“DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has recently become a common term used to refer to initiatives that promote equal treatment towards people of all identities, often with emphasis for those historically disadvantaged. Academic spaces have rapidly accelerated their incorporation of DEI initiatives over the past few years in response to the 2020 George Floyd protests and subsequent racial justice movements. Although the prevalence of this term has increased, each institution, department, or even lab has a different interpretation for DEI, usually available in the form of a DEI statement. There has been controversy over such statements: Some believe that they serve as a gateway to fostering productive conversation and action while others see statements as performative (Ballard et al. 2020). Having served on a DEI committee at my undergraduate institution, I observed both perspectives and became interested in the question, what makes a DEI statement feel genuine?
After starting my PhD at the University of Washington, I wanted to learn about the intricacies behind the language used to discuss DEI initiatives, and thus enrolled in Dr. Yan Wang’s Racism in Neuroscience course (Psych 540, W23). Twice a week, our class gathered in a round table and discussed various forms of media and topics on the history and persistence of systematic racism. For this class, we read a study by Jordan Starck et al. which addressed many of my questions regarding the language used in DEI statements. This paper, titled “How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes” (2021), aimed to understand how the motivation for DEI that was used in statements influenced student preferences. For their study, the authors defined two rationales commonly used in DEI statements: an “instrumental rationale” paints diversity as a benefit for learning and society while a “moral rationale” attributes diversity as an intrinsic principle to address historical oppression.
Starck et al. developed university diversity statements that had instrumental or moral rationales and conducted a survey in which students and student caretakers (e.g., parents) were asked to indicate their preferences between the statements (Table 1). They found that while White participants preferred instrumental rationales, Black participants favored moral rationales. In a follow up experiment, the authors retrieved published diversity statements from university websites, used an algorithm to score them on a scale of 1-4 for instrumental rationale and moral rationale, and modeled the effect of these scores on university graduation rates. They found that low scores for moral rationales correlated with lower graduation rates for Black students, while scores for either category had no effect on graduation rates of White students. Latine students had similar outcomes to Black students, with a correlation between low moral rational scores and lower graduation rates. However, outcomes for Asian students were more similar to that of White students. While the effect on different minority groups requires more research, I suspect the effect the authors found on Asian students is rooted in the effects of the Model Minority Myth (Cheryan and Bodenhausen 2020) as well as aggregation of AAPI experiences under the monolith “Asian” (Nguyen et al. 2021).
| Instrumental Rationale | Moral Rationale |
| We are committed to cultivating a diverse student body that will enrich all students’ experience and prepare them for academic excellence and achievement. Our commitment to diversity is rooted in the many practical ways diversity enhances our campus by fueling innovation and helping our students to grow. Diversity provides opportunities for students to learn from each others’ experiences inside and outside the classroom through dialogue and cultural exchange. In our economy today, we cannot claim to be living our mission unless we make every effort to ensure our students are prepared for an increasingly diverse, globalized 21st century world, which student diversity helps us to do. | We are committed to cultivating a diverse student body because of our dedication to fairness and equity. Our commitment to diversity is rooted in our moral obligation to redress historical and contemporary inequalities in the communities that we serve. Student diversity ensures that the benefits of education are distributed through all facets of society, making sure that no group is excluded, disadvantaged, or discriminated against. In our community today, we cannot claim to be living our mission unless we make every effort to ensure that people from all backgrounds have fair and equitable access to the resources and opportunities we provide, which student diversity helps us to do. |
The authors emphasize that these results do not mean that a lack of a moral rationale in DEI statements harms graduation rates of Black and Latine students. Instead, there may be an indirect effect on departmental culture, which could influence institutional decision-making or interpersonal interactions. Instrumental rationales tend to cater to the majority group in its definition of diversity, which could lead to the exploitation of minority groups for performative presentation. This influence could also affect applicants, who could choose to apply to and attend one university over another due to definition and presentation of DEI. The authors call for the revaluation of current diversity rationales used in policy and DEI initiatives, as it is clear that the language used in DEI statements matter.
It is important to note that not all DEI statements fall under the two classifications defined by Starck et al. This became clear to me as I reread the diversity statement issued by my home department, UW Biology (Table 2). Instead of focusing on diversity as a rationale, our statement tends to focus on inclusive community building, emphasizing that the department welcomes those of all identities. The statement is also followed by a Code of Conduct, which provides guidance on how to show respect when interacting with others. However, the statements never explicitly acknowledge the hardships underrepresented students face in academia. Interestingly, I can draw parallels between our statement and the departmental culture I have experienced: my day-to-day interactions with members of our community are largely positive, but explicit discussion of historical and systemic discrimination outside of smaller focus groups is avoided. Without these discussions, students could feel like their adversity is insignificant and be discouraged from speaking up. