“Chill” on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives creeps into U.S. higher education system – a harbinger for Canada?

There’s a growing “chill” on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in American postsecondary institutions, while Canada’s federal research funding agencies actively promote and support DEI.

“There is a chill being put on some scholars, how they frame their research. Some scholars are saying I’m not going to use the term ‘DEI’ [in their research proposals],” Dr. Thomas Woodson, PhD (photo at right), associate professor of technology and society at Stony Brook University in New York, said during a webinar presented by the Institute for Science, Society and Policy’s inclusive innovation research cluster at the University of Ottawa.

“[DEI] has been banned in some states. They’re cutting DEI offices explicitly,” said Woodson, who is also a program officer at the U.S. National Science Foundation.

DEI offices became a mainstay on college and university campuses across the U.S. for years as schools tried to boost faculty diversity and help students from all backgrounds succeed.

But the U.S. Supreme Court in June of last year restricted race-conscious college admissions. Since then, groups have filed complaints and lawsuits against minority-owned businesses with equity initiatives. 

Critics accuse DEI programs of pushing what they characterize as left-wing ideology onto students and faculty and maintain that these programs prioritize social justice over merit and achievement.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law last year that bans the state’s colleges and universities from spending money on diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

DeSantis argued that the way DEI has been implemented, it “is better viewed as standing for discrimination, exclusion and indoctrination.”

In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott last year signed a bill into law to ban DEI offices and initiatives across higher education institutions in the state.

Under the bill, DEI offices across state colleges are to close starting in January 2024 and activities that seek to promote certain groups of individuals over others based on race, ethnicity and gender will also come to an end.

The bill also prohibits diversity statements for job applicants at Texas universities, as well as mandatory DEI training for any purpose.

In February, Arizona state Senator Anthony Kern likened DEI initiatives to support for Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ rights, as he introduced a bill to prohibit the state and local governments as well as colleges and universities from spending money on DEI. 

Republican lawmakers in more than 30 states have introduced or passed more than 100 bills to either restrict or regulate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the current legislative session, according to an NBC News analysis.

According to tracking by Best Colleges, as of May 2024, 10 anti-DEI bills have been signed into law by a governor: two in Florida, one in each of the Dakotas, one in Tennessee, one in Texas, one in Utah, one in Alabama, one in Idaho, and one in Iowa, which experts say is now the most extreme law in the country restricting DEI on college campuses.

Only a few other bills have reached the final stages of approval, including one in Kansas that was allowed to become law without the governor’s signature. The majority of bills are still moving through their state legislatures.

Canada’s federal funding agencies promote equity, diversity and inclusion

In contrast, Canada’s three federal research funding agencies have best practices in equity, diversity and inclusion in research practice and design and offer training webinars for researchers on how to integrate these principles into their research.

Researchers applying for the New Frontiers in Research Fund are expected “to clearly demonstrate their strong commitment to [equity, diversity and inclusion] in their applications and in the implementation of their research projects, if funded.”

“Achieving a more equitable, diverse and inclusive Canadian research enterprise is essential to creating the excellent, innovative and impactful research necessary to advance knowledge and understanding, and to respond to local, national and global challenges,” according to the Tri-agency statement on equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI).

However, as in the U.S., there is also pushback in Canada against EDI initiatives in the higher education system.

About 40 researchers, in a submission in May to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research, called for the Tri-agency's EDI policies to be abolished.

The financial cost of these policies disproportionately punishes small institutions, the policies are not supported by evidence, they employ flawed metrics with no end goal, and they are unpopular with the public who funds the research, the researchers argued.

Canada’s academic freedom organization, The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, has documented dozens of other cases of academic job postings that specifically discriminate against individuals with particular immutable characteristics, the researchers noted.

Who benefits from publicly funded research?

During the webinar, Woodson presented a framework he developed, the “Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion,” that assesses who benefits from research impacts as divided into three groups: advantaged groups; the general population; and marginalized groups.

He used the framework to assess a sample of about 400 National Science Foundation (NSF) grants and found that advantaged groups are the most likely to benefit from NSF-funded research.

NSF-funded research needs to have more equitable broader impacts that benefit all groups, and the research should be more inclusive and diverse by involving researchers from different communities, Woodson said.

Institutions that fund research can make commitments to inclusive research and incentivize broad-impact outcomes, he said.

The peer-review panels that NSF uses to evaluate research proposals typically consist of scientists who are experts in the field, Woodson said.

In Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, for its Partnership Grants, uses merit review committees to evaluate research proposals. These committees include members that have relevant experience from the academic community, but also research expertise from the public, private and/or not-for-profit sectors.

Research Money asked Woodson about including on NSF evaluation panels representatives from communities impacted by proposed research as well as non-scientists.  

Woodson said the idea makes sense, but he noted that some scientists would first have to “humble themselves” and realize that they don‘t have all the knowledge even though they’ve had years of specialized education to become the experts in the field.

Webinar moderator Dr. Sandra Schillo, PhD (photo at right), associate professor in the Telfer School of Management and lead of the inclusive innovation research cluster at uOttawa’s Institute for Science, Society and Policy, said she thinks that including community representatives on research proposal evaluation panels would be welcomed by people who support diversity, equity and inclusion.

“I think there are a lot of communities who are perhaps against science or against the elitism [of scientists]. Part of their grief with elitist scientists is that they’re in their ivory towers,” Schillo said.

“There is no societal involvement. I think part of [their ask] as well is, ‘Let us in. Take us seriously. Hear us.’”

Schillo said a lot of her academic colleagues understand that their research is funded by taxpayers and they want their research to have a beneficial impact on communities and society.

“Having [an] impact is really so much easier if you understand society and where it’s going to land and what is possible,” she said.

Incoming Trump administration worrisome for supporters of diversity, equity and inclusion

Woodson said to counter the pushback against diversity, equity and inclusion in the U.S. higher education system, more needs to be done to educate politicians and voters about the importance of diversity and inclusion.

President-elect Donald Trump has picked Linda McMahon, a major Republican donor, billionaire and former pro-wrestling executive, to be the next secretary of the Department of Education.

McMahon could potentially be tasked with overseeing the department’s demise – which would require an act of Congress – after Trump repeatedly called for abolishing the agency on the campaign trail.

McMahon also chairs the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute, which has campaigned against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in higher education. She has criticized DEI mandates in apprenticeships, calling them costly for businesses and “administrative burdens.” 

Woodson acknowledged that with the incoming Trump administration, “There’s concern amongst a lot of bureaucrats in America about what’s going to happen next.”

He said he thinks U.S. science agencies like the National Science Foundation, whose governance requirements and principles are embedded within law, will be protected from critics who want to dismantle DEI programs. “I think other institutions in America will face more challenges than the science agencies.”

However, he added that he thinks the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress will emphasize more the economic value of publicly funded research and how it contributes to economic progress.

One webinar attendee noted there has been a backlash in Canada on immigration, with new federal limits on immigration numbers as well as a cap on international students and restrictions on graduate student work permits.

Economic development is important, but wealth also needs to be equitably distributed and government needs to have a plan for doing that, the webinar attendee said. “I’m kind of concerned about where we’re going.”

Woodson said he’s more worried about the resurgent racism he’s seeing in the U.S., including “people with Nazi flags walking around the streets.”

“If this had happened 20 or 30 years ago, this would never come up. And now it’s happening,” he said.

“I do worry that the rhetoric will change in the U.S. and how people talk about other people will change a lot. And that has a big impact on communities.”

R$