Austin American-Statesman’s Post

The University of Texas at Austin's Division of Campus and Community Engagement is being dissolved and approximately 60 diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) related positions have been removed. This follows a new state law that dissolved DEI institutions in public colleges and universities. As anti-DEI legislation continues to sweep across the country, more than 30 bills are targeting DEI funding, practices, and promotion at schools. My thoughts and prayers go out to those affected by these drastic changes. Let's continue to fight for diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education. #diversity #equity #inclusion #DEI #highereducation

🛎️Anti-DEI legislation continues to spread across the country. Advocates of #DEI are concerned the new legislation will impact colleges’ ability to recruit students of color, impact multicultural centers, and make it hard to receive certain state and federal grants. On the other hand, Anti-DEI representatives believe DEI is ineffective and discriminates against white students. “Schools across the country are already feeling the impact of the anti-DEI movement. Faculty and staff in Florida have reported a “chilling” effect on academic freedom and free expression…” How has anti-DEI legislation impacted you? Read more here: https://hubs.la/Q01-Rqqj0 View The Chronicle’s DEI Legislation tracker to learn more about each bill: https://hubs.la/Q01-Rfcz0 Another helpful article on this topic: https://hubs.la/Q01-Rljy0 #defenddiversity #impact #highered #admissions

The Chronicle of Higher Education has long been in the tank for the fraud of the racialist doctrine of "DEI" and the immense commissar-style bureaucracy it has spawned on campuses nationwide. This is no surprise, of course. Now, the Chronicle is conjuring up what it calls an "anti-DEI bureaucracy" as universities and colleges roll back this primitive Manichean doctrine and embrace the Enlightenment principles of logic, reason, progress, scientific method, and humane values. What the article does not mention (they never do) is that these DEI bureaucracies have metastasized to the point where they have inserted commissars into virtually every aspect of the university, even into academic affairs, where many of these ethnic bean-counters are paid handsome salaries to monitor hiring, curriculum, syllabi, and even professor behavior ("microaggressions" and such like) to ensure that noxious DEI ideology is injected into all aspects of higher education. There's no expertise here -- just primitive groupthink of the type expunged from the university 300 years ago. This article demonstrates that the thorough rejection of DEI anti-science and its embrace of superstition, "stories," fiction, and fables to guide higher education will be tough to expunge. The duplicity of DEI staff is made clear in this article, in that many intend to ignore laws that prohibit their clearly illegal racialist activities. These staff should be dismissed, of course, and in the end this may be the only remedy for the restoration of the Enlightened university to avoid a return to the pre-medieval notion of higher education.

The headline is little misleading. It should say something like "Indiana Joins Florida, Utah, Wyoming, Many Other States In Passing Anti-DEI Laws That Prevent Some White People From Being Uncomfortable". The article focuses on a new law in Indiana related to "intellectual diversity", but contains scary examples of similar efforts in other states. "Mark A. Russell, director of advocacy for the Indianapolis Urban League, strongly disagrees. He said the law “basically chills free expression. Now this is something that, here in Indiana, we have a particularly odious history of doing at the political level.” Russell invoked the state’s history of segregation in education and the Ku Klux Klan’s control of Indiana politics in the 1920s. He called the law a “mask” for promoting conservative viewpoints. “It seems like this legislation is hellbent and driven to take facts away from intellectual discussion,” he said. What would Deery’s law actually do? It requires campus boards of trustees to pass policies to deny faculty members promotions and tenure if—“based on past performance or other determination” by the board itself—they are “unlikely to foster … intellectual diversity,” “unlikely to expose students to scholarly works” from various “political or ideological frameworks” applicable to their discipline, or likely to “subject students to political or ideological views and opinions” that are “unrelated” to their discipline or the course. Additionally, fostering “intellectual diversity” and the related requirements will be considered in post-tenure reviews, which the law will mandate at least every five years. Indiana didn’t have a statewide requirement for post-tenure review until now. Professors could be punished, up to losing tenure and being fired, for failing to meet the criteria. Further, colleges and universities will have to consider fostering “intellectual diversity” and the related criteria when deciding whether to give bonuses or renew faculty members’ contracts. That means the law will impact nontenured faculty members, too. The law does more. It establishes a process for students and employees to complain that professors aren’t meeting the criteria, mandates reporting of the complaints to the state legislature and requires universities to submit their DEI expense information to lawmakers." #diversityequityinclusion #WarOnDEI #DEIUnderAttack

Mr. Urban asserts "As CRT scholars emphasized in diverging from CLS, acknowledging inequity in the present day--rooted in actions from the past--demands taking concrete steps to redress. Requirements at the secondary level for ethnic studies, while distinct from CRT, may expose students to historical facts and perspectives earlier in their education. Encountering outside perspectives in educational environments helps prepare students to participate in our increasingly contentious and pluralistic society. However, even with a state ethnic studies law like California's in place, local school boards are vulnerable to attacks on race-aware programs. Regardless of the preferred definition of CRT, culture-war mongers will continue to attack education because education is the strongest weapon against their agenda. Restricting educators from instructing students on topics that politicians categorize as CRT is a direct threat to students' rights to access information and educators' rights to impart it. Anti-CRT measures appear in several forms, but they all lack legitimate educational purpose and place an undue burden on students' and educators' First Amendment rights to receive and impart information. Protecting access to educational information enables students to freely exercise their constitutional rights, liberate themselves, and empower the underprivileged in our nation that strives for equality. Courts should act swiftly to strike anti-CRT measures down, and government actors should cease from enacting and enforcing them."

