Translate

Showing posts with label Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Show all posts

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

Stories behind UT’s now-closed ethnic and gender studies departments, by Lily Kepner, Staff WriterAug 24, 2026

Friends:

I want to call readers’ attention to an important and deeply concerning piece by Austin American-Statesman higher education reporter Lily Kepner, published August 24, 2026, documenting the histories—and now the disappearance as independent academic units—of four longstanding fields at the University of Texas at Austin: Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, African and African Diaspora Studies, American Studies, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Together, these departments encompassed 62 professors, six undergraduate majors, four graduate programs, and eight minors and certificates.

Kepner’s reporting is especially important because it documents the hugely successful People's Hearing on Threats to Diversity and Academic Freedom reminding us of what can easily be obscured by the bureaucratic language of “consolidation.” These departments did not simply appear on an organizational chart. They grew out of decades of student activism, community struggle, intellectual labor, institution-building, and demands that the university recognize histories and bodies of knowledge long excluded from the academy. As students returned to campus this fall, however, those independent departments ceased to exist, folded into the new Department of Social and Cultural Analysis.

That should concern all of us who care about academic freedom, intellectual diversity, shared governance, and the public mission of the university. Kepner’s piece helps us understand not only what UT has dismantled, but what generations of students, faculty, and community members had fought so hard to build.

-Angela Valenzuela

Stories behind UT’s now-closed ethnic and gender studies departments
By Lily Kepner,Staff WriterAug 24, 2026


Recent University of Texas graduate Dezaree Walker speaks on the second panel of invited speakers at the People’s Hearing on Threats to Diversity and Academic Freedom in Higher Education, a hearing organized by activists for the Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus to hear from students and educators about policies impacting higher education at the Robert E. Johnson Conference Center in Austin, Aug. 12, 2026.Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman

As Longhorns return to campus Monday, decades-old ethnic and gender studies departments will no longer exist.

Six months ago, University of Texas President Jim Davis announced that the university would consolidate ethnic and gender studies programs in the College of Liberal Arts into the new Department of Social and Cultural Analysis. This summer, the department names were scraped from their glass doors, chairs lost their titles and supporting staff were relocated or let go.



University of Texas professor of educational leadership and policy Angela Valenzuela listens to the first panel of speakers at the People’s Hearing on Threats to Diversity and Academic Freedom in Higher Education, a hearing organized by activists for the Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus to hear from students and educators about policies impacting higher education at the Robert E. Johnson Conference Center in Austin, Aug. 12, 2026.

The consolidation angered some faculty and students who believe the shift ignores the decades-long history of the departments and the value they offer students and the city of Austin. Faculty fear it will make it harder to hire, limit courses and resources and restrain the fields of study.

The four closed departments — Mexican American and Latina/o Studies; African and African Diaspora Studies; Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies; and American Studies — encompassed 62 professors, six majors, four graduate programs, and eight minors and certificates. Last year, the departments had a combined 307 students enrolled in undergraduate majors, according to UT data. Dozens more pursued minor, graduate and doctoral programs, according to records used by the consolidation committee.

Davis has said the university is not cutting faculty or resources as part of the consolidation. But he recently announced sweeping changes to strictly define the core curriculum that all UT students have to take. Previously, courses in the closed departments counted toward the core, but under Davis’s changes, social and cultural analysis offerings may no longer be eligible, limiting student enrollment.

The core curriculum changes and the consolidation could affect the future of gender and ethnic studies as the university invests in fields favored by conservatives.

The American-Statesman spent the last several months talking to the consolidated departments’ founders, faculty and students to understand the role they had in teaching and producing knowledge in the state. What emerged was the story of four departments born out of successful student activism and distinguished by a connection to the local community, small class sizes and interdisciplinary work and research.



Martha Cotera, a founder of UT Center For Mexican American Studies, at her home in Austin on Tuesday, March 24, 2026. Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman

Mexican American and Latina/o Studies

During UT’s spring break, Martha Cotera, 88, stacked nonperishable food and old books in a bin by her front door for UT’s Mexican American and Latina/o Studies Department.

She would take those donations to the department’s food pantry at its UT home in the Gordon White Building. There, the department housed a library, research institute and center that worked with community activists like Cotera to study pressing problems affecting the Chicano community in Austin, from a lack of healthcare options to affordability.

Cotera began advocating for the department as an activist and Texas librarian in the 1960s. There hasn’t been a month in the nearly six decades since when she’s lost touch with the field’s advocates on campus.

It grew from an idea that student advocates had in 1968 to become a department, research institute and center offering graduate and undergraduate degrees with 14 professors on staff. As UT folds it into a larger academic unit, Cotera fears all those resources could be at risk.

In the 1960s, without a dedicated center, department or faculty to study Mexican-American life, Latinos were only spoken about at UT in relation to folklore, Cotera said. The history of Mexicans and Latinos was excluded from other fields like history, education and sociology. The lack of research and education affected Mexican Americans in Austin who didn’t have access to in-depth information about the policies and biases that affected their lives, Cotera said.

“We were always going to be stuck in that corner,” Cotera said. “It was very important that we get out of the folklore realm into multi-disciplinary studies in a serious way by looking at our community, by doing research in our community.”

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white Texans made up the majority of students at UT. When more Mexican American and Black students enrolled, student activists began pushing for classes and research that reflected their experiences.

In the late 1960s, UT responded by creating an ethnic studies program. By 1970, the university launched centers dedicated to Mexican American Studies and African American Studies.insert Diosa

The Mexican American Studies center had an impact across the university. After the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action at UT in 1996, David Montejano, the center’s former director, advocated for a race-neutral approach to improving student diversity. He and other center faculty met with state senators. Their efforts were key in drafting the top 10% rule, which gave all Texas high schoolers in the top 10% of their class admission to any state university.


Cotera served on the center’s board, which invested in researching Latino communities in Austin, developing a research archive in the Benson Latin American Collection at UT libraries, an archive of Mexican veterans and an annual conference for Latino scholars. Even as research from center-affiliated faculty grew, advocates continued to push for a department, which would allow the university to hire full-time professors and dedicate more funding.

