Failure to Act: Universities’ Promising EDI Template Withering on the Vine

The triumphant implementation of equity, diversity, and inclusivity (EDI) programs in academia after more than a decade of increasing pressure and promise has brought hope to many but, unfortunately, justice to few. Enough time has passed to reveal the fraught inner workings of academia and their ability to make effective change, even as universities might be expected to lead with exemplary behavior. Sadly, the reverse is true. Failure of universities to act or react appropriately has seriously crippled EDI efforts in many academic settings. University administrators and even university presidents have lost their employment for taking EDI seriously. Those facts severely degrade the EDI landscape in academia going forward.

Stepping back and turning a scientific lens on the university environment, what are the flaws in implementation? They are rooted in human behavior and decision-making in adversarial surroundings, the recipe for fear. One might line up the course of action in three steps: (1) identifying the issues, (2) building a structure and path toward solution, and (3) establishing a university-sanctioned outcome that removes perpetual perpetrators and enables, even celebrates, those with the courage to speak up. A power relationship is almost always part of the play. Alas, though the first step is generally mastered, the second step is better known as “protecting the university at all costs”, and completion of the third step is dead rare. Rather, the rare settlement involves a victim signing away their right to talk to the press, so as not to damage the university’s reputation. This obvious three-act opera loses footing in the second act. The outcome is driven by “what is the easiest path for the university” and is too rarely driven by doing the right thing. The EDI system at most universities presents the ultimate conflict-of-interest: university lawyers are paid by the university or its governing body and thus, are indebted to them for employment and the outcomes of EDI decisions they make.

Failure to Act is a three-act play that explores the darker workings behind the academic scenery.  Can we change the storyline so that students and faculty will believe that the system works for them, should they ever need it? That is far from the standard we have now, even as sometimes generous funding has been diverted to build up EDI programming in academia.