied institutions. One notable conclusion from this study highlights that institutions often lean towards justifying or framing their commitment to diversity in one of two ways: either as a response to shifting student demographics or as a means of addressing cultural disparities. If we believe that promoting diversity is an "obligation" for both public and private higher education institutions, it is surprising that roughly 30% of them fail to incorporate diversity issues within their mission statements at all.

While the development of these diversity mission statements are not always transparent (for example, are they drafted by a diversity committee), their end result typically manifests as an official proclamation made by key administrative figures within the institutions such as the President, the Provost, or the Chief Diversity Officer. In these signed statements, while most of these statements conveyed a commitment to maintaining and protecting diversity, it is surprising that only 15% of them included a specific strategic plan, and only 12% included a diversity plan (initiatives, representatives from students and staff, community efforts etc).

Using examples that are closest to us, let’s take a look at the diversity statements from the Department of Psychology, as well as the Department of Biology. Note that I do not intend to critique these statements, but rather to shed a spotlight onto the phrasing and the specific vocabulary that was chosen.

Our UW psychology department’s diversity statement reads as follows:

The University of Washington’s Department of Psychology is committed to promoting diversity and fostering equity and inclusion in all aspects of its activities and initiatives. This diversity is often rooted in current and historical experiences of oppression and prejudice that have disproportionately devalued people of different identities including, but not exclusive to, races, cultures, ethnicities, sexual orientations, genders, gender-identifications, abilities, and socioeconomic statuses. Not only does catalyzing the power of diversity enrich all of us by exposing us to a range of ways to understand and engage with the world, identify challenges, and to discover, define and deliver solutions, but it is also necessary for building a comprehensive understanding of human behavior. As such, we actively work to eliminate barriers and obstacles created by structural inequality and institutional discrimination.

The diversity mission statement for the Department of Biology at UW reads as follows:

In the Department of Biology, we continue to strive for an inclusive and welcoming departmental culture that recognizes and encourages individual differences, that fosters the constructive expression of ideas, and that promotes shared values such as intellectual curiosity, creativity, collegiality, and sense of mission. Traditions of inclusivity can only flourish and reach full potential with continued active nourishment and effort, and with a collective sense of responsibility and mission on the part of the entire community. We as a department are committed to the continued development of our diverse and collegial community of people, ideas, and approaches through our missions of research, education, and public outreach.

Of note, notice the sentence that includes the terms “but not exclusive to”. Many statements across institutions similarly have mentioned a list of groups specifically, which usually encompasses racial, gender, international nationalities, but many, such as this one, include a disclaimer that such list is not exhaustive and may include some more, often summed into “others”. In the case of the Biology Department diversity statement which does not include such a list, this could be implied that all fall under “diverse and collegial community of people”. Wilson et al mentioned that the group of “others” may find themselves in a quandary: do they feel welcomed, or minimized? What does a monolithic group of “others” entail, and what would these groups feel regarding their “other-ness”? This quandary is similar to the long standing issue of “Asians” being regarded as a monolithic group across demographic consensuses in different contexts (see recommended reading: AAPI communities are not a monolith).

If we also took a look at the use of phrases “promoting diversity and fostering equity” and “inclusivity”; though both express a similar idea, we should consider the difference between “diversity” as an integration of historically excluded or oppressed groups, or as a transformation of us all. Some phrases could suggest a departure from the mainstream, which ultimately perpetuates categorizations and disparities further. Perhaps, we should be employing language that prioritizes equity (“community of people”?) over emphasizing differences? 

Apart from phrasing and vernacular components, statements can also differ in rationale. In a study by Jordan Starck et al regarding DEI statements, two rationales that were commonly used in DEI statements were defined as:

Using the diversity statements between the Psychology and Biology department as an example once again and focusing on the particular phrasings that demonstrate instrumental VS moral rationale:

Let us take a look at another diversity statement:

What do the differences in rationales entail? While these phrases have become common among official statements, when they are correlated with student outcomes for different demographic groups, the disparities surface. This is an excerpt from Elizabeth Duan’s (SciPos link) summary of Starck’s conclusions, “while White participants preferred instrumental rationales, Black participants favored moral rationales”. When an algorithm was used to score statements based on instrumental VS moral rationale, “low scores for moral rationales correlated with lower graduation rates for Black students, while scores for either category had no effect on graduation rates of White students”. Food for thought…

What is the real value that DEI statements hold? While it is true that they are symbolic in indicating a resolution for commitment, they are more than words and can be drivers of real change. To our knowledge, the development and drafting of DEI statements within our Psychology department (article upcoming) follows the ebb and flow of different committee members and departmental administrators. It is time to realize that these statements should be evolving and updating, as an increasing amount of literature (such as the ones aforementioned) show that DEI statements can demonstrate an attitude towards equity, acknowledging the many discrimination that are embedded in our scientific disciplines, and are one of the front lines of change.

-END-