In 2014, Cotera got her wish, and UT launched the Mexican American and Latino/a Studies Department. The new status allowed program offerings to grow with an undergraduate major and doctoral program.

Paul Del Bosque, 44, recalls hearing about the center’s legacy before he joined the department as a student.
“As a child, I remember hearing about the legendary faculty and the scholarship that was coming out of Chicano studies at UT,” said Del Bosque, who later pursued his master’s and doctoral degrees in the department.


Now in his fifth year of his doctorate program, he researches how hurricanes impact high-poverty communities in South Texas and on the border, contributing Texas-focused scholarship to a Latino community. When he finishes his dissertation in 2028, he plans to pursue a tenure-track job teaching Texas history or environmental humanities.

Reflecting on her beloved department closing, Cotera wiped away tears as she thought about students and the ongoing research into policing, the border and history that could be at risk without UT resources.

“It doesn’t make sense,” she said.

Two days after the consolidation was announced, the
Civitas Institute, UT’s conservative think tank created by the Texas Legislature in 2021, hosted a symposium titled “America’s Latino Future.” UT’s Mexican American and Latino/a Studies Department, located across the street from where the institute is housed, was not invited to participate, its former chair confirmed.

Cotera attended the event and listened as researchers discussed the economic importance of Latinos and the need for more research into Latino communities.

“I said ‘Thank you very much, you made the case,’” she said.
=
Ever since the department changes were announced, community activists have gathered at Cotera’s house to discuss how to preserve Mexican American history and education in Austin and fight the administration’s “erasure” of the field at UT.


The founders of the Mexican American center have stayed together in an informal coalition for the past five decades to ensure it remains funded and supported by UT and to help students find internships and housing, Cotera said. That work will continue.

“This is a grassroots effort. Cut it off at the top,” Cotera said. “The roots will remain.”
Attendees listen at the People’s Hearing on Threats to Diversity and Academic Freedom in Higher Education, a hearing organized by activists for the Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus to hear from students and educators about policies impacting higher education at the Robert E. Johnson Conference Center in Austin, Aug. 12, 2026.Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman

UT’s African and African Diaspora Studies Department was the largest Black studies department in the nation.

With 26 faculty, an institute for urban policy research and analysis, a research center, a doctoral program, two majors and art galleries, the department was a national leader.

When it became a department in 2010, it was part of then-President William C. Power’s vision to expand education about diverse topics across campus, grow its enrollment of nonwhite students, meet community demand and elevate the national prominence of the university, said Cherise Smith, a former department chair.

The faculty were successful in living up to that vision: The department is known across the country and world, attracting international students and serving as a model for Stanford University when it built its own department, Smith said. UT’s faculty researched education and the relationship between slavery and capitalism while having a special focus on African American art and performance.

For 50 years the field has grown and blossomed at UT, attracting students who also study fashion, natural sciences, engineering, business and education, Smith said.

“There was always an assumption that we would be training all of the students who came to UT,” Smith said. “Not a particular racial or ethnic group.”

It took a while to get to that point. After a UT student petition advocating for classes that reflected the Black experience attracted more than 1,300 signatures, the first class in Black history was offered in 1968, according to Texas archives. The university launched an ethnic studies program the following year.

In 1970, the university opened the center now known as the John L. Warfield Center for African and African American Studies, which pioneered research and new academic avenues for students. In response to student advocacy in 2002, UT began offering a certificate in Yoruba Studies, an indigenous African language that students feared would go extinct without continued education and preservation.

The local community has been central to the center’s mission. Faculty researched why Black Austinites were leaving the city and the impact of historic segregation in Austin, Smith said. They also created public resources like a KUT podcast called “Black Austin Matters” that highlights prominent community members, including Talib Abdullahi, the founder of Black History Bike Ride, and Chi Ndika, founder of Luv Fats Ice Cream.

Faculty have also studied how African heritage intersects with a variety of fields, from art — a particular strength of the department — to sports, incarceration and queer communities and share their results in community talks open to all through the Warfield Center.

“I don’t just research out of intellectual curiosity, I research to change the world,” said Ashanté Reese, a professor of anthropology in the department.

Classes are grounded in faculty expertise and contemporary subjects, such as a course on power and money in U.S. education policy taught by Kevin Foster, a professor who serves as a trustee for the Austin Independent School District.

Though the courses, programs and degrees will remain in the new social analysis department, the decision to consolidate without consulting professors felt like an effort to control “whose history gets told, and how and when,” not an honest reevaluation of resources, Reese said.

“We might be a different name. We might need to reimagine and dream,” Reese said. But it will continue, she said. “Black Studies was never about institutional recognition.”

American Studies




University of Texas Professor Lauren Gutterman, the former chair of UT's American Studies Department, smiles as she greets fellow educators at the People’s Hearing on Threats to Diversity and Academic Freedom in Higher Education, a hearing organized by activists for the Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus to hear from students and educators about policies impacting higher education at the Robert E. Johnson Conference Center in Austin, Aug. 12, 2026.Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman

UT has offered American Studies courses since 1941, when a founding scholar of the field began teaching at the Forty Acres, said Lauren Gutterman, the former department chair. The field focuses on “cultural, social and intellectual life” in the U.S. through a variety of lenses, including economic, political, historical and environmental research.

American Studies has operated as its own department at UT since 1998, also supporting an Urban Studies major, in which students study the history and creation of urban life. UT’s department — one of 150 in the nation and 28 that offer a doctoral program — is known for having UT’s first Pulitzer Prize-winning history faculty member in 1967.

There were more than 130 undergraduate students and 30 doctoral students in American Studies at UT last spring, Gutterman said. Students take classes on American sports and culture, North American borders, the history of religion and digital cultures.

“What students find in American Studies is an opportunity to think about what the United States is, what it means to be a part of this nation, who we’re taught belongs here, who we’re taught does not belong,” Gutterman said.

Opponents have found flaws with the field for being overly critical of the country. Though not addressing the department by name, UT Provost William Inboden wrote in a 2025 National Affairs essay that American history courses offer an “imbalanced” view of the U.S.

Gutterman said, however, that American Studies serves a crucial role, allowing students to explore any aspect of American history, culture and politics through a wide range of methodologies, from mapping to digital archives.

