I don't think anyone should be against the concept of hiring and treating people fairly that is the goal of DEI. Nor should anyone be upset with the need for understanding the experiences and thoughts of other groups of people. The issue is the real and/or perceived implementation of a formalized DEI program.
One of the basic rules of any organization, especially Government bureaucracies, is th survive and grow in power. It starts with examinations, reviews, and criticism of the current organization. This leads to the need to generate improvement plans and reviews by a growing staff. Success is easier to achieve by finding and punishing a culprit right away to instill fear in other organizations. (Similar to Fr Leonard Collins in the 60s finding and expelling one or two drunken freshmen to frighten the rest of the delinquents). The growing DEI staff is then able to examine all hiring and teaching decisions, and in many cases to overrule a perfectly valid one.
DEI has an added bludgeon for anyone who disagrees with them. Shout the "Racist" or "Sexist" or "homophobic" magic word and arouse the world, trying them without facts. It's augmented by the fact (I believe) that the office is often staffed by zealots who sometimes carry antagonism towards people in the organization that they view as oppressors. (In the corporate world, the DEI head is often a vice-president, who an African American and/or woman, which has the bonus of looking good at the higher-up diversity quota count.
This is not to say that we should work at the DEI issue and treatment of current and possible employees of various demographic groups.
One of the hosts, a student, was interviewing a faculty member. The faculty member was Hispanic and the interviewer possessed "white privilege". Throughout the interview, the student consistently used the term LatinX and the faculty member just as consistently responded with Latino/Latina or Hispanic.
'latinX', pinche juevon."
and if you want to insult people, go ahead and use the term Latinx. Spanish is gender specific, of course, so you are abusing a beautiful language and insulting the people who speak it. The people who use Latinx are the same people who refer to Brazilians as Hispanics. They are dumb, rude, and unemployable which too often means they find jobs in the DEI industry.
Latine. Which is ignored in favor of latinx.
Latinx is for white people who speak english, not latinos.
stuff (meaning they spend money they have, though the money could have been spent on other things). And yes, they use such "rising costs" to raise tuition on those who actually fully pay, which hits savers very hard.
Most colleges and universities cannot afford this but many still do it anyway then beg for money. Even at failing colleges and universities the excessive deference to these activities and DEI offices, etc is ridiculous. And when they go to make cuts, people howl bloody murder. Suddenly that which never existed 5 years ago is the most critical program in the university.
I have a much more vocational vision for postsecondary education than many here on the board, but many of us can agree that this this excess stuff (DEI, NIL and big time sports, protests, gender studies, etc) has gotten out of hand. Most universities can't afford it and budgets and financial failure will finally force a course correction over time. But the wealthiest schools (top 100 tier privates and publics) will continue with the silliness because they can and donors will (at least up to now) underwrite it.
People wonder why tuition costs keep climbing and administrative overhead is one of the big ones (DEI, Title IX, etc.).
Or other federal mandates. And yes, that costs money and "administrative overhead."
What, exactly, are schools supposed to do? Not comply? Whelp, there goes your federal funding. Not every college can be Hillsdale.
bureaucracy.
Throw a dart at the top 100 schools, and I am about 95% sure you'll hit one currently violating Title IX in rather obvious ways (EDIT TO ADD: including ways schools make obvious from reports to the federal government under EADA). The notion that the government might take funding away is almost laughable. I'm not sure it's ever happened, but I am certain it is far from the norm.
To secure Title IX compliance, at least when it comes to athletics, students have to sue their schools. There is basically no other path.
As Title IX coordinator/compliance officer for a large school district, probably 2% of my Title IX time is spent on athletics. And, the way the regs are written/enforced, and the goal posts continually moving, everyone under Title IX is probably in violation in some way, shape, or form. But we have to at least try to comply. Giving the government the middle finger, as tempting as that is, would not go over very well.
It would seem so. I'd be shocked if any university's Title IX office spent only 2% of its time on athletics. It makes a lot more sense in public high schools.
Either way, my post wasn't meant to cover high schools. My bad for being imprecise. At the college level, though, basically everyone is already giving the federal government the middle finger and daring anyone to do anything about it.
I didn't realize how much fell under Title IX until I started working in higher education (first at Notre Dame, now at Duke).
The fact that sexual misconduct--something that, sadly, is all too common on college campuses--falls under Title IX means that compliance officers, by definition, will spend more time on that than athletics.
I wasn't objecting to "more time" on sexual assault vs. athletics. I was pushing back on a 98-2 split at the college level - particularly at the top 100 colleges.
And, for the record, I don't think you're super informed on whether I'm super informed. C'est la vie.
