The most pervasive logical fallacy surrounding distaste toward Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs is the misguided concept of a “zero-sum solution,” where gains for one group must be obtained only at the loss of another. Contrary to this belief, DEI initiatives are not designed to remove opportunities from qualified individuals. Rather, they are designed to ensure that no individual is overlooked because of circumstances that they cannot control. These programs are accomplished, and benefit even those who might not be aware of it.
A better representation of DEI would be the maxim that a rising tide lifts all boats. Making something more accessible for certain marginalized groups benefits everyone, not just that group. It is vital that wheelchair users have access to functioning elevators, but it also helps prevent non-wheelchair users from getting stuck in a broken down elevator for hours or unexpectedly having to walk down 10 flights of stairs.
Men, for instance, actually benefit from diversity initiatives and affirmative action in regard to college degrees. Recent studies have shown standards for admission to most institutions of higher education have skewed in favor of men, not women. Accepted class demographics from institutions including Brown, Vanderbilt and William & Mary all show a preferred interest in incoming male applicants, with differences in acceptance rates ranging between 3 and 9 percent. It’s difficult to believe, however, that the Board of Governors has slashed DEI initiatives with the intention to advocate for female students across North Carolina.
When people think about cutting DEI, the first images that likely come to mind is decreasing diversity among race, gender and sexuality. The importance of DEI does not just lie in the importance of these groups; it lies in the uplifting of people with less opportunities everywhere. This includes people from low-income communities, disabilities and so on. One of these less recognized groups: rural Americans. 40 percent North Carolinians live in rural areas, and are negatively impacted by the removal of DEI when they apply to college. People in rural areas are afforded less educational opportunities and will have a more difficult time being accepted and financially affording college. Previously, DEI programs supported these groups, helping rural North Carolinians attain higher education.
The BOG would have us believe that DEI initiatives elevate minorities without taking into account merit and, furthermore, do so at the expense of the rest of us. This is a divisive falsehood that preys on our most crude definitions of identity. When our environments lack diversity of race, gender, class, nationality, thought and more, we all lose. Regardless of your identity, your own views and attitudes are broadened by a higher level of intersectional interaction. There is not much more meritable than affording students opportunities in proportion to their obvious persistence and bravery in overcoming inequality and hardship. Are we only to enroll students who have already had every privilege, every opportunity, every entitlement? If so, we are no longer a university of the state — we would be a university of oligarchy. Why is it so easy for us to believe that efforts of inclusion must be at odds with meritocracy?
The path taken by a student living below the poverty line does not resemble the one taken by a student from Appalachia, which does not resemble the path taken by a student with disabilities, or an Indigenous student or even a student from out of state. To gut our University’s ability to include each and every one of these groups is not an action representative of our academic values in Chapel Hill or North Carolina.
Marty Kotis, a member of UNC's Board of Trustees, said that DEI in a lot of people’s minds stands for “divisiveness, exclusion and indoctrination.” Critics of DEI have spun the organizational framework as intruding on our student body’s “unity and togetherness.” They capitalize on this idea that in some strange, indirect way, it is dividing us and its disappearance will breach a new equality for students. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. DEI is what makes this University a learning institution for the 21st century. Going back risks the University’s efficacy, standing and, most of all, its student body. The dismantling of these programs is a dismantling of an authentically public institution prided on higher education for everyone. DEI initiatives have been bashed and beaten, hurting everyone — including those who aren't traditionally targeted and impacted by these programs.