“Critical engagement with American history and culture actually helps students to become better citizens,” Gutterman said. “You (learn about) contemporary issues that are happening and to take action about the issues.”

Alumni include Pulitzer Prize winner and book critic Gail Caldwell and former Austin Mayor Pro Tem Kathy Tovo, as well as doctors, attorneys, professors and college presidents like Laura Cawley, who leads Bethany College, a liberal arts school in Kansas. Both honors programs in the College of Liberal Arts are led by American Studies professors.
Iván Chaar López, a University of Texas scholar on border surveillance, in his office in Austin, Wednesday, July 15, 2026. Amid concerns UT is quieting controversial fields, Chaar López fears the president violated his academic freedom in denying him tenure.Mikala Compton/Austin American-Statesman.

Still, as UT reorganizes its core curriculum requirements and pours resources into Western civilization and civic education, department officials say American Studies is being sidelined. The department is already bracing to lose faculty in the coming year.

American Studies professor Iván Chaar López, whose research is critical of U.S. border surveillance, was denied tenure by a presidential committee last year without an explanation. Because of an up-or-out policy that forces professors denied tenure to leave UT, he will depart the Forty Acres in 2027.

No other professor in the four consolidated departments was up for tenure last year, but the denial made Gutterman fearful that the university is overlooking the merits of her field.

This year, faculty will continue teaching courses like Oceanic Histories, Jews of the U.S., Canada and Latin America, Urban Unrest and Asian Americans in the South, she said.

“Even if our department is closed by the university, American Studies as a field, our research, our teaching and the intellectual, personal community that we have built is not going away,” Gutterman said.

Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies


Rep. Lulu Flores, D-Austin, asks questions of the first panel of invited speakers the People’s Hearing on Threats to Diversity and Academic Freedom in Higher Education, a hearing organized by activists for the Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus to hear from students and educators about policies impacting higher education at the Robert E. Johnson Conference Center in Austin, Aug. 12, 2026.Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman

The newest department of the four consolidated, the Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies Department, formed in 2023 after operating as a center since 1979. Its near 50-year history began with students pushing for an education that included all people.

In more than a dozen interviews with alumni, current students, professors and recent staff hires, the women’s and gender studies community defended the program as far-reaching and skills-based, leading students to meaningful careers and lives.

Faculty and courses have focused on preserving untold history and examining how key issues from health to literature and information studies affect people differently based on sexuality, race, disability and gender.

“Gender studies, ethnic studies are actual disciplines born out of the need that wasn’t necessarily being met,” said Nicole Ramsey, a women’s and gender studies professor. “If you are to have knowledge about the world, it doesn’t make sense to only do that through certain frameworks that don’t include everybody. It could just never work.”

Alumni — including a nonprofit founder, therapist, professor and a Rhodes Scholar — said their courses helped them empathetically engage with people with different opinions and personal backgrounds. Department courses on women’s reproductive health, LGBTQ history and literature written by women gave them critical thinking skills and new perspectives that shaped their careers.

“It feels like it’s radical knowledge,” said Neha Yawalkar, who graduated from UT in 2025 with a women’s and gender studies minor.

Yawalkar said her minor taught her how gender affects marketing, engineering and healthcare. A fertility and reproduction course helped her see how she could pursue her passions through healthcare while her South Asian migration course taught her to “critique and read with nuance.” An LGBTQ course showed her how queer people historically struggled to find inclusive care.


University of Texas Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies coordinator Jackie Salcedo, left, department manager Grayson Hunt, freshman student Sofia Gomez and director Lisa Moore in Burdine Hall, Feb. 18, 2026 after UT President Jim Davis announced plans to consolidate ethnic and gender studies into a new department.Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman

Isaac James, who graduated in 2022 with a minor in LGBTQ studies and major in government, said the program showed him how he could serve his community beyond politics and taught him about the rights queer people have fought for. He cofounded OutVote in 2024, an organization focused on engaging LGBTQ youth in politics, after seeing his peers feel unrepresented in government.

“I really do think without LGBTQ studies, I would not have been able to obtain the same professional and academic success,” said James, who became a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford after graduation.

Becoming a department gave women’s and gender studies the ability to hire full-time faculty, a chair to speak directly to the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and more money for events, marketing and staff. But three years after the department’s founding, Davis’ consolidation announcement eliminated the department’s standalone status as conservative state lawmakers exerted pressure on university leaders to tamp down on courses focused on gender or LGBTQ topics.

Lisa Moore, a former chair of the department, began her career at UT in the 1990s as an English and women’s and gender studies professor. She fears she will end it labeled as a professor of “social and cultural analysis” — a field she doesn’t think has merit outside of UT.

Moore said Davis has not responded to her messages inviting the UT president to her classes or to meet with her about the department. She knows that the field she’s spent more than 30 years studying has “already transformed” the country’s understanding of itself.

“What happens in our classrooms is something that I would love our harshest critics to be able to witness,” Moore said.


Lily Kepner
Higher Education Reporter

Lily Kepner started at the American-Statesman in October 2023. She has appeared on BBC, NPR and Texas Standard to talk about her coverage, which has spanned the impact of state laws and politics on the University of Texas, pro-Palestinian protests, free speech, the anti-DEI ban, LGBTQ student belonging and more. Kepner graduated with honors from Boston University's College of Communication in 2023, where she received the college's highest awards for writing and journalism leadership and led the award-winning student newspaper as Editor-in-Chief. In her time with the American-Statesman, she contributed to reporting that won an Edward R Murrow Award for breaking news, won the School Bell Award for Outstanding Feature from Texas State Teachers Association, and Critics Choice for Best of Austin in the Austin Chronicle. Previously, she has been published in USA Today, The Boston Globe, The National Catholic Reporter and GBH. Kepner is passionate about accountability and service journalism and encourages anyone to reach out to her to tell their story or share a tip.

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Randall Kennedy Is Afraid. He Thinks You Should Be Too. Chronicle of Higher Education, January 2, 2026

Friends:

This interview in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Evan Goldstein and Len Gutkin of Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy is one of the clearest, most sober-eyed assessments yet of what many in higher education are feeling but struggling to name: that we have crossed a threshold. 

