As you may have heard, there appears to be a significant amount of controversy surrounding the topic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) – especially on the Springfield campus of Missouri State University. Wednesday, January 29th, all 24,000 students received an email from university president, Dr. “Biff” Williams, breaking the news that DEI and the Office of Inclusive Engagement will no longer be permitted to exist on campus. The question is, why is this happening and what does it mean for students?
What is DEI?
Opinions are flying concerning the definition of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, so let’s take a historical deep dive into DEI programs.
Origins of DEI can be traced all the way back to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which effectively secured the equal and unobstructed right to vote for people of color. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a direct result of the Civil Rights Movement and marked the beginning of legislation that worked to achieve more equitable experiences for citizens. This is where DEI initiatives were born.
The most notable of the legislation that followed is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a permanent government agency that oversees workplace equality and enforces Title IX protections from discrimination and harassment for protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, and national origin). Throughout the 20th century, this trend in legislation continued. Examples such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and court case rulings like Milliken v. Bradley covered bases like discrimination against disabled persons and effectively ended segregation in schools. The list of government actions enacted to protect minorities is far too long for us to discuss today, but long story short, these are all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity initiatives.
Many legislative acts specifically targeted higher education. Title IX for example protects gender discrimination in college admissions. Meaning that if someone feels they are discriminated against during the admission period, they have a legal basis to sue. Beginning in the 1980s, colleges began to take it upon themselves to open offices and departments dedicated to supporting students who identified with minority groups. This did not come from a place of mandated legislation, but instead occurred as a result of the cultural shift toward diversity efforts.
At Missouri State University, the Office of Inclusive Engagement opened in 2020 (several years after many other universities with similar departments). Contrary to common thought, efforts such as affirmative action have not existed at Missouri State University for nearly ten years, long before the Office of Inclusive Engagement found its home in Carrington Hall. Instead, the office provided diversity training and workshops aimed at educating the campus community on topics such as unconscious bias or microaggressions. It gave direct support to students, organized summits, and collected data. These are just a few examples of DEI efforts on Missouri State’s campus. However, as I’m sure you know, the office has closed, staff have been placed in other departments, and the office’s website has been removed from the Missouri State University official webpage.
DEI As a Political Issue
It seems the letters D-E-I have become a triggering phrase that elicits a specific emotional response depending on what side of the political aisle you fall on. Let’s talk about why.
We can’t discuss the politicization of DEI without starting with the Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM), and more importantly, the counter-movements. Campaigns such as White Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter were built on the belief that there was no significant injustice against people of color, an idea that set the foundation for dispute against DEI efforts.
Additionally, during President Trump’s first presidency, there was a movement to the attacked Critical Race Theory or CRT. CRT outlines the idea that race is not biological but instead a societally created concept. Simply put, it states that your race comes with a set of socially pre-determined personality traits and characteristics that you don’t get to choose. Additionally, this theory states that these predetermined characteristics are used as a tool for racism and prejudice, a prejudice that, according to CRT, runs deep within society. As the first Trump administration cracked down on CRT, so did education at the state level. State legislatures passed laws, like Oklahoma’s HB 1775, stating that the theory should be erased from classrooms. In the end, CRT became a defining term of politicized divisiveness, much like DEI has today.
All of these campaigns have set the stage for the development of the anti-DEI movement which is based on the idea that promotion of diversity, education relating to race/gender/sexuality, and support for minority communities undercuts equality. Ultimately, these ideas have been building through the movements previously discussed and have led to the newly inaugurated President Trump passing an executive order that effectively ended the practice of DEI.
Why “Biff” Decided to Cut the Office of Inclusive Engagement
President Cliff Smart was a firm supporter of DEI, so what’s changed? Is it President Williams?
Short answer, no, there’s a lot more going on than just our newly hired university president. As most of you know, Missouri recently experienced an election, meaning new, boisterous, and powerful individuals have been elected to the legislature/executive office, and they’ve hit the ground running.
What we know is the statement from President Williams’ office strongly implied influence from the State of Missouri. He directly referenced their impact on our university budget and stated that we could not function as normal without state funding. Additionally, he claimed that the university “must align with the requirements laid out by state leadership.” This made it evident that pressures from prominent figures at the state level lead to the deep changes occurring within Missouri State University. But let’s be honest, we’ll never know what President Smart would have done if he were in President Williams’ shoes.
Be that as it may, this now poses the question: How far could the state push? Now that Missouri State University has bent to the whims of the legislature, a precedent has been set. Money is quite literally power, and it seems right now the power is in the hands of the State of Missouri. So, if you want to point a finger of blame or admiration, shift your focus from Missouri State University’s administration to our elected officials.
So, What Does This Mean for Mo State Students?
Overall, there are not a lot of answers for students who have concerns. Scholarships related to diversity efforts are ensured to last for current students, but we don’t yet know if they will continue to be given to incoming freshmen starting in the fall. It’s important to note that these scholarships affect all students (first generation, rural, low income), not just those who identify with a cultural minority. You may not see it firsthand, but the impact of these changes is vast.
A change that I predict we will continue to see is the shift in branding. Personally, I’m curious how all of these changes in branding will impact vital aspects of campus that contain, now partisan, labels, things like the Multicultural Engagement Fund. This fund serves multicultural organizations across campus and supports them as they grow in outreach and personal/professional development efforts. Currently, when you search the Missouri State University Website for this fund, there is no information to be found. So, where did the hundreds of thousands of dollars go? And, are there other areas of campus that have been erased? If so, how would we even know what they were?
On the same topic of branding, many student organizations with executive board DEI chairs have begun to change the position title, and I expect many will continue to do so. As of right now, there is no notice from the Office of Student Engagement requiring that this be done. The scope of impact from this event should only span the areas of campus that are directly funded by the state (which does not include most student orgs). If you have more questions about the impact these changes will have, don’t hesitate to reach out to faculty, staff, or administrators. They’re here to help you!
Even though offices have closed and DEI efforts have been reeled in, the staff and faculty are here to support you. The Bear Cave (previously known as the Multicultural Resource Center), remains a functioning office on campus and continues to provide support and social opportunity for all students. The rebranding of initiatives and offices does not change the fact that every student leader, staff member, professor, and administrator is here to serve students, all students.