.jpg)
It’s rare these days for a debate to change viewers’ minds.
But some minds may have changed followed a debate at Washington and Lee University last month over the controversial topic of diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
On Oct. 11, the Steamboat Institute, Washington and Lee University’s College Democrats and College Republicans co-hosted a debate at Stackhouse Theater to discuss the necessity of DEI programs at many colleges and universities.
Listeners were polled prior to the debate about a resolution that “diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives do more harm than good in higher education and should be abolished.” At the end of the debate, votes were tallied again to make note of any swaying of opinions.
Sixty-eight percent of those attending in-person or online agreed with the resolution in the initial vote, 21% disagreed, and 11% were undecided. At the conclusion of the intense debate, which lasted just over an hour, 53% were still in agreement, 36% disagreed, and 11% were still undecided.
The debate featured Carol M. Swain, a former professor of political science and of law at Vanderbilt University, arguing the affirmative on the resolution, while Marc Lamont Hill, a professor from Temple University and the host of BET News on Black Entertainment TV, argued the negative. The debate was moderated by Steamboat Institute Tony Blankley Senior Fellow Patrice Onwuka, who is also director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at the Independent Women’s Forum.
The debate drew a theater full of students from Washington and Lee University and Virginia Military Institute, as well as Rockbridge area residents.
Recent Supreme Court rulings, such as Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, and Students for Fair Admissions vs. UNC, have reignited a national conversation about providing more opportunities for minority students, and the policies put in place by colleges and universities.
Students from W&L’s College Republicans and College Democrats delivered opening remarks to kick off the debate.
“We must understand what fundamental assumptions such initiatives make about society. We should ask important questions such as: Why are DEI programs necessary? And do DEI programs actually promote inclusivity?” said Henry Haden, president of College Republicans at W&L.
Arguing against DEI programs in colleges, Swain said she believes that the money to fund these programs can be used in other areas where they would have a greater impact.
“The DEI programs are costly, and they are overstaffed,” Swain said.
Universities that rank high with DEI faculty include the University of Michigan, which contains 163 DEI personnel, the University of Virginia with 94, and Virginia Tech University with 83.
“There’s not a lot of evidence that it actually works very well … that it’s doing anything that would not happen if you just practiced nondiscrimination, outreach, and recruitment,” Swain said.
Hill argued, though, that we should embrace diversity. Hill believes that DEI programs are a necessity for reaching common ground.
“Studies show that diversity is an inherited institutional benefit,” Hill said. “In other words, we all benefit from diversity. There’s a value in us being in a room together where we all have a difference in opinions. But we can’t have that change in opinions unless we have diversity.”
According to Swain, DEI programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and in some cases, the First Amendment as well. She believes that students around the country are forced into compelled speech with these programs. The Equal Protection Clause, she noted, prohibits any state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“If you are compelled to wear a particular t-shirt, or to celebrate a particular day for some identity group, that is compelled speech … DEI programs can create conflict and disunity. Especially when faculty, students, and various people feel as if they are being forced to do things that violate their consciences, then that creates situations of discomfort, and it also silences students,” Swain said.
While Hill argued that DEI programs do more good than harm, he acknowledged flaws in the current system.
“I agree that it’s often inefficient. I agree that it’s often excessive. I agree that some people do a bad job of implementation. But that is not an argument for getting rid of DEI; that is an argument for doing it better. So, I don’t want to abolish it; I want to fix it.”
Swain offered an alternative plan that involves practicing nondiscrimination, civil discourse, viewpoint tolerance, and free speech.
“We can have diversity without discrimination, we can reallocate the millions of dollars spent on DEI programs to other areas such as student admissions, or student affairs,” Swain said. “We can increase outreach and recruitment by trying to expand the pool of qualified students, and we can give student groups equal access to campus resources.”
As the polling numbers showed, listeners in attendance and online seemed to resonate more with Hill’s point of view, with 15% of viewers jumping from the affirmative to the negative on the resolution.