Randall Kennedy—long known for his intellectual independence and willingness to critique excesses within progressive politics—states plainly that he now fears for the freedom of American universities. His warning is especially powerful because it comes not from a reflexive institutional defender, but from someone who has repeatedly challenged DEI overreach, due-process failures, and moral absolutism often found on college campuses where any perceived moral failing is treated as disqualifying,

Here is one of my favorite, truly explanatory quotes from this piece:

"Why is it that the right wing is so upset at the universities? Because universities, more than any other place in American society, are actually open to groups who have been historically marginalized."

When Kennedy says the barking has turned into biting, he captures the reality that legal victories, however important, cannot undo the chilling effects of extortionate governance, coerced compliance, and the quiet normalization of fear.

What makes this exchange essential reading is its insistence on perspective. Kennedy refuses false equivalence: the excesses of campus politics, however real, are not morally or politically comparable to a federal government willing to take higher education “by the throat.” At the same time, he does not absolve universities of responsibility for earlier failures to defend academic freedom when it was inconvenient or unpopular to do so. 

That combination—clear-eyed self-critique without capitulation—is precisely what has been missing from much public debate. Read alongside the longer arc of culture-war politics in education, this piece underscores a hard truth: institutional autonomy is not preserved by silence, euphemism, or quiet retreat. It is preserved only when faculty and leaders alike are willing to speak plainly, defend one another, and recognize that what is at stake is not a policy preference or a contested acronym, but the very conditions under which knowledge can be pursued at all—and to this, I might add, the viability of democracy itself.

-Angela Valenzuela

Randall Kennedy Is Afraid. He Thinks You Should Be Too.
The Harvard law professor on federal extortion, DEI overreach, and why defeating Trump in court won’t be enough.

By Evan Goldstein and Len Gutkin

January 2, 2026

Randall Kennedy doesn’t shy away from an argument. His classes at Harvard Law
School, where he has taught for more than four decades, are intellectually raucous affairs. As a law student, future President Barack Obama enrolled in one of Kennedy’s courses but, according to David Remnick’s biography, later dropped the course, fearing a “semester-long shout fest.”

Kennedy remains feisty, iconoclastic, and unpredictable. He’s a self-described progressive who’s willing to call out his own side. On questions of race, Kennedy has long considered himself an optimist. His optimism can put him at odds with activists who draw a straight line from 1619 to today. Where they see implacable racism, Kennedy tends to see progress, not perfection.

But he is the first to admit his optimism has been tested over the past decade. On the topic of the Trump administration and higher education, he is deeply unnerved. “Until recently, I never would have said that I fear for the freedom of universities in the United States,” he told us. “I fear for the freedom of the universities in the United States now.”

During an interview over Zoom from his office at the law school — where the walls are lined with blown-up covers of his many books, including Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal and Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word — Kennedy was characteristically frank and voluble as we discussed the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education; double standards around diversity, equity, and inclusion; George Floyd and the October 7 attacks; and whether academics are too self-critical. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Evan Goldstein: We last spoke in February, about a month into Donald Trump’s second term. Back then you said: “I have never felt so worried about the state of academia. Fear is palpable. There’s tremendous foreboding.” Are fear and worry still palpable?

Randall Kennedy: I still feel very fearful. Before, there was worry about what might happen. There was concern about the barking. Now there’s been biting. This administration has time and again shown that it cares little to nothing about the law. And it has succeeded. A bunch of institutions have felt compelled to enter into “deals” with the federal government. These universities say over and over again, “These deals do not compromise our autonomy, our independence, our academic freedom.” Of course that’s not true.

Sunday, December 21, 2025

DEI Didn’t Fail—Our Willingness to Tell the Truth Did, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

     DEI Didn’t Fail—Our Willingness to Tell the Truth Did

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

December 21, 2025

This opinion was inspired by Bryan Stevenson in conversation with Katie Couric where Stevenson offered a diagnosis of why Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs have become such easy political targets. His answer was not that equity is misguided, but that the nation has never done the prerequisite work that equity demands: honest historical reckoning.

Stevenson’s insight is deceptively simple. DEI initiatives were layered onto institutions that never admitted wrongdoing. Without an explicit acknowledgment of harm—genocide, slavery, segregation, exclusion, and dispossession—equity efforts were framed as favors, preferences, or ideological impositions rather than as partial remedies for documented historical and ongoing injustice. When truth is absent, backlash thrives.

This is not merely a communications failure; it is a moral one. DEI faltered where institutions substituted optics for accountability—training sessions without truth-telling, statements without repair, representation without redistribution. In that vacuum, opponents easily recast equity as divisive rather than corrective.

Stevenson’s critique resonates powerfully in this moment of organized forgetting, when states move to ban honest teaching about race, gender, and sexuality and when “neutrality” is invoked to preserve inequality. His work—through the Equal Justice Initiative—has long shown that societies cannot heal what they refuse to name. Memory, he reminds us, is a precondition for justice.His analysis makes me think, in particular, about a recent blog on the many forms of oppression experienced by the Mexican American community whose histories have similarly been silenced.

When these histories remain unspoken, DEI appears unmoored—an abstract, detached moral appeal rather than a grounded response to concrete harms. That omission weakens equity work and reinforces the false idea that inclusion is a modern invention rather than a long-delayed obligation.

If DEI is to survive—and more importantly, to matter—it must be reframed not as a program but as a process of repair. That process begins with truth: naming who was harmed, how institutions benefited, and what accountability requires.

It also requires a broader historical lens—one capacious enough to include African American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Native American/Indigenous, Asian American, and other communities whose experiences have been systematically minimized or erased.

This is precisely why battles over curriculum matter—at the Texas State Board of Education, in local school board meetings, and in classrooms across the country. When history is narrowed, sanitized, or selectively told, equity initiatives are stripped of their context and recast as ideological overreach rather than as long-overdue responses to documented harm.

The lesson from Stevenson’s intervention is not that DEI failed. It is that we asked equity to do the work of history without allowing history to be told. Until institutions are willing to admit wrongdoing—and until our national narrative expands to include all the communities shaped by that wrongdoing—equity will remain vulnerable to distortion and attack.

