The Oregon Association of Scholars, an affiliate of the National Association of Scholars, released Issue Brief 13 examining the costs and reach of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies at the three largest public universities in Oregon.

The brief reports that public universities, Oregon State (OSU), Portland State (PSU), and University of Oregon (UO), in 2020 were spending an average of $1.7 million per year in annual costs for salary and benefits for DEI Vice Presidents and an average of 19 full-time staff for each DEI office. The DEI offices for all three universities expanded their investment to a shocking $7,255,758. This has contributed to nearly $3,000 increase in tuition costs for the same period. The brief asks “the question of what the universities, the students, potential employers, and the people of Oregon are getting out of these large investments and the concomitant hyper-intense institutional focus.”

A Heritage Foundation study measured an average of 4.6 exclusive Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) personnel are at major public state universities for every 100 faculty members. The study reported that DEI staff and departments urge students to embrace radical leftwing ideologies, including that people should be treated differently due to their race. The study showed DEI bureaucracies are better understood as an academic version of a political commissariat that articulates and enforces an ideological orthodoxy on campus.

In a U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the ruling chipped away at all DEI-based discrimination. The orthodoxy tends to make many groups of people feel unwelcome, promotes division, and encourages conformity rather than diversity on various social and political issues. Lawyers tried to argue that there is ‘good discrimination’ and ‘bad discrimination’, that white people should be purposely disadvantaged to pave the way for diversity. The lawyers stated that the court's decision will complicate DEI programs and limit their ability to discriminate against white men.

The financial costs are substantial and on their own raise questions of the utility and necessity of the DEI apparatuses, particularly with the high and continually growing costs of college. There are also questions and issues far beyond the financial costs that should cause the public and the universities to seriously consider a need to down-size or eliminate the DEI bureaucracies and its framework. Heritage analysts found that student surveys exposed the worse campus climates they have measured.

The brief states, “As the costs of college tuition continue to grow, mostly unabated, any expense that is not essential to the operation of a university, whether as a research institution or teaching students to develop knowledge and skills in their areas of study, should be heavily scrutinized. The cost of these DEI leviathans is far greater than the financial one. The loss of public trust in institutions, while difficult to quantify, is very real and the bean-counting style fixation on the distribution of identity characteristics in what should be serious institutions of inquiry and scholarship only further erodes public confidence. The level of influence of DEI dogmatism and its champions raises the serious question of if the universities themselves have wandered from the legislatively defined purposes for which they were established.”

The public university system does not exist to pursue partisan political goals or whatever mission a university may wish to adopt. “Our universities, which are supposed to serve as strongholds of rational inquiry, the unapologetic pursuit of truth, and the abrogation of fads, appear to have thrown caution and evidentiary standards to the wind as they repurposed hitherto world-class institutions in furtherance of the dogmas of “Critical Social Justice”.”

There are laws that set their overall mission and goals and the fundamental shift in direction made by DEI ideology does not align with their defined purpose. The brief states that the ideological framework that underlies DEI flows out of Neo-Marxist doctrine of Critical Race Theory (CRT), which is being pushed into K-12 schools, and fundamentally at odds with traditional civil rights discourse and the enlightenment-based ethos which is supposed to be at the heart of the university. It is not possible for a university to simultaneously embrace a framework that calls for fundamental changes to our social and political systems and remain aligned with the goal of creating an educated citizenry that can support responsible roles in a democratic society.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Additionally the brief states, there is no solid evidentiary basis that DEI implemented at the lowest level through training produces positive results. Some research has shown that they have the opposite effect of what they are advertised to do and actually increase prejudices and social tensions. A fundamental change in institutional direction at a university should be based on firmly established evidence, not untested ideological fads. Oregonian’s have a deep connection to our public universities and these institutions should honor that by returning to their core mission.

The brief concludes that these are public universities which receive taxpayer funding from the people of Oregon while claiming to serve broad, non-sectarian, interests. Alas, it is difficult to see these agendas as anything but serving narrow political ends through the implementation of unevidenced practices.

Universities tend to drive the agenda for public schools in preparation for higher education. The Heritage Foundation’s Education Freedom Report Card reported waste in the growth of non-teaching staff, particularly “chief diversity officers.” In public schools, Oregon employs 0.76 teachers for every non-teacher.

The Oregon Business Industry brief reported that Oregon funds education at an above-average level, yet student test scores are among the nation's worst." In the above average funding that doesn't account for the added CAT tax, businesses invest heavily in education and want their tax dollars spent effectively. "The disconnect between educational funding and performance is a competitive double-whammy for the state. Raising taxes on businesses substantially has eroded Oregon’s competitiveness. A continued failure to parlay this additional revenue into educational quality will erode its competitiveness further, and businesses will respond by avoiding or leaving Oregon. This will cost the state jobs, tax revenue and prosperity."

Teacher salaries are also above average, still teacher unions blame low academic results on underpaid teachers. Bending to union demands awarding above average pay raises has put school districts in the awkward position of needing deep cuts. Cutting DEI at all levels could go a long way to salvaging Oregon’s education system and benefit the economy.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2024-05-25 17:29:50

Last Update: 2024-05-26 15:24:34