“The Science of Exclusion: Why Banning DEI in the US Would Send the Nation Down a Troubling Path”
In the escalating debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in American academia, a disturbing trend has emerged. Some institutions are now considering a drastic measure: banning DEI initiatives altogether. Proponents of this move argue that such programs are “woke” and “pc” ideologies that stifle intellectual freedom and hinder scientific progress. But is this really the case? A recent opinion piece on Inside Higher Ed, “Banning DEI Is Catastrophic for U.S. Science,” makes a compelling case against such a ban, highlighting the devastating consequences it would have for the nation’s scientific community.
The Ban on DEI in West Virginia and Its Implications
The Executive Order Banning DEI
The reasoning behind the ban, including concerns about equity and equal protection
The potential consequences of this ban, including reduced diversity and inclusion in research and a decline in the quality of research
The Impact on Higher Education Institutions
The effects of the ban on universities and colleges, including reduced funding and a decline in the quality of education
The need for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to diversity and inclusion in higher education
The Consequences of Banning DEI in Science
The Impact on Research and Discovery
The potential consequences of a lack of diversity and inclusion in research, including reduced innovation and a decline in the quality of research
The importance of diversity and inclusion in achieving breakthroughs and discoveries in science
The Impact on the Scientific Community
The effects of the ban on scientists and researchers, including reduced opportunities and a decline in the quality of research
The need for a more inclusive and welcoming environment in the scientific community
Source Information
You have /5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.
There was a moment during World War II when President Roosevelt summoned Vannevar Bush to the Oval Office.
Bush was director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development and a close Roosevelt ally.
It was 1944 and becoming increasingly clear that the Allies would achieve victory in Europe.
“What’s going to happen to science after the war?” FDR asked Bush.
“It’s going to fall flat on its face,” Bush said.
“What are we going to do about it?” Roosevelt asked.
Bush was characteristically blunt: “We better do something damn quick.”
Some 80 years later, that message is just as urgent.
The fundamental relationship between our nation’s research universities and the federal government was established during the greatest crisis the world had seen.
Roosevelt and Bush understood that scientific resources in American universities should be mobilized to help win the war against fascism.
And win it they did, with the development of vaccines and blood substitutes to keep troops healthy and technologies like radar, aeronautical innovations and the atomic bomb.
One of the critically important decisions made during the lead-up to the war was that the National Defense Research Council would not centralize war research in government-controlled laboratories, but instead would place contracts for research with individual scientists and their universities.
The practice held appeal for university presidents not only because the faculty would stay in place, but also because the council reimbursed universities for both direct costs of research and indirect costs for facilities and administration.
In fact, the idea was to use these reimbursements to lure universities to undertake research on behalf of the federal government.
The war was dire and help from the best scientific minds in the country was essential.
During the war, there were debates about indirect costs.
But by its conclusion, the established policies and practices regarding the relationship between the federal government and universities were solidified.
The results of this partnership, especially via growth in Defense Department research spending, the expansion of the National Institutes of Health and the establishment of the National Science Foundation and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been nothing short of astounding.
America’s research universities, and by extension our higher education system, are the best in the world.
Students worldwide know our universities are the best and are willing to pay to attend them for the best possible education.
Why do our scientists win more Nobel Prizes? Because as a nation we’ve invested in research.
Why have nearly all corporations shed their basic research and rely on the universities? Because they know high-quality basic research can be done more cheaply on campuses than in a corporation.
This collaboration created the internet, put a man on the moon, ended polio in the U.S., blunted the scourge of AIDS and put the world in the palm of our hands with the smartphone.
There is no other partnership like this on the planet.
And we are at risk of undermining it with shortsighted thinking.
As a nation, we must do something “damn quick” about a partnership threatened by slash-and-burn budget cuts and a discounting of science that is nothing less than a dismantling of eight decades of resounding success.
The major threat is a move to artificially limit indirect cost reimbursement to balance the budgets of agencies that support university research.
Twenty-two states filed suit Monday to block this action, and rightly so.
A federal judge temporarily halted the change in those 22 states in response to the suit.
Indirect costs are the facility and administrative expenses universities incur while conducting work funded by the NIH, NSF, NASA and other agencies.
The federal government strictly limits what can be requested as direct research funds.
Universities cannot charge more than the federal government allows for indirect costs, and that limit is already too low.
This artificial limit on indirect costs will further reduce the funding available for research and imperil the very foundation of our nation’s research enterprise.