Justice, as Stevenson teaches, is not achieved through silence. It is built through memory, courage, and the collective willingness to tell the truth—even when that truth unsettles the stories we have long told ourselves.





 
Next Question with Katie Couric. A clip from my longer interview with Bryan Stevenson, founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative. In my full interview we talked about how the murder of George Floyd and the protests of 2020 sparked a nationwide movement for racial justice and reckoning. Just a few years later, many of those hard-won conversations are being rolled back.
Sign up here for daily email updates from me, Katie Couric, on the news that matters most to you: https://katiecouric.com/wake-up-call/...

Thursday, October 30, 2025

The Courage to Imagine Anew: Milton's 'Paradise Lost' and the Defense of Higher Learning, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

The Courage to Imagine Anew: Milton's 'Paradise Lost' and the Defense of Higher Learning

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

October 29, 2025

In these uncertain times, I find myself returning to the classics—not for comfort, but for clarity. They remind me that turmoil is not new, that every age must wrestle with its own angels and demons. As an English literature major and Spanish minor, I learned to live among these voices of the past and to listen for the echoes of our present in their words.

John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1968) is one such companion. Written in the wake of England’s failed republican experiment—after the execution of King Charles I, through the brief, flickering hope of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, and on the threshold of the restoration of the Stuart monarchy—it speaks to the ache of disillusionment and the stubborn endurance of faith. An anguished Milton wrote in the ruins of a republic that had promised liberty but delivered repression.

The poem’s power lies not just in its Biblical scope but in its political imagination: a meditation on what happens when institutions of knowledge, justice, and conscience are corrupted by ambition and fear. Satan’s rebellion against Heaven becomes a haunting allegory for power unmoored from morality—a warning about how even noble ideals can be twisted into tyranny when pride replaces principle.

We are living through a similar unraveling. Across the United States, and acutely here in Texas, the assault on higher education feels like a slow-motion reenactment of Milton’s epic fall. Legislation like Senate Bill 17 and Senate Bill 37 strip universities of their moral and intellectual autonomy—erasing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and eliminating faculty governance under the guise of “neutrality.” In truth, these policies are not about neutrality at all; they are about control. They mirror Satan’s own delusion in Paradise Lost: the belief that power justifies itself, that domination can masquerade as Divine order.

The recent waves of faculty dismissals in Texas, the silencing of critical inquiry, censorship campaigns, and the hollow rhetoric of “viewpoint diversity”—about which I have blogged (Valenzuela, 2025)—all echo Milton’s vision of a paradise undone by deceit. Yet Milton also reminds us that knowledge cannot be banished, nor truth extinguished; even in exile, the spirit of inquiry endures. It is in that spirit that we must resist—not with despair, but with the steadfast conviction that education itself is an act of freedom.

Our universities—once sanctuaries, however imperfect—for the free exchange of ideas are being recast as instruments of ideological conformity. Project 2025, with its blueprint for dismantling public institutions, bears the same logic as Milton’s fallen angels—an architecture of chaos disguised as reform, where destruction is framed as renewal and submission is sold as freedom.

And yet Paradise Lost does not end in despair, but in a quiet, hard-won grace—one that I encourage us to lean into. When Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden, they do not turn against one another or the world that has cast them out; instead, they walk hand in hand, “through Eden took their solitary way.” Their loss is real and profound, but so is their potential. Exile becomes not an ending, but the beginning of a new human story:

“Some natural tears they dropp’d, but wip’d them soon;
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:
They hand in hand with wand’ring steps and slow,
Through Eden took their solitary way.”
 — Paradise Lost, Book XII

In that moment, Milton reminds us that exile can also be the beginning of resistance—that even as institutions crumble, new communities of conscience can rise. We, too, walk that road now. As scholars, educators, and citizens, our task is not only to lament the loss of paradise but to rebuild it—to reclaim the moral and intellectual commons that sustain democracy itself.

What is at stake in this moment is more than academic freedom—it is the survival of an educated democracy. Across states and systems, educators are rising to defend the university as a public good, not a partisan instrument. The broader defense of education is, at its heart, a defense of truth, inquiry, and the capacity for moral imagination. Like Milton, we must see beyond the ruins toward the possibility of renewal, for if paradise is lost through arrogance and deceit, it is restored through wisdom, solidarity, and an expansive vision of what a good and virtuous education can be.

In doing so, we walk in the footsteps of Milton—across centuries of struggle and renewal—and honor his enduring question: not whether paradise can be restored, but whether we have the courage to imagine it anew. For the record, whoever said a Humanities or Liberal Arts degree is esoteric—or that our Western literary canon is worthless? Hardly so, even as its exclusivity has remained an issue. It has always been about survival—about learning to think, to write, to question, and to dream our way through the darkness of despair toward the light of freedom.

In times such as these, when truth itself is politicized and education reduced to utility, the humanistic tradition reminds us that freedom begins in the mind—and that imagination, not ideology, is the truest measure of a free and open society.

References

Milton, J. (1968). Paradise lost & paradise regained, Signet.

Valenzuela, A. (2025, Aug. 26). The fight for higher education: A minority perspective on both the liberal University and President Michael Roth. Educational Equity, Politics & Policy in Texas.

Monday, June 16, 2025

A "Rare Bird" in the Academy: Why We Need Better Data on Faculty Diversity

Friends: 

I’ve always told my students that I am a “rare bird” in the academy. By this I mean that there are still so few Latina or Latino professors teaching in universities as tenure-track or tenured faculty.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ Digest of Education Statistics (Table 324.20), Hispanic students earned approximately 9.65 percent of all doctoral degrees awarded to U.S. citizens in the most recent year reported for the 2020-21 academic year (NCES, 2021).

While this may appear to signal progress, the figure remains starkly disproportionate given the size and growth of the Latino population in the United States. It underscores the persistent structural barriers that Latino scholars face in accessing and completing the highest levels of academic training—a reality that demands both attention and action.

I recently revisited a 2013 piece by Laura Perna that powerfully argues for better data on faculty. In today’s political climate, marked by anti-DEI sentiment and legislative backlash, one might ask: Why should anyone care about better data on faculty diversity?