Bipartisan means it is likely going to pass so all university leaders should begin preparing to be compliant with everything listed below... "A bipartisan Senate bill introduced Thursday could make it easier for students to file civil rights complaints over antisemitism and Islamophobia on college campuses and to hold those schools accountable for protecting students. The bill, introduced by Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy and Democratic Sens. John Fetterman and Bob Casey, would require colleges and universities to report the number of civil rights complaints they receive and the actions they took to address them. Under the legislation, called the Protecting Students on Campus Act, the Education Department’s inspector general would be required to audit institutions that report high ratios of discrimination complaints relative to their student population. Colleges and universities would be forced to post links and language explaining to students how to file complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act on their homepages. That 1964 legislation mandates that universities receiving federal funding don’t discriminate against students. The bipartisan legislation introduced Thursday would also compel the Education Department’s assistant secretary of civil rights to brief Congress monthly on how many discrimination complaints have been received and how long they’ve been pending. Since the October 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel, the Education Department has launched an unprecedented number of Title VI investigations into colleges, including Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University and Stanford. The new legislation would prevent the Education Department from closing or dismissing complaints that have been resolved by other government agencies. Congress has been intensifying its oversight of universities over the past several months." https://lnkd.in/gBVU-d-b

Despite the threats and disinformation being peddled by anti-civil rights extremists, colleges can and should continue to pursue diversity through legal means. It’s up to us to advance higher education environments that reflect our multiracial society. While the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause,universities may still pursue racial diversity through other lawful means. Universities can and should continue to embed diversity goals in their missions as well as other permissible race-conscious and race-neutral means. https://lnkd.in/eGBhmbHS

*A PROPOSAL FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING *Need Help from Legal Experts A nonpartisan congressional education committee should be formed to address how federally funded universities balance free speech by equally highlighting debates from liberal and conservative viewpoints.         Faculty and Curriculum: Faculty members will play a crucial role in modeling respectful discourse. They will ensure that course content reflect diverse perspectives and challenge stereotypes. A comparative list of all faculty members will be published by the university board of directors and made available online and to prospective students detailing full biographical backgrounds, previously offered courses, and feedback from previous students. Universities will establish a BCB, Better College Bureau, like the Better Business Bureau with annual rankings by peers and students. Legal Considerations: Universities must comply with federal, and state legal requirements related to free speech, including the First Amendment.  Additionally, universities must establish transparent policies that outline the boundaries of free speech while promoting respectful dialogue. These policies should address hate speech, harassment, and discrimination, ensuring that they do not infringe on legitimate expression. Promoting Civil Discourse: Encourage open dialogue and debate on campus. Create spaces where diverse perspectives can be shared without fear of reprisal. Foster an environment where disagreement is met with respectful engagement rather than hostility. Student access to free legal counsel in the Guidance Department when confronted by antisemitism, racism, or discrimination. Continuous Assessment: Regularly assess campus climate, student experiences, and incidents related to hate speech. Adapt policies and practices as needed to maintain a healthy balance. Universities must actively engage in dialogue, promote understanding, and create an environment where DIVERSE voices can coexist while safeguarding the well-being of ALL community members.

Antonio L. Ingram II is investigating the potential impact of Senate Bill 17 on communities of color and the LGBTQIA community in Texas as an assistant counsel for the Legal Defense Fund, a racial-justice-advocacy organization. He said that in general, “a law may be considered unconstitutionally vague by courts if it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits.” Ingram said university systems’ differing guidance regarding multicultural events, for example, shows that general counsels are unsure of the contours of Senate Bill 17 and how it should be interpreted, which “may demonstrate the impermissible vagueness” of the law. He pointed out that the Texas A&M system’s general counsel’s office said a university may host multicultural events or programs as long as they are open to everyone who wants to participate and the emphasis is on history and culture, while Texas Tech’s allows universities to recognize heritage months only if they are federally designated as such. Meanwhile, the University of Texas system’s guidance allows for programs for federally and state-recognized heritage and history days and months, advising that an institution should focus on history; it is also the only one of the three to specifically mention Pride Month as being allowed. Another factor contributing to the confusion around the application of the law is the lack of precedent, Ingram said. “There have not been any statewide bans on diversity, equity, inclusion in the past,” Ingram said, “and so there’s not like there’s a hundred years of precedent to draw upon when you’re trying to interpret what constitutes DEI or what constitutes impermissible preference.” #dei #Senatebill17 #highereducation https://lnkd.in/gdVHVewB

If you are a client or member of the Council of the Great City Schools, please join my colleagues and me tomorrow afternoon for a free webinar on the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina cases. We will discuss the background of the cases, the high court's reasoning in invalidating the use of race-conscious admissions procedures, the possible effect of the decisions on public school districts, and share practical tips for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in a lawful manner. #schoollaw #educationattorney #DEI #compliance