The law is essentially the same, the regs differ somewhat. But there's way, way more work that goes into creepy fuckers making girls/women uncomfortable in their educational environment than anything with athletics. But athletics is what the general public sees and the media reports on. Not the Office of Civil Rights coming in to do a broad-based investigation as to why there aren't more women in the STEM programs at a community college (which they conveniently classed as computer science/welding/automotive, ignoring the fact that my biology and chemistry classes were 90% females going into health professions). Questions like "are you going to admit more women to the identified STEM programs?" "Ma'am, we are open enrollment, anyone can be admitted as long as they have a minimum of a GED." "Are you going to recruit more women?" "Why, so my campus as a whole is 90% women instead of the 75% it currently is?" That's 3 months of my life I'll never get back. And their findings? Inconclusive.
Title IX is great on intent and theory, and generally lousy in practice.
I wouldn't have objected to there being "more" or even "way, way more" about sexual assault than about athletics. A 98-2 split is what struck me as unlikely to hold at the college level.
or separate department at the bigger schools, and equity may (or may not) fall under their purview. The schools I have been at where Title IX fell under me were not big D1 institutions. So, while athletics played a part, it was a much smaller part (and I assume you mean the "how much coaches get paid, how many opportunities, etc" part of athletics and not the "three football players allegedly assaulted a female" part.)
Fun fact -when I was a college athlete at a tiny D3 college, we got $5 a meal for meal money on away games, while the male athletes got $7. There were also lots of disparities with facilities, transportation, coaching salaries, etc. A couple of the female coaches filed a complaint with the department of education, and there was a 3-year investigation. Yeah, there was a finding on that investigation, because it was blatant. But that was 1992.
Dedicated to athletics or who spend most of their time on it. And you are right that several - especially big schools (the ones you'd expect to be ranked in football or basketball at some point over a, say, three-year window) - have entire staffs devoted to Title IX athletics compliance.
You're right that I meant the participation, treatment, and athletic financial aid part of Title IX, not the sexual assault part.
What you experienced is unfortunately still going on, today, at universities - big and small - all across the country. The per diems are one of the simpler examples. But I know of women's teams that have student-athletes drive buses for seven hours to away competitions, some without their coaches, while men's teams charter buses and flights. Men's teams often have nice hotel accommodations, sleeping maybe two to a room in four-star hotels. Most big-time football programs (including Notre Dame) have the team stay in a hotel like that the night before home games. And then no women's team stays at a hotel at all for a home game, some sleep four to a room in dumpy hotels for away games, and some are forced to stay at families' houses near competitions.
Examples abound. And I'd argue they are still blatant. I can't speak to sexual assault issues and how blatant or not they are at the college level. But discrimination in athletics is absolutely the norm.
You'll have to walk me through that one.
I represent a dermatologist who saw a patient with active acne. She advised topical meds, and to come back for follow up. Apparently the patient, who everyone knew and was documented in my doctor’s note to be HIV positive, then told the staff at the place where my doctor worked part time that she wanted microneedling.
Now, my doctor does not do microneedling. Microneedling is contraindicated with active acne. And my doctor treats a number of HIV positive patients. Nonetheless, for THREE YEARS we have been dealing with the U.S. Department of Justice and their attorneys who are demanding “settlement” of a supposed Americans with Disabilities Act claim based upon this nonsense or they’ll file suit in Federal Court and seek six figures in fines and other damages. To settle they are demanding an admission of fault, and at least 10s of thousands of dollars in damages to be paid to the “victim.”
This is our U.S. Department of Justice at work. Threatening an honest doctor who cooperated, provided records, and explained everything, to protect someone’s right to zit treatment (someone I believe to be totally full of shit).
It’s a total “she said, she said” case at best, and frankly the records show nothing was done wrong. Yet, my doctor’s time and money, and our tax dollars, are being wasted by these useless clowns who return emails only when they feel like it (several months would go by without any response, and then they’d demand an immediate response when they were ready to get off their asses again). They do not discuss or negotiate in good faith. But hey, we wouldn’t want the DOJ to kick in on the out of control crime wave in Chicago. That’s just the underprivileged taking back what was stolen from them. Instead, they are trying to crack down on that denial of zit treatment crime wave.
sucks. For most people/businesses you are at such a disadvantage in terms of time and money and they know it. They don't have to be right - it is depressing.
I cheer every time a company wins a regulatory-related case vs the government. For every one someone wins, you don't hear about the 25 where you were forced to quietly capitulate and settle even when your convinced you were right.
taking their sweet time returning emails and then demanding immediate response, only to be followed by calling them, getting the hold music for 3 hours, and then getting hung up on.
Your client wouldn't administer a contraindicated treatment that she doesn't perform for anyone?
What a crock.
Other schools use different names but almost all of them have those types of things. It’s not like they replace the actual commencement, they are just supplemental gatherings that take place during commencement week. Notre Dame has them, too. Usually anyone can attend if they want to.
The stuff you found on Notre Dame’s website sounds a lot like Title IX compliance (reporting channels, training, etc.). Not saying that’s good or bad but nothing out of line with almost any other university.
