UF has fired all staff in positions related to DEI.

Fancy pictures, but I suspect you'll find differences of opinion as to what "barrier" needs removing, and what caused any such "barrier" to exist in the first place.

 

Okay. So does that mean we pretend the barrier doesn't exist and do nothing about it? Or do we look to empirical evidence and follow what the best evidence tells us?

 

My understanding is that it's not a "decision" by UF but a move required to comply with state law. And I suspect those "high achieving students" didn't rely on DEI to be admitted to UF and will succeed on their own merits at most any school. I also have no idea how you can determine that if some students go elsewhere based on DEI their replacements at UF will have a lower LTV to UF. No way to determine that. Same with professors. Since all of your math flows from those unknowables, I'm gonna have to disagree with ya here. But...Go Gators!

 

No pretending that a barrier doesn't exist, but also no pretending that a barrier does exist in all cases. Also, if a barrier does exist, the focus should start on WHY that barrier exists, and go from there. However, honestly addressing the "why" in some (but not all) cases requires acceptance of personal responsibility and that's fallen out of favor these days.

 

Here's the best definition I found:

"Equity in education means giving every student what they need to succeed, regardless of their background or circumstances."

One of the challenges I see in achieving "equity" may be the lack of specificity. "What every student needs" may be an endless list comprised of what each student thinks or "feels" they "need to succeed". This could lead to some very inconsistent application of resources because student #1 is a disciplined self-starter and doesn't want/need tutoring .... while student #2 (who possess very similar aptitudes) is quite unlike student #1 and "feels they need" special tutoring to succeed. It's quite likely that equity in the end ..... mandates discrimination in resource application in the process.

Another problem is ....... what is "success" in this context? Who defines it and who determines when or if it has been achieved? How is it determined?

 

Totally agree that the challenges you outlined are tough ones. Clearly (I think) the expectation cannot be that every person gets to make their own wish list then cry "Equity!" and expect all his/her wishes to be granted. To me, the "I" in DEI is the most important piece because inclusion is a good thing. Diversity, on the other hand, I don't think can be forced but should be a natural result of an inclusive society or campus. It's the "E" that's most problematic for me.

 

The students will do fine wherever they go. But if some top students decide UF isn't for them based on DEI optics, what may suffer at UF are things like persistence and graduation rates.

You're right, we won't know what, if any effect this may have. But, just for math purposes, it takes 8 semesters to graduate, and the average UF student makes it 6.5, if that drops to 6.25, that's a number of students not paying tuition, and less revenue for the school. And less graduates also means less alumni giving donations.

Again, will this happen? Guess time will tell.

 

I never considered such a system for higher education, but I gotta admit there’s some merit buried in what you propose. A little radical, but I’ll think on it a bit and get back to you.
Thanks

 

When do we as a society start taking some "personal responsibility" for all the persistent racial disparities? Sure seems like every time we start working towards that, we have folks come in and have a conniption over it. Or is "personal responsibility" only for the individuals who are facing barriers?

 

Thought you were out?

 

Bingo.

Diversity can be much less of a controversial idea depending on how it’s implemented.

If diversity was actually viewed through a broad enough lens where it was about “tie-breaking” and implementing broad diversity of culture, race, ethnicity, sex, and ideology as marginal considerations; I think a much better case can be made in its favor.

However, more often than not, it’s a victimhood litmus test and an ideology litmus test prioritized too highly at the expense of merit. In other words, the more you stray from “straight white male,” the better off you will be, and the more progressive you are the better off you will be… even if the current demographics are disproportionately progressive and not straight white male.

The latter is how many people see DEI and the reason why many see it as a way of filtering out conservative thought and discriminating against white men.

I personally don’t view diversity as this inherently good thing. I think tolerance is a good thing, and ensuring actually diverse environments
is one way of furthering tolerance. But there’s nothing inherently good about ensuring a university demographically resembles the broad demographics of the population. If that means Harvard is all Asians, so be it. Good for them, they earned it.

 

Folks will shout "but meritocracy!" from the top of the hills, but they have no idea about the lack of a level playing field. They don't want to know about it. You're right, though. Little, if anything, of substance from the anti-DEI crowd.

