We don’t know nothin' about no diversity. LSU rebrands its DEI agenda.

As reported by Robert Mann on Something Like the Truth, his blog site, Louisiana State University recently rebranded its DEI agenda. For those of you living under a rock, DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. 

Last Friday, LSU President Bill Tate alerted the staff and faculty that its Division of Inclusion, Civil Rights, and Title IX has a new name: the Division of Engagement, Civil Rights, and Title IX.

Why the name change? LSU obviously took this action to counter mounting opposition to the university's DEI agenda in the state legislature. The university hopes to stave off criticism of its diversity program by simply changing the name.

LSU president Bill Tate explained the action differently in an email message. Unfortunately, me no speakie gobbledygook, so I am unable to translate it for you. I’ll quote part of the message; you can translate it yourself.

Engagement is defined in several ways. We use two forms of the definition. For us, it represents a two-way process that enables change on both sides. To fully deliver on the promise our flagship offers, we must engage with each other to exchange views and experiences and share potential solutions to our most pressing challenges. Second, engagement reflects a serious commitment. We must commit to find[ing] ways to translate our discoveries and talent to serve and elevate the state and its people.

What the hell does that mean?

I draw these conclusions from LSU's diversity-and-inclusion shuffle:

First, LSU is not revising its DEI agenda; the fact that it has switched from using the word inclusion to engagement does not alter the university's obsession with race and gender.

Second, President Tate's word-salad justification for the change was probably written by the university's attorneys, which tells us that the lawyers are now running the university – not the academics.

Finally, LSU‘s rebranding of DEI shows that its leaders are cowards. If they’re fully committed to DEI, why change its name? 

As I just said, I think the change was motivated by the fear that the conservative state legislature and Louisiana’s new governor will clamp down on LSU and perhaps cut its funding to punish it for its flirtation with DEI--higher education's current obsession.

LSU wants to pursue its DEI agenda without alienating its funding source. As Robert Mann observed, the move was dumb and ham-handed.

In addition, the change is a transparent act of obsequious cowardice and a sure sign that LSU has lost its way.

We don't know nothin' about no diversity.

You got some 'splaining to do: Alleghany College cuts its minor in Chinese and lays off a tenured Asian professor

 Allegheny College, an old and respected school in western Pennsylvania, closed its Chinese program (an academic minor) and laid off the program's only tenured professor, who is Asian.

Apparently, Allegheny didn't explain its decision very well, and now the college is coming under fire. Xiaoling Shi, the laid-off professor, is concerned the college's decision "was motivated by racial animus," possibly because she has been outspoken about anti-Asian hate.  She filed a complaint against Allegheny with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I am skeptical of any suggestion that Allegheny's leadership harbors racial prejudice. America's colleges and universities are the wokest places on the planet. Higher education in the U.S. is obsessed with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and most have DEI officers at the highest administrative levels.

Indeed, Allegheny's website includes this solemn affirmation:

Allegheny students and employees are committed to creating an inclusive, respectful and safe residential learning community that will actively confront and challenge racism, sexism, heterosexism, religious bigotry, and other forms of harassment and discrimination. 

In my opinion, Allegheny's pledge is sincere. Nevertheless, the college must defend against Professor Shi's EEOC complaint, which will cost it money. And Shi's actions may well discourage Allegheny from streamlining its programs.

According to an Inside Higher Ed article, Allegheny College only had 12 students in the Chinese program. Still, Professor Shi pointed out that her program had more students than 21 other minors, including five minors in ethnic studies.

The Inside Higher Ed piece reported that Allegheny would like to eliminate 29 faculty positions to reduce costs and invest in programs that are likely to attract more students.

But Shi's EEOC complaint may prompt the college to rethink its academic plans and stick with the status quo. If so, that would be unfortunate because Allegheny College and hundreds of other American colleges need to get their costs down and focus on academic programs that will help their graduates get jobs that will allow them to pay off their student loans.

By the way, what does it cost to attend Allegheny College? More than $60,000 a year (including room and board).

In interest of "diversity," colleges drop SAT/ACT scores for student applicants. But are the colleges sincere?

More than 1,000 colleges have dropped the ACT or SAT test as an admission requirement. According to a Washington Post story, more than half of the top 100 liberal arts colleges (as selected by U.S. News and World Report) have dropped standardize tests as part of their admission process.

The colleges will tell you they are ditching ACT and SAT tests because the tests discriminate against racial minorities and the socio-economically disadvantaged (poor people). But I think this explanation is mere blather.  The colleges are dropping standardized tests in the admissions processes for two reasons that they dare not articulate.

First, most of the elite colleges are engaging in race discrimination in making their admissions decisions.  Harvard, for example, has been accused of discriminating against Asian applicants based on an analysis of enrollment criteria. Asians lost their discrimination claim against Harvard, but they are appealing in a case that is likely going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is much harder for disappointed college applicants to claim they were discriminated against based on race when the objective criteria of SAT and ACT scores are jettisoned. College admission officers will argue that standardized test scores interfere with the goal of achieving diversity, which is just a disingenuous way of saying their admissions decisions are subjective and often based on race.

Regarding the less selective schools, many are ditching the ACT and SAT exams because they are so desperate for students that they've lowered their admission standards and don't want anyone to know it.  By tossing out standardized test scores, it becomes harder to document the fact that many colleges will now admit anyone who has a pulse and some student-loan money. In fact, the pulse may be optional.

A great many of the 1,000 colleges and universities that have gone test-optional for student applicants are obscure institutions that are probably struggling to keep their enrollments up. For example,  Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana. only has about 1,000 students and is facing several financial problems. The Chair of the Earlham Board of Trustees released a letter to the campus  community in 2018, which acknowledged that the college had been "running substantial operating deficits" since 2008 and that its present level of cash flow was not sustainable.

I don't have inside information about enrollment challenges at the 1,000 colleges and universities that scrapped the ACT and SAT,  but I feel sure that many of them are scrambling to survive and that the chief motivation for most of them is to juice their enrollments and not to enhance "diversity."

Photo credit: Kayana Szymczak, New York Times