Higher education institutions are absolutely critical to enabling communities, economies, knowledge, and innovation to tackle the most pressing issues and advance as a diverse society.
Alongside this, universities would not exist if they did not prioritise and invest in equal and equitable opportunities, access, and connecting with diverse and intersectional communities across the world.
Upon reflecting on the role higher education has played throughout history, we know that universities have never played it safe.
Our higher education sector performs an instrumental role in being a critical mirror to social, cultural, and political narratives.
However, it is challenging to be critical when societal views and beliefs are polarised, with only some who are able to cultivate opportunities to build good relations and celebrate differences.
Value and values
It is amongst such divisive rhetoric that there are movements questioning the value of equality, diversity, and inclusion in organisations, systems, and society – we make a statement not to minimise the profession by using the acronym.
The world opened their eyes in 2020, again, to the intersectional trauma of structural racism, sexism, classism, harassment, bullying, victimisation, and discrimination, to name some.
The higher education sector “reacted” to impress on society that equality, diversity, and inclusion would be sustained to protect the civil liberties of staff and students, who help to ensure that our institutions play a transformative role in education and society.
Five years on, we find ourselves in a time where equality, diversity, and inclusion have, in some cases, been absolved into safer initiatives like “organisational development” and “social responsibility”.
These initiatives can often disguise the goodness of the work towards equality, diversity, and inclusion rather than champion it to the world.
This is not a new issue for those helping to cultivate a socially just, fair, dignified, and respectful society. The work of equality, diversity, and inclusion has always been precarious, and the “academy” is a microcosm reflective of wider society.
The risk-aversion and caution often adopted by universities as a result can be performative, rarely penetrating the deep-rooted structural and systemic problems that permeate the sector.
Another American import
This precariousness is now tested from discussions to end diversity, equality, and inclusion from across the Atlantic.
While we may feel the physical distance, recent reports highlight that UK universities receiving funding from the USA have to prove none of their spend is going towards diversity, equality, and inclusion. This highlights a level of political interference in the autonomy of universities not often seen before.
We, as the higher education community, know why equality, diversity and inclusion matters, so let us look at the data from McKinsey & Company’s 2023 research:
- More diversity in both boards and executive teams, in both gender and ethnicity, is correlated with higher social and environmental impact scores.
- Organisations in the top quartile for gender diversity are 39 per cent more likely to outperform peers.
- Organisations in the top quartile of board-gender diversity are 27 per cent more likely to outperform financially.
- 77 per cent of consumers are motivated to purchase from organisations committed to making the world a better place.
- Higher levels of ethnic representation in leadership teams are correlated with higher financial, social, and environmental sustainability across the board.
- A strong link between leadership diversity and a motivated workforce.
Recent research from the University of Oxford, UCL Policy Lab, and More in Common found that:
“Britons are five times more likely to express positive views about EDI and that the initiatives are beneficial to them.
Recently, UCL Provost Michael Spence made a public statement highlighting:
“We are, and were always intended to be, an institution to which it is possible to bring your ‘whole self,’ to bring your history, culture, identity, and views of the world, free of arbitrary discrimination… If we do not, then we run the risk of only poorly serving the needs of this wonderful, global, and incredibly diverse city – London – of which we are a part.
In resistance to those wanting to dismantle diversity, equality, and inclusion in higher education across the Atlantic, Harvard University released a statement saying that:
“…no government regardless of which party is in power should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
We see some institutions speaking truth to power to safeguard academic and educational freedom, equitable access, and liberty. It is in this climate that higher education institutions need to strengthen their collective voice to safeguard the championing of equality, diversity, and inclusion that are essential to the civic impact of universities.
It is remarkable that there is resistance to helping create and sustain a more equitable, fair, dignified, respectful, socially just, and inclusive society. This is a resistance that exists and appears to be rising.
For institutions who are yet to re-affirm their commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion, we ask these questions – is this what we are and is this who you want to be?
It’s unfortunate that the article treats EDI and academic freedom as if they were the same issue. They’re distinct concepts that often run up against one another. The authors also say nothing about the wide range of actions and policies that fall under the EDI banner. A clearer account of what EDI actually includes would make the trade-offs easier to see—and would help explain the recent pushback, which the authors seem to find puzzling. Consider, for example, the controversy over “race-conscious” admissions in the United States, which ultimately led to a Supreme Court ruling. Is it really surprising that Asian applicants object to a system in which they need on average higher SAT scores than other applicants to gain admission to the same university?
A further source of opposition to EDI in higher education is its tendency, at times, to function as a vehicle for left-wing activism— training on “white fragility,” initiatives to decolonise physics, and so. If bold leadership is needed, it is to control the ever-expanding EDI bureaucracy and to protect universities from internal capture by politically motivated actors.
The public are a lot more savvy than this article makes out. Read the EDI report commissioned by Oxford and UCL linked in the feature to see. Support for EDI is highly conditional and a clear majority did not think spending on it represented good value for money.
EDI is in direct contravention of academic freedom and free speech requirements as they are mandated by the OfS, UKRI and ECHR.
I couldn’t disagree more with this article. The only reason the US influence is now being felt in this manner is that people in the UK have, and continue to be, too afraid to say what they really think and this era has given them a tiny bit of hope and protection. I’m sure the authors of the article wouldn’t criticise US influence when it comes to things like the hysteria around BLM and George Floyd.
There are too many jobs now that only recruit BAME candidates (including in the armed forces); there are initiatives and funding that only apply to non-white people, and when you talk about ‘gender equality’ nobody can really say what that means since many can’t define what a woman is. How can there be any consideration to gender when we don’t know how many there are, and what it actually is? Why is it measured in gender and not sex, which surely is far more useful a reference point?
Worse still, we are in a position where university degrees HAVE to have social justice built into them, which is appalling considering that students pay for the ability to become experts in their chosen topic and not have some EDI initiative rammed down their throats. I’ve worked in universities for over 20 years, and never have I been more ashamed of the sector than I am now – primarily for wasting oodles of money on virtue-signalling nonsense that puts white people at the back of the line. As a father of two young children, I worry about their future in the UK and their ability to achieve since their skin-colour (white) is now becoming a significant barrier to employment and opportunities, with blatant racism towards white people being disguised with the use of semantics. The only EDI worth supporting is for disabled people & carers – beyond that it’s wrong. The push-back is justified