The answer lies in a fundamental contradiction: those who claim to champion merit, excellence, and freedom in higher education often simultaneously erase the very conditions that allow those ideals to thrive—namely, the honoring of merit across difference and diversity.

This perverse agenda does not diminish the urgent need for comprehensive, disaggregated, identity-specific data. Without it, institutions can conveniently claim that faculty hiring is already “colorblind” and “merit-based”—concepts that, in practice, often serve as smokescreens for enduring disparities in rank, pay, workload, and access to opportunity.

According to Hispanic Outlook (Mellander, 2022), the proportion of doctoral degrees awarded nationally to “Hispanics” grew from 5.1 percent in 2005 to 7.0 percent in 2015. However, the term “Hispanic” in these datasets is overly broad and not disaggregated by socioeconomic status, national origin, or immigration background.

This means the category may conflate a wide range of recipients—from elite graduates of Latin American universities to U.S.-born, first-generation college students who have overcome formidable barriers to earn their Ph.D.s. I have known many of the latter, and their stories are often ones of extraordinary resilience and persistence.

It also includes degrees awarded in Spanish language or Latin American Studies programs, which further complicates the picture. For instance, at UT-Austin, it took over 80 years for the Teresa Lozano Long Institute of Latin American Studies—endowed by a Latina alumna from South Texas with $15 million—to appoint its first-ever Latina director (Editorial Board, 2020). Dr. Teresa Lozano Long did not live long enough to meet the new director, the esteemed Dr. Adela Pineda-Franco.

Astonishingly, it was not until the Independent Equity Task Force filed an official complaint—despite having already published the damning Hispanic Equity Report (Valenzuela, 2021)—that any action was finally taken (Valenzuela, 2021). 

And now UT-Austin and Texas have decided that there is "too much" diversity? Yes, my friends, this is what we are up against. My good friend and colleague Dr. Michael Apple would see this as a broader political formation that aims to delegitimize social justice efforts by framing Latinas and Latinos—and other minoritized faculty—as threats to traditional values or academic rigor (Apple, 2004, 2006)

In short, without more nuanced, disaggregated data, we cannot fully assess how many of these doctoral degrees are earned by historically underserved subgroups within the U.S. Latino population—those who face the greatest structural disadvantages and remain severely underrepresented in academia.

-Angela Valenzuela

References

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Editorial Board. (2020, January 22). Why can’t UT-Austin hire, keep Latino faculty? Houston Chronicle. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Why-can-t-UT-Austin-hire-keep-Latino-14991723.php

Mellander, G. A. (2022, Dec.). Hispanics and PhDs. Hispanic Outlook. https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/hispanics-and-phds?utm_source=chatgpt.com

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023, November). Table 324.20. Doctor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected academic years, 1976–77 through 2021–22. In Digest of Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.

Valenzuela, A. (2021, April 16). Independent Equity Task Force that generated the Hispanic Equity Report [Blog post]. Educational Equity, Politics & Policy in Texas. https://texasedequity.blogspot.com/2021/04/support-senate-bill-1709-faculty-equity.html


Why We Need Better Data on Faculty Diversity

Institutions need better data on faculty backgrounds,b
their experiences and working conditions, and (in)equities
in measures of success, Laura W. Perna writes.




by Laura W. Perna

January 10, 2023

An excellent and diverse faculty is vital to individual colleges and universities and to our communities, states, nation and globe. A diverse faculty brings diverse perspectives, and these diverse perspectives enhance teaching and advising, research and scholarship, clinical practice, and engagement with the community and world.

Yet, at most U.S. colleges and universities, the faculty is less diverse than the students. And the diversity of faculty declines as academic rank increases. In fall 2020, women represented 58 percent of undergraduates at degree-granting institutions nationwide, but 53 percent of assistant professors, 47 percent of associate professors and 35 percent of full professors. Black academics represented 13 percent of undergraduates but 7 percent of full-time assistant professors, 6 percent of associate professors and 4 percent of full professors. Hispanics represented 21 percent of undergraduates but 5 percent of assistant professors, 5 percent of associate professors and 4 percent of full professors.

To improve faculty diversity, college and university leaders need data. Qualitative data are useful for probing the experiences of faculty with different identities in particular contexts. Quantitative data are also essential, especially for documenting patterns of inequity and raising questions about how bias and other forces lead to observed differences.

MOST POPULAR
To fight student disengagement, real-world projects can help
Income-driven repayment overhaul 'a step forward'
Fundraiser Fiasco at Connecticut College
What Data Do We Need?

To improve faculty diversity, we need data that address three questions: What is the diversity of faculty? Is there equity in measures of faculty success? And what are the experiences and working conditions of diverse faculty?

At the foundation of any effort to improve faculty diversity must be data that document the social identities and background characteristics of faculty. Without these data, we do not know if we are making progress in diversifying the faculty and where greater progress is needed. Measures of faculty diversity should include variables that have been collected in national faculty surveys, such as age, race/ethnicity, disability status, marital status, number of dependent children and whether they were born in the United States. We also need data to describe aspects of diversity that are still less commonly measured, including sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation and political affiliation.

Identifying response options for survey questions about sexual orientation and gender identity is not without challenge. Respondents may not identify with proffered categories or resist using labels; self-reported sexual orientation and gender identity may be fluid; and preferred terms may vary by age, place and other characteristics. Terminology has also changed over time and will likely continue to evolve into the future. Yet without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, researchers and leaders are unable to consider the inequities that LGBTQ+ faculty experience and the institutional supports they need.

Collecting data on other background characteristics can further inform understanding of advantages that accrue to some groups. Available data suggest that the nation’s faculty are less diverse than relevant comparison groups in terms of socioeconomic status. Drawing on data collected from a survey of tenure-track faculty in eight disciplines (anthropology, biology, business, computer science, history, physics/astronomy, psychology and sociology) and other sources, one study concluded that faculty members are 12 to 25 times more likely than members of the general population to have at least one parent with a Ph.D.

