On May 23, the UNC System Board of Governors voted to repeal the System’s "Policy on Diversity and Inclusion Within the University," which had established UNC-CH’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies. This was replaced with a policy called "Equality Within the University of North Carolina," which aims to “reaffirm the University’s commitment to nondiscrimination, equality of opportunity, institutional neutrality, academic freedom and student success.” The new policy’s concern with neutrality presents a surface-level commitment to these ideals however, professed neutrality can sometimes mean implicitly siding with institutional structures that perpetuate a harmful status quo.
DEI policies are becoming the subject of increasing controversy, especially in the context of higher education. Many of the arguments against them rest upon the veneration of impartiality, with detractors alleging left-wing political indoctrination, bias in admissions processes and suppression of free speech. Opponents of DEI increasingly advocate for neutrality in all approaches to university administration.
Recent guidance from the UNC System regarding the implementation of this equality policy emphasizes the System’s newfound commitment to maintaining “institutional neutrality,” which it defines as the university serving as a “forum in which others may fully debate but will not itself be a participant in that debate.” The policy directs university administration “to abstain from the political and social fray,” prohibiting faculty or administration from “endorsing a position or opining on a matter of contemporary political debate or social action.” The System argues that this policy of principled neutrality is essential to cultivating an environment of free speech and civil discourse.
Amid a rise in conversation surrounding campus protests, academic curriculum and other free speech issues, this policy reveals administrative reluctance to engage decisively with controversial issues out of fear that they would alienate a portion of their constituents.
A commitment to cultivating an environment in which discourse is encouraged is essential to ensuring not only the academic success of students but to fostering a life-long desire to engage with and solve divisive issues. Freedom of speech is crucial to creating a space in which all members feel welcome to share their voices, however, this freedom hasn’t always been available to everyone.
Women were prohibited from enrolling at UNC for nearly a century after its founding, with white women gaining the ability to enroll in summer classes in 1877. In 1951, nearly two centuries after its creation, African Americans were allowed admission into UNC. Yet, even as these historic victories were achieved, minority groups remain underrepresented at UNC due to America’s legacy of systemic discrimination.
This systemic discrimination is reflected in the demographics of UNC to this day. In a recent editorial, The DTH reported that Black students comprise 8.3 percent of UNC’s undergraduates, despite making up 12.4 percent of North Carolina’s population, and a similar disparity holds for other minorities in the state. The newly admitted class of 2028 has reported fewer Black and Hispanic students admitted following the reversal of affirmative action by the Supreme Court.
Institutional neutrality in the context of a university that has been influenced by centuries of racial, gender and cultural biases ignores the existence of systemic barriers to entry that have limited the access of higher education to marginalized residents of North Carolina since its inception. While not a comprehensive solution, DEI policies seek to rectify the historical exclusions of underserved communities by increasing the accessibility of higher education for all North Carolina residents.
We should aspire to one day be able to eliminate the need for DEI policies, but it’s clear that the influence of historical barriers to entry for minority groups persists. If North Carolina universities truly want to cultivate environments where all perspectives can be openly engaged with and civil discourse can take place, initiatives to include the voices of marginalized communities must exist. Gutting DEI in favor of “abstaining from the political fray” only serves to perpetuate these systems by disproportionately excluding minority voices from the environment of civil discourse that the University seeks to create.