 

I don't put much stock in the "merit" bullshit. We've seen what "conservatives" do when they have the power. And it ain't "merit." Cronyism marks the DeSantis regime.

 

The idea that a tiny dei office in a university could even begin to address broad issues related to racial inequity in any meaningful way is laughable anyways unless they had the explicit support of senior leadership across central admin and colleges. Uf dei did not have that and was largely ignored. Politics aside that was probably an easy business decision for sasse although I’m sure he’s going to be annoyed with the political fallout.

 

The issue with "equality of opportunities" or what you now label "fairness of opportunities" is that it never moves beyond the slogan stage. What does that mean in practice in society? How do we provide equate the opportunities of a third- or fourth-generation UF family, with connections at the school and substantial resources, to that of a person whose family would not have been allowed to start such a tradition and begin the multi-generational accumulation of resources? In practice, what policies would equate their opportunities?

 

Why? Do you think that offices for student disabilities and/or mental health are sometimes housed in tiny offices w minimal support from upper admin? I'm surprised by the way you seemingly dismiss the DEI efforts at UF. Have you really worked closely with that office, or have you had meaningful discussions w students about the availability/impact of resources?

 

Well, I can only take personal responsibility for myself and I'm pretty sure I'm not erecting any barriers for anyone. I'm also not having a conniption over anything, just discussing a challenging topic with fellow Gators. You haven't cited any specific racial disparities, although I'd certainly agree there are some so no need to fire back a link containing a list. However, the assumption is often that those disparities (e.g., more males than females are senior executives in Fortune 500 companies) are CAUSED by the specific factor (gender, in my example) rather than by some array of other factors. In other words, people confuse correlation with causation and then use it to support some conclusion (e.g., that gender discrimination must be rampant in the hiring process of Fortune 500 companies). It's false assumptions leading to wrong conclusions and, sometimes, cries to remedy a problem without thinking through the real cause of the issue.

Look at Stanford's student population as another example. 27% Asian and "only" 24% white. Should I jump to the conclusion that white people are being discriminated against by Stanford's admissions department? Should I cry "equity" and demand all sorts of handouts for white kids? Or maybe...just maybe....there's a whole host of other reasons why Asians are so strongly represented at Stanford. And good for them! Hard work paying off for a demographic that has also faced a history of discrimination and challenges in America. Good for them.

 

I’ve been at Uf a long time. They had trouble keeping that office and previous iterations staffed effectively. I think removing it probably hurts a lot of people’s feelings legitimately, students more than anyone, but not because that office was doing a lot. A review of their website really shows they were more advisors than leaders, connected to others endeavors but not leading many of their own. Removing the office is hugely symbolic though and certainly the culture of an organization is a big deal and the long term impacts of removing the cdo from the presidents cabinet is probably going to decrease overall the amount of time spent thinking about actually important dei issues.

more importantly to the academic mission, besides hurting minority students and probably making them feel less safe or included, I think the big FU will be coming federally - when nih, nsf, usda, etc. and others start taking their business to more inclusive states. That’s where I think this does the most damage.

edit- I want to add that there are plenty of small administrative units that do great work at Uf. I know some “departments” of one who work in central admin that move mountains, but those people generally have a mandate from the top to get shit done. They may be understaffed, but when that person calls people answer the phone and shit gets done. That wasn’t always the case with the Uf office of the cdo. That doesn’t mean it should have been deleted but there are ways to work around it not being there if Uf wants to keep trying at least something in the dei space.

 

You're right on some level, but I think you're minimizing the significance of this. It isn't just getting rid of that office. It's also eliminating DEI roles and funding throughout the university (including among the senior leadership in programs that bought in). Moreover, Dr. McGriff did more than you're giving her credit for in areas people don't necessarily think much about.

Regardless, the PR issue here is bigger. It sends a very clear message to faculty, students, and prospective students what UF thinks on an issue that matters to a lot of folks. I don't see this helping with the retention of diverse faculty or the recruitment of diverse students. Florida continues to project itself as hostile to students and faculty of color and members of the LGBTQ+ communities.

There's truth to what Slayer is saying. Although, I'd say the pulling back on DEI that has been happening over the past 2ish years is doing more harm than is being conveyed.

 

Poster seems to believe that if something can be found via internet link that it must be correct.