According to a doctor, educators should “reorient” their approach to the regulation.
Although University of Michigan command recently announced its plans to halt “diversity, capital, and inclusion” programming, its own faculty may object to this.
900 people attended a recent conference that urged faculty to use their” social power” to oppose President Donald Trump’s counterproductive DEI policies in higher education.
During the conference titled” Diversity, capital &, inclusion efforts are legally justified and here is how higher education should respond,” UM Law Professor Samuel Bagenstos stated that the Trump administration had engaged in “very large overreach.”
The management is” trying to make people believe that La programming is essentially immoral when La development of some, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many kinds is completely legal,” according to Bagenstos.
He continued,” There is no law in the United States as a whole that prohibits DEI programming,” adding that doing so would raise significant First Amendment issues.
According to Bagenstos, the law forbids categorizing “people based on their race and giving them better or worse treatment.” He claimed that the law does not, however, forbid taking action to combat racial segregation and inequality.
The professor also criticized the U.S. Department of Education’s” Dear Colleague Letter,” which states that DEI efforts are discriminatory and warns that universities could lose federal funding if they continue to employ them.
The letter” suggested that if there are discussions of racially charged issues in classrooms where some members of the majority race, some white people feel worse about themselves, that may be a racially discriminatory act that is against the law.” That is not accurate,” he claimed.
Further, the letter makes inaccurate assertions that he said he said he said he is against racial-neutral policies aimed at reducing racial gaps.
Bagenstos sent The Fix a recent memo he wrote in which he argued that federally funded organizations should not interpret President Trump’s executive order, which is titled” Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” or” Dear Colleague Letter” as “requiring the elimination or curtailment of existing DEI initiatives.” 24 professors from different universities in the United States signed the memo.
In support of this claim, University of Texas at Austin Professor Liliana Garces stated in the webinar that the” Dear Colleague Letter” is not legally binding and threatens academic freedom.
She claimed that it “goes as far as saying that even race-neutral efforts are forbidden.” And those efforts aim to achieve the diversity goal by not even taking into account race.
She said,” And what it’s doing is trying to dictate the very goals that institutions and education professionals can think about.”
” In other words, you have the government imposing its own opinions on how universities and schools should operate. According to her,” the government is prevented by the First Amendment.”
UM Professor Matthew Countryman questioned what faculty could do to protect DEI practices, and Garces suggested that they “reorient” their approach to the law.
We must remember that while something is written in a legislative bill, an executive order, or some other policy, it does not necessarily mean it is lawful. We have control over how we react. We have collective power in our responses, she said.
Garces claimed that” these policies do not put themselves into action.”
She also stated that the 14th Amendment’s requirement for equal protection for all attendees was still relevant.
Research indicates that “being aware of the barriers that exist” and acknowledging” the inequities at play” contribute to “ensuring a fair system” and “equal protection,” she said.
Additionally, the professor cautioned attendees that the current political climate imposes a” colorblind” or “race-evasive” perspective that ignores inequities.
Conservatives incorrectly interpret any racial-conscious law as discriminatory because they only consider whether it makes racial distinctions, she claimed.
” And what we’re seeing is the imposition of this ideology and this perspective through guidance on how to interpret executive orders, state laws, and legal decisions,” she said.
And ultimately, she said, “it restrains our ability as educators to advance the values that are fundamental to our educational mission.”
MORE: UMich to discontinue DEI programming and the DEI office
During a webinar at the University of Michigan, Professors Matthew Countryman, Liliana Garces, and Samuel Bagenstos discuss DEI.
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
