What’s DEI Actually Mean? It’s Become Gauche To Ask.

Over the years, I’ve written many times about the groupthink that plagues education and education reform. It’s bizarre, given that intellectual curiosity and independence of thought are foundational to democratic education, but it’s also a reality I’ve encountered time and again.

I’ve been especially struck over the past year or two by how utterly the push for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)—an effort theoretically framed by the acceptance of difference—has calcified into a brick of groupthink.

While the concerns about DEI running amok tend to focus on the actions and agendas of some of the more extreme proponents, I’m also struck by just how reflexive and incurious some of this fealty to DEI can be.

I had a call the other day with a university leader who wanted me to serve on the college’s advisory board. After we got on Zoom, she told me a bit about the institution and then promptly started telling me about their commitment to DEI and social justice.

I assume this is usually met with a nod. But, as readers know, I have concerns about what gets done in the name of these pleasant banalities. I said as much, and asked her what these terms mean in practice.

She looked at me bemusedly and pretty much repeated what she’d said, perhaps a bit slower and louder. I think she’d concluded that I wasn’t the sharpest blade in the shed. She repeated, “We have a core commitment to diversity, equity, and…” Well, you get the idea.

I said, “I hear that. But what do these things mean? Because my experience is that these words have frequently been weaponized in ways that stifle important lines of argument and undermine serious discourse.”

She regarded me fairly surprised, like I was clearly a nut for raising such issues—even though concerns like mine have swirled for several years now. She told me, once again, even more slowly and a bit more loudly still, that the institution was commitment to diversity, equity, and… You know.

I said, “Look, I’ve read Kendi’s argument that those who question his claims are necessarily racist. I’ve read Bettina Love’s assertion that white educators need to be reprogrammed. I’ve read the American Educational Research Association’s declaration that researchers need to set aside any doubts and embrace the assertions of ‘systemic racism.’ I find all of this hugely troubling in an academic environment. So, I’m asking: Is this what you mean by diversity and equity?”

She said, “You’re asking about a lot of particulars. I can’t really speak specifically to the ins and outs of curriculum and instruction. You’d need to talk with the division heads about all that.”

I said, “But you’re trying to recruit me by proudly sharing your fundamental commitment to a sweeping vision of change. Yet when I ask what that vision actually means, and whether it is conducive to free thought or intellectual inquiry, you’re telling me that you’re not sure?”

She said, “What I’m telling you is that we take diversity, equity, and inclusion and social, economic, and environmental justice to be core principles in our work. And the specifics of what that means for curriculum or practice are worked out in the programs.”

Needless to say, I didn’t agree to serve on the board.

But the whole exchange was one more reminder of how many people sign onto these grand crusades with remarkably little interest in the particulars. In a very different context, it reminded me of talking to advocates or school leaders about the Common Core a decade ago. They would lecture on how necessary and valuable the Common Core was, but were pretty hazy on just what the research did or didn’t say about the effort, what the dozen “instructional shifts” would mean, or how all this would work in practice.

I thought it was a problem with the Common Core. Or teacher evaluation. Or any of the dozens of other education buzzwords that people embrace, often without overmuch attention to the fine print. That said, I think this problem is much, much worse when it comes to DEI, as I fear that bad-faith actors and agenda-fueled ideologues are exploiting this disinterest in details to promote toxic doctrines and destructive practices in the name of high ideals.

Yet, I’ve often found that these reform tides are a hard thing to push back against, or even to question. They hit education with great force, and it can be much easier to just get swept along. Funders get the fever, and they’re less interested in inconvenient details than in being “change agents.” Given that they’re the ones writing the checks to fund the pilot programs, advocacy, and evaluation, there’s an understandable temptation to give them what they want. Associations have shown themselves eager to reward and recognize leaders who surf the wave most ardently, so there’s also a professional incentive to go with it. This is obviously all aggravated when the federal government urges everyone to get with the program. And there’s something about the culture of schools and colleges, especially in a social media age, which makes it pretty painful for individual skeptics to speak up.

The result is that well-meaning movements can wind up enabling toxic fads, even if that’s not the intent. I don’t think this university leader had particularly strong thoughts on DEI. I think she’d just determined that it’s something that “good people” support, and that asking too many questions about it—much less expressing reservations or doubts—was something that would seem gauche, even déclassé, around campus.

That’s a problem.