Anyone who is keeping up with the latest happenings in higher education knows that this year has seen many institutions backpedaling on DEI programs. From Florida limiting public funding for DEI at its colleges, to the University of Wyoming closing its DEI office, to schools in Kansas, Idaho, and Oklahoma enforcing bans and limitations, the public’s patience with the Left’s “diversity” schemes seems finally to be running out.
In May of this year, the UNC System joined these ranks when the Board of Governors repealed and replaced Section 300.8.5 of the policy manual, thus effectively banning DEI offices, employees, and funding. The intention of the new policy was “to reaffirm the University’s commitment to nondiscrimination, equality of opportunity, institutional neutrality, academic freedom, and student success.”
Instead of pushing DEI, the UNC System is bolstering institutional neutrality and academic freedom.The repealed section of the UNC policy manual, put into effect in September 2019, required the implementation of DEI within the entire UNC System and its constituent institutions, a mandate that included DEI staff, offices, and trainings. Now, less than five years later, the system is changing course and, instead of pushing DEI, is bolstering institutional neutrality and academic freedom.
The new policy affirms six main points that impact both students and employees: nondiscrimination, equality of all persons and viewpoints, free speech and expression, academic freedom, student success and employee wellbeing, and, finally, institutional neutrality. Following the adoption of the new policy, legal guidance was released discussing in further detail what can be expected during the implementation period on campuses: “Implementing the Policy will require changes in practices across the University—some of which developed and grew as constituent institutions implemented the original version of Section 300.8.5.”
The most obvious result of the new policy is that DEI offices at all constituent institutions are required to close. As the guidance explains, “One of the most visible changes to expect on campuses is the elimination of content-specific missions, duties, and titles of employing divisions and employee positions.” The document goes on to say that this “prohibition reaches positions across the political, policy, and social spectrum, including, without limitation, diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and officers.” DEI offices must either eliminate or reallocate employees within the university and must similarly reallocate all prior DEI funding towards (actual) student success.
Constituent institutions were given a deadline of September 1, 2024, to fully comply with the new policy. UNC-System schools “shall describe in substance the actions taken to achieve compliance,” including by issuing reports on “reductions in force and spending, along with changes to job titles and position descriptions, undertaken as a result of implementing this policy and how those savings achieved from these actions can be redirected to initiatives related to student success and wellbeing.”
The new policy guidance specifically mentions that “title changes alone are insufficient.” However, this comment appears to have been overlooked by some constituent institutions.
Throughout the past few months, DEI websites and staff listings have been removed by constituent institutions, with some being replaced with offices that go by different names yet are made up of the same former DEI staff members. Some schools have yet to comment on any changes being made, while a few institutions have made public the closing of their DEI offices (specifically, UNC Charlotte, UNC Wilmington, and Appalachian State University). Overall, it doesn’t appear that any employees have been let go.
Some schools have yet to comment on any changes, while a few institutions have made public the closing of their DEI offices.For example, in an email from the provost’s office, NC State University made clear its plan to simply change the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity (OIED) to the “Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity.” After one more name change to ensure “compliance,” the institution has settled on the “Office of Equal Opportunity.” The former vice provost of the OIED, Sheri Schwab, is leading the new office.
Though NCSU’s DEI office name change is quite suspect, efforts from UNC Wilmington, UNC Charlotte, and App State appear to be mostly good-faith efforts to implement the new policy and ensure compliance.
UNC Wilmington shared its own guiding principles for implementing the new policy: “(1) Comply with the policy’s requirements. (2) Support students’ needs for continued success. (3) Take care of our permanent staff to the best of our ability. Reassignment options were evaluated to avoid a reduction in force (RIF) of affected, permanent employees.”
UNC Charlotte closed its DEI offices (there were three) and reallocated those employees within the university. The institution also created a helpful Q&A page that provides answers to common questions. Sadly, the university gives a disappointingly vague answer concerning the reallocation of funds: “Any additional funds related to DEI initiatives have been reallocated to student success.”
Across the system, there have been numerous office renamings and title shifts. Seemingly nothing in the way of expense-reduction or firings has been done—though, hopefully, the forthcoming reports will provide more clarity here. As far as employee salaries are concerned, DEI-specific salaries still make up a hefty sum.
In May, the government-transparency organization Open the Books investigated DEI roles and programs in the UNC System, reporting that
• 288 [people] are employed in DEI-related roles listed on the UNC system’s payroll.
• Another 398 people were found to hold DEI-related roles not shown in the payroll records. Found on university websites, these employees are members of DEI committees, commissions and councils.
• An additional 80 students were appointed to mostly volunteer DEI roles.
• Another 66 employees are listed on the university websites for DEI committees but don’t appear in the university payroll.
Using these data, the Martin Center estimated which employees’ jobs were 100-percent DEI focused. Most UNC-System institutions had a fairly small number of employees whose jobs appeared to fit that description, with most schools having 10 or fewer DEI staff. The exception, unsurprisingly, was UNC-Chapel Hill, with 40 staff whose jobs appeared to be 100-percent dedicated to DEI. Some examples of these roles were the previously required DEI officers, DEI-specific academic advisors, and various administrative staff.
What reformers really want to know is whether the practices of DEI offices are changing.Using DEI percentages and salary information, the Martin Center calculated that, in total (including in the UNC-System office), the system spends upwards of $10.7 million on DEI staff salaries. Thus, there is the potential for over $10.7 million in salaries to be redirected towards “student success and wellbeing,” as the new policy intends.
This doesn’t include funding for DEI trainings, which were previously reported to have cost nearly $2 million over the past four years.
Since most (if not all) institutions appear to be merely rearranging employees, it doesn’t seem as if any spending reductions will be coming from former DEI salaries. The UNC-System salary database (current as of June 30, 2024) shows that, of the 13 schools with chief diversity officers, only two have changed those employees’ titles to remove the DEI specification, and all 17 of those DEI officers are still employed within the universities.
With the report deadline behind us and the anticipation of report discussion at the upcoming Board of Governors meeting, it will be interesting to see what progress has been made toward implementing the new policy throughout the system. What we really want to know is whether the practices of these offices are changing. Unfortunately, at this point in time we don’t have enough information to make a judgment on that. Changing titles and the names of offices appears good at face value, but if the work of these content-specific offices remains unchanged, that would be cause for concern. Only time will tell.
According to WUNC, UNC-System president Peter Hans stated in May that the new policy’s intent is not to cut jobs but to recognize that “every campus has a different structure when it comes to support services, and they’ll need to make any necessary adjustments to comply with this new policy.” Additionally, any savings should be reallocated towards “student success initiatives.”
It is encouraging to know that the UNC System seems to be realizing that diversity, equity, and inclusion often result in more division and discrimination. By implementing this new policy and repealing the previously mandated support of DEI, our public universities are taking great action towards protecting free speech, supporting academic freedom, and allowing students the opportunity to make up their own minds by ensuring institutional neutrality. Hopefully, the ultimate goal of this change in policy will be realized: Students will be given greater academic support rather than being groomed for political narratives—on all sides of the political spectrum.
Ashlynn Warta is the state reporter for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.