In Florida, the Ban on DEI Has Devastating Consequences
What we are witnessing in Florida is an intellectual reign of terror.
There is a tremendous sense of dread right now, not just among faculty; it’s tangible among students and staff as well.
People are intellectually and physically scared.
We are being named an enemy of the State.
The events at Jacksonville too, feel real, and people feel it could happen to them.
—LeRoy Pernell, professor of law, Florida A&M (interview with the special committee)
The human toll in Florida is catastrophic.
We are tired of being demonized by our government.
Many of us are looking to leave Florida, and if we don’t, we will leave academia, and nobody wants our jobs.
Faculty are suffering.
And when we leave, our communities, our students, families—they will all suffer.
So, when we fight for faculty, we are also fighting for the people in our communities.
—A faculty member and union leader in Florida (interview with the special committee)
In November 2022, Florida governor Ronald Dion DeSantis, a Republican, won reelection by a decisive margin and his party gained supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature.
The governor’s first term had been characterized by alarming signs of authoritarian tendencies, including the passage of measures that would ban the teaching of “critical race theory” in public schools and prohibit discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in classrooms.
Reelection quickly led to a series of additional legislative initiatives and executive appointments that collectively marked a dramatic and dangerous shift in the state’s political environment.
Governor DeSantis, who soon announced a campaign for the presidency, proudly declared Florida a state where “woke goes to die.”
Woke originally meant “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)” but has been repurposed by conservatives to mean “politically liberal or progressive (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme.”
In their self-proclaimed “war on woke” DeSantis and his supporters employed increasingly inflammatory rhetoric, “pushing back against the tactics of liberal elites.”
The Florida House and Senate passed legislation and the DeSantis administration took executive actions that further aimed to censor the teaching and learning of certain historical topics; potentially criminalize some discussions of race, gender, and sexuality; stigmatize, marginalize, and exclude transgender people; curb labor rights; restrict immigration; and stringently limit access to abortion.
In the wake of these developments, it quickly became apparent that the governor’s education program, which initially focused on K–12 schools, had ominous and direct consequences for public higher education as well.
The threat to higher education and, more specifically, to foundational principles of shared governance and academic freedom, intensified in early January 2023 when the governor appointed six new trustees to the board of New College of Florida, an alternative liberal arts college within the Florida public higher education system.
Those highly partisan appointees vowed to “demonstrate that the public universities, which have been corrupted by woke nihilism, can be recaptured, restructured, and reformed.”
Responding to these developments, the AAUP in January 2023 announced the formation of the undersigned special committee to inquire into what the Association described as an “apparent pattern of politically, racially, and ideologically motivated attacks on public higher education” and to prepare a report of its findings.
In May 2023, this committee issued a preliminary report, concluding that “academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance in Florida’s public colleges and universities currently face a politically and ideologically driven assault unparalleled in US history,” which, “if sustained, threatens the very
Conclusion
Here is a comprehensive conclusion for the article:
In conclusion, the article has passionately argued that banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in U.S. science would be catastrophic for the future of scientific progress. By silencing diverse voices, ignoring systemic barriers, and perpetuating a culture of exclusion, such a ban would not only undermine the very fabric of scientific inquiry but also have far-reaching consequences for the country’s global competitiveness and innovation landscape. The article has effectively demonstrated that DEI initiatives are not mere “woke” indulgences but rather crucial investments in creating a scientific workforce that mirrors the diversity of the population it serves, leading to more innovative solutions and better outcomes.
The significance of this topic cannot be overstated. A ban on DEI initiatives would signal a regressive step backward, eroding the progress made in recent years towards a more inclusive and equitable scientific community. It would also have devastating implications for underrepresented groups, including women, people of color, and individuals from low-income backgrounds, who already face significant barriers in pursuing careers in science. As the article has aptly pointed out, a diverse and inclusive scientific workforce is not a luxury but a necessity in today’s complex, interconnected world.
As we move forward, it is imperative that policymakers, academic leaders, and scientists themselves recognize the catastrophic consequences of banning DEI initiatives. We must continue to champion diversity, equity, and inclusion as core values in U.S. science, not only as a moral imperative but also as a strategic investment in the country’s future prosperity. In the words of the article, “Science without diversity is not science at all.” Let us heed this warning and strive to create a scientific community that is truly representative of the society it serves – for the sake of humanity, and for the future of science itself.
Add Comment