You absolutely should email Erin Oliver and ask her about the office’s mission. I bet you’d get a thoughtful response.
I’m sure she’s very nice, but I am also sure she would defend her sinecure. And let’s be frank—that’s what it is. If the Office of Institutional Equity disappeared tonight, not a soul would know the difference except those who could sleep in tomorrow morning.
I have only a few questions: (1) How much does all this cost?; (2) what is the program’s ROI, i.e., how does it advance the University’s academic mission?; and, (3)above all, why is any of the DEI stuff necessary at a university whose student life and academics are cloaked in Catholic [Christian] theology, concepts of social justice, and classical western philosophy, all of which promote human dignity, the sanctity of life, etc.?
If experience and common sense teach us that compelling people to dwell on that which divides them only serves to intensify divisions, why do we do it? We know with perfect certainty that organizations that treat all individuals with equal respect regardless of the groups to which they belong will have a greater likelihood of “filling their ranks with intelligent and imaginative people who bring to their tasks a diversity of habits of heart and mind, perspectives, and expertise” (Peter Berkowitz).
single student who receives federal student aid, every faculty who gets federal grant money... failure to comply with Title IX, Title VII, the ADA, etc, means no more federal funds. So yeah.
that without a large bureaucratic organization dedicated to DEI, the remainder of the campus would begin violating student and staff rights to equal opportunity?
…federal law. One doesn’t have to believe that the absence of the bureaucracy would result in widespread non-compliance by students, faculty, and staff. The total elimination of the bureaucracy would itself be non-compliant.
But BI wasn't proposing to eliminate all federal compliance FTE.
…the elimination of the Office of Institutional Equity and the non-impact such an elimination would supposedly have. jddomer then correctly noted that the elimination would affect anyone receiving federal aid because the Office of Institutional Equity is where at least some of the positions mandated by federal law are housed. You then incorrectly suggested that she was insinuating that there would be widespread flouting of federal law by students and faculty in the absence of the bureaucracy, when in fact she did no such thing.
Respect and dignity.
Which I think is quite plain to see.
I see problems with this, like all beauracracies, acts to justify its own existence over time. And acts not as an arbiter but as an advocate as well as an arbiter.
...is being lumped under the heading of DEI. Some good (recruitment of first-generation, low-income, and minority students, recruitment of veterans, etc.). Some potentially bad but mandated by federal and state law (compliance with evertying from Title IX to the Americans with Disabilities Act to the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Act of 1974). Some ugly (race-based struggle sessions).
Rather than blanket assertions about the utility/uselessness of bodies such as the Office of Institutional Equity, I think the discussion requires a more activity-by-activity look at what is going on under this broad umbrella.
Color me confused. Same for compliance with the ADA.
Maybe I'm just misreading you. But I think Title IX and the ADA, on balance, are quite good things. Maybe they are sometimes subject to abuse, as literally anything and everything is. But the argument that Title IX is a net negative for colleges or for American society strikes me as surprising.
...are some serious problems with elements of how universities are required (or in some cases, choose) to implement Title IX. Not a knock on it as a whole. My language was intended to acknowledge that oversight of things like Title IX compliance isn't a uniformly positive thing. Some good, some bad. Much like "DEI" more broadly.
Nor the ROI, or how it would be calculated.
To hazard a guess as to a response to 3), it would probably be an affirmative case that diversity, equity, and inclusion are consistent with Catholic values. I suspect they’d say that DEI (at least, as conducted at Notre Dame) is rooted in, and furthers, the inherent dignity of all people. DEI is consistent, with, not at odds with, Catholic teaching. I don’t think they would agree with the premise of your last paragraph. They would probably say that DEI acknowledges differences, yes, but that such differences can enlightened and benefit society as a whole.
This makes it a million and one.
First, I really hate the “Crickets” thing. Take it FWIW, but no one owes another poster the next response, unless they specifically demanded that the first poster respond, and then when they got a response they couldn’t handle they cut and run. Or the dreaded drive by posters. This was neither.
Second, Kormal and I have pretty different life experiences and political views, including on this topic, but he has never been a cut and run poster. He responded very respectfully to BI, and BI’s response back did not necessarily demand a further response. Certainly kormal wasn’t calling BI out and then running.
I really wasn’t implying anything about anyone’s posting habits, and I didn’t mean any offense. I suppose I was trying to compliment BI’s post as so good that it may end discussion on the topic. I should’ve been clearer.
While I normally sit by my Back Room red phone waiting for it to ring, tonight I was taking an especially uncomfortable and messy shit.
I wasn’t referring to anyone in particular. I just thought BI’s response might result in crickets. Sorry to offend and thanks for sharing.
By "sinned," I mean "I exist."
Forgive me for existing.
Original sin and all.