A magazine cover from the McCarthy era (Source: Sarah Lawrence archives)
Since the takeover of the new administration in the US, on January 20th, many institutions, including businesses, government offices, and universities have removed DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and ESG (environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and corporate governance), from their websites, mission statements, and declared objectives. This blog is focused on DEI in universities; next week’s blog will be focused on ESG in businesses. Both will have a major impact on our collective future.
Last week’s blog argued that using growth as the only indicator of success and failure is problematic on many levels. The government should be focused on trying to create a better future for all it governs. The emphasis in last week’s blog was on growth and DEI in the current global environment where the demographic makeup in many countries is shifting. It was proposed that growth/capita might be a better indicator than GDP.
DEI, which is now the target of hostility and division, is more complex—whether in a business, government, or university setting. Many pursue it and fight for it because it is the right thing to do. Others say that such a pursuit is detrimental to the basic mission of any institution: curbing future growth for businesses, limiting students’ preparation for a successful postgraduate future, and hampering individual and collective safety.
Meanwhile, President Trump wants to dismantle the federal Department of Education:
The Trump administration has begun drafting an executive order that would kick off the process of eliminating the Department of Education, the latest move by President Donald Trump to swiftly carry out his campaign promises, two sources familiar with the plans told CNN.
The move would come in two parts, the sources said. The order would direct the secretary of Education to create a plan to diminish the department through executive action.
Trump would also push for Congress to pass legislation to end the department, as those working on the order acknowledge that shuttering the department would require Congress’ involvement.
This would be a milestone in abolishing the federal nature of the US. However, on this issue, the Constitution will probably not act as a savior:
Defining a Federal Right to Education
Much ink and many hours of court cases have been dedicated to defining, clarifying, and debating the particulars of current Constitutional guarantees, such as the rights to speak freely, bear arms, receiving due process, etc. However, even among legal experts, there’s no singular definition for the idea of a “federal right to education.” To summarize some of the past court cases and movements advocating for it, we might define a federal right to education as:
The right of all American children to a high-quality, equal education regardless of race, income, location, etc., guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
As of 2021, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments do not specifically mention education, which is why (per the Tenth Amendment) the states are in charge of providing and regulating schooling. A federal right to education could be added to the Constitution via ratifying a new amendment. However, most attempts at enshrining this right have come through the court system.
The most notable court case regarding a federal right to education came about in 1973, when a suit out of Texas made its way to the Supreme Court. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez(Open Link in new tab), parents from the low-income, predominately Hispanic Edgewood district argued that it was discriminatory for their schools to receive only $37 per pupil while the wealthier Alamo Heights neighborhood received $413 per student. A three-judge panel in Texas agreed with the parents and went a step further by calling education a fundamental right, citing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, when the State of Texas appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices delivered a 5–4 decision overturning the Texas judges’ words. The majority opinion asserted that Texas had not violated its constitution and that education is not a fundamental right.
The anti-DEI push and idea of abolishing the federal role in education trigger many (post-WWII generations) memories of the McCarthy era:
Is repression on campuses today worse than during McCarthyism? It’s a claim that’s increasingly made, on both the right and the left. Samuel Abrams, a Sarah Lawrence professor and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently concluded that “intellectual life today on campus is worse than the McCarthy era,” an assessment that was promptly echoed by a New York Sun headline.
Liberals have likewise argued that there is a “new campus McCarthyism” caused by conservative forces. Historian Ellen Schrecker, the foremost expert on academic freedom during McCarthyism and author of No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities (1986), invoked the McCarthy analogy in response to recent right-wing attacks on academe: “It’s worse than McCarthyism. The red scare of the 1950s marginalized dissent and chilled the nation’s campuses, but it did not interfere with such matters as curriculum or classroom teaching.”
However, some research is being done that suggests DEI (in hiring faculty and staff, for instance) is compatible with the basic mission of universities to educate students. Research shows that students learn better from people who look like them:
Studies show that students do, indeed, benefit from teachers who look like them. Black students who have even one black teacher by third grade are 13 percent more likely to enroll in college, according to research from Johns Hopkins University and American University. These same researchers also found that the positive “role model effect” of having a teacher who looks like you was especially beneficial for low-income young Black men, who are 39 percent less likely to dropout of high school if they had at least one black teacher in elementary school. Other research has found that students also benefit from attending schools led by principals of color.
Students are universities’ clients. The inclusion of DEI in managing learning institutions is compatible with the basic mission of universities. Next week’s blog will expand this same argument to businesses keeping ESG.