Data describing the institutions from which faculty members receive doctoral degrees can also inform understanding of (the lack of) diversity of perspectives and the potential advantages and disadvantages that different faculty members have. A study of employment records of nearly 300,000 tenured and tenure-track faculty members employed between 2011 and 2020 at 368 Ph.D.-granting universities found that 80 percent of those with doctorates from U.S. institutions received those degrees from only 20 percent of U.S. universities. About 14 percent of domestically trained tenure-line faculty members in the analyses received their doctorates from one of five universities: from Harvard or Stanford Universities, or from the Universities of California, Berkeley; Michigan; or Wisconsin at Madison.

These data have implications for the viewpoints that are and are not represented among faculty, as well as the extent to which all faculty have needed supports. Faculty whose parents have Ph.D.s—and faculty educated at the most common feeder institutions—may have more information about what is required to gain access to tenure-line positions and receive tenure, as well as networks that provide access to other resources and assistance with navigating adversity.

RELATED STORIES
Why Faculty Diversity Matters
To be successful, DEI searches must meet certain conditions (opinion)
How minority faculty can best navigate campus job visits (opinion)

A second critical question is whether faculty members of different social identities and background characteristics are equally likely to achieve success. In order to enable all faculty to thrive, we need data that tell us whether faculty members of different groups vary systematically in the types of positions that they hold (e.g., tenured/contingent; full-time/part-time), or in academic rank, tenure, productivity and salary.

The many recent articles related to faculty burnout illustrate the need to also include other aspects of faculty life as measures of success, including mental health and well-being. Work-related stress and anxiety may be especially high for faculty members from marginalized groups and, left unaddressed, may lead them to leave their faculty positions.

A third category of questions pertains to the experiences and working conditions that contribute to inequity among faculty. Women faculty members and faculty members of color spend more time than white male faculty members advising students and serving on committees, activities that take away from time on research and are typically given less weight in salary, tenure and promotion decisions. We need data to document how time demands vary across groups and consider how to better align time allocations with what is rewarded in tenure, promotion and salary determinations.

Also essential are perceptions of the culture and climate for different groups of faculty in different institutions, departments and academic disciplines. Indicators may include whether all faculty members perceive that they belong and are treated fairly; that diverse perspectives are valued in faculty hiring, tenure and promotion, as well as in the curriculum; and that diverse faculty members have access to opportunities for career advancement and leadership development. In this highly polarized political environment, we should also consider whether faculty members perceive that their institution values diverse perspectives and protects faculty members who may be attacked for their views.

Data describing how different faculty members perceive the availability and utility of institutional supports should also be collected. Institutional supports of interest include: resources for caregiving, mental health and wellness; extensions of the tenure clock; dual-career hiring; and attention to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging in hiring, tenure and promotion processes.
What Data Do We Have?

Despite the clear need to improve faculty diversity, we lack a source of recent, nationally representative, individual-level data to address these questions. National data are needed as, at many institutions, the numbers of faculty in a given group are small, especially when multiple and intersecting identities are considered. Small cell sizes limit the ability of an institution to draw conclusions about faculty in a group, and information about these groups may not be reported given the importance of protecting individual identities. Nationally representative data can address these issues and provide benchmarks that university administrators can use to understand how faculty work and life at their institution may compare in relation to peer institutions.

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, provides national institution-level data on some faculty characteristics (e.g., distribution of faculty of different racial/ethnic groups by academic rank). While useful for monitoring institutional trends over time, data that are aggregated at the institution level cannot tell us how the characteristics, experiences and working conditions of different groups of faculty vary within institutions or across academic disciplines.

The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), also sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, provided nationally representative, individual-level data about the employment status, workload, productivity, working conditions, satisfaction and demographic characteristics of faculty members at two- and four-year, public and private not-for-profit colleges and universities in the United States. The survey was last administered in fall 2003, with earlier administrations in 1987, 1992 and 1998. Data from the NSOPF were used to generate many useful insights about the diversity of the nation’s faculty and how faculty work and life vary across groups. But these data now describe faculty members working at colleges and universities nearly 20 years ago.

What Do We Do?

In spring 2022, the National Science Foundation awarded $1.5 million to the Pullias Center for Higher Education at the University of Southern California “to develop and pilot a national survey that will provide a contemporary understanding of postsecondary faculty in the United States.” This effort may signal increased interest by the federal government in ensuring that college and university leaders have the data they need to improve faculty diversity, equity and inclusion.

In the meantime, colleges and universities, scholarly associations, scholars, and others need to proactively advocate for and work to advance the collection and use of needed data. These data should document the progress—and lack thereof—in creating a more diverse faculty. They should show how characteristics, experiences and measures of success vary among faculty and how this variation differs based on characteristics of institutions, departments and academic disciplines in which faculty members work, as well as across academic ranks, appointment types and other characteristics of employment. These data should be examined critically, with the goal of identifying how racism, sexism and other biases contribute to observed differences and how institutions can act to ensure that all faculty members have the supports and resources they need to thrive. With a foundation in this kind of comprehensive data, we can all continue to advance toward our shared goals of greater diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging in our faculties of the future.

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

Exposing the Backlash in Forward Kentucky: Kimberly Kennedy on the White Supremacist Roots and Real Costs of Anti-DEI Legislation

Friends,

In her powerful two-part series for Forward Kentucky, former multicultural educator Kimberly Kennedy offers a searing and well-informed critique of the anti-DEI movement that has taken root in Kentucky and across the nation. She begins by methodically dismantling the false narratives being circulated by legislators—debunking myths about tuition hikes, so-called liberal indoctrination, and the alleged divisiveness of DEI efforts. 

Drawing from her own experiences, Kennedy defends DEI not as a partisan agenda, but as a basic commitment to equity, accurate historical education, and democratic learning spaces where all students belong. 

In the second installment also posted below, she courageously connects the dots between this wave of legislation and its origins in white nationalist ideology—naming institutions like the Claremont Institute that are engineering this backlash and feeding ready-made bills to lawmakers in conservative strongholds, including Kentucky and Texas.

Like what we’ve seen with Texas’ SB 17, Kennedy makes clear that these measures are not about cost-savings or academic integrity—they are about narrative control and cultural erasure. 

The ultimate harm isn’t just the silencing of marginalized communities or the gutting of student support systems; it’s the long-term degradation of our public universities and our democratic capacity as a society. Kennedy’s work is both a warning and a moral call to action: to defend truth-telling in education, to resist the rollback of civil rights gains, and to reject the normalization of white supremacist logic under the guise of “neutral” policy.

I wholeheartedly agree that the white supremacist vision for America is not only

dangerous but utterly obsolete—out of step with the multiracial, multiethnic, and gender-diverse pluralist democracy we are poised to become. I urge everyone to listen to this powerful conversation on Red, Wine, and Blue featuring Jasmine Crockett and Heather Cox Richardson. Among many important insights, they emphasize the urgency of civic engagement and call on everyday Americans to consider running for office, especially in this moment of constitutional crisis, as Representative Crockett compellingly argues.

Sí se puede! Yes we can!

-Angela Valenzuela


What anti-DEI politicos get wrong. Part 1 – the myths

The attacks on DEI programs come from a base of half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies. In this two-part series, Kimberly Kennedy lays out what our politicians get wrong about DEI.


Kimberly Kennedy, February 22, 2024




As a former multicultural educator, my antenna went up when I heard about anti-DEI legislation proposed in Kentucky: SB 93 for K-12, plus SB 6 and HB 9 for higher education. In short, DEI refers to programs addressing Diversity (people from the rainbow of sub-cultures), Equity (fairness, equal opportunity, and justice), and Inclusion (belonging and feeling valued). As I look at each of these concepts, I can’t imagine having a problem with any of them. So I set out to investigate the objections, and here’s what I found. (Although I focus primarily upon higher education, many of the principles apply to K–12 as well.) Kentucky legislators were heard repeating the following myths:

Myth: DEI programs raise the cost of tuition.

First, tuition is set by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. Their web site illuminates the issue well: “[S]tate cuts to higher education over the last decade have shifted a larger portion of college costs to students and their families.”

Further, tuition cost is impacted by a multitude of factors, like increased operating costs and a shift in the burden of higher costs to families, who are encouraged to take on student-loan debt. There are also capital projects, including facilities to accommodate increased student population, as well as increased research and program offerings (including DEI), which respond to the needs of a changing society and technological advancements and make Kentucky’s universities competitive.

Naturally, there is an interest in faculty salaries. At the University of Kentucky, for example, top salaries are not for DEI employees, but for top administrators and athletic coaches, ranging from $400K to $1.7Mil. Salaries for DEI faculty range from $50–105K, with a few outliers being more — but still below $400K. Most importantly, all staff appear to wear multiple hats, with their DEI role being one. This suggests that cutting DEI programs may have little if any impact on faculty and salaries, thus little effect on tuition cost.

Myth: Public universities are bastions of liberal indoctrination.

Although this makes a great conservative rallying point, this assumption has been debunked by research. As conservative Matthew Woessner of Penn State observes, “[Our] results do not paint a picture of conservative students under siege.”

One explanation for this myth stems from the erroneous idea that the term “liberal” in Liberal Arts Education means the same as the word “liberal” which is opposite from a “conservative” political ideology, and thus should be attacked. But “liberal” in academia comes from the Latin “liberalis,” which means “relating to freedom,” as in thought.

This myth also assumes that 1) all professors are progressive, and 2) aren’t “professional[s] capable of divorcing their own political ideologies from their work,” says Dr. Kelly Wilz, University of Wisconsin professor.

Most important, it doesn’t accurately reflect what occurs in a classroom. (Perhaps some legislators should revisit one.) Educators present information and then, as Dr. Wilz explains, “get [students] to think critically ... not ... tell them what to think. My job is to teach them to question the validity of sources, to learn how to conduct research, and ... to question authority, even if that ‘authority’ is me.”

And what about the students? Dr. Wilz asserts, “[This] presumes that students are so gullible and incapable of free thought, professors can shape their minds.”


Myth: DEI stifles free speech.


Dr. Wilz articulates that, in a classroom, all voices are welcome – but not all ideas have merit. Students are expected to defend their positions with evidence; if they cannot, they may sense pushback from other students “because they have not survived the challenge of scrutiny. The resistance I see is from people who can’t take that scrutiny and who can’t defend their ideas,” she says.

That is Democracy with a capital “D” in action.

In contrast, anti-DEI legislation threatens to illegalize a wide swath of speech in favor of a conservative worldview – hardly democratic. Legislators can’t claim to support Free Speech while banning speech they disagree with.

“Legislators can’t claim to support Free Speech while banning speech they disagree with.”

– from the comments

Myth: DEI programs cause division.

The argument here is that diversity programs focus upon our differences and thus divide us, sometimes causing reverse discrimination of white heteronormatives. But there is not substantive evidence of this – just a boatload of conservative rhetoric plus an anecdote here and there.

In fact, a 2023 Pew research poll of employees in a traditional work environment found that 56% felt DEI initiatives were a good thing – not divisive.

My experience has also been completely opposite of the myth. People who learn about cultural differences experience empathy, which produces insights and better understanding of the sub-group, thus leading to respect and improved relationships. Think about how you respond differently to a person on the autism spectrum once you learn more about it.

The most basic form of Diversity Training (DT) is teaching an accurate, unvarnished history of American sub-cultures. Kathryn Wiley, a white professor from Howard University, eloquently explains her reaction to learning a more detailed African-American history: “[M]y entire understanding of this country changed. ... I gained significant respect and reverence for communities of color. ... It made me more committed to our democratic ideals and to building community. ... It made me feel a healthy sense of responsibility to those different from myself.” Wiley indicates that if others could have this experience, they would have a renewed sense of civic responsibility.

Which brings me to Rebekah Keith, the white UK student who gave testimony to the legislature about feeling discriminated against: Her testimony was remarkable evidence of the need for DT; for had she experienced it, she would likely be able to demonstrate the insights and understanding necessary for the job that requires “relatability to non-whites.”

In conclusion: Legislators, where is your evidence of harm caused by DEI? (A handful of anecdotes does not a pattern make.)
Looking ahead: the broader white supremacist conspiracy



Many conservatives have bought into the anti-DEI rhetoric popularized via conservative media outlets without realizing its origins in white supremacist ideology. I’ll examine that in the next installment.

----------------------------------Continue with Part 2 here------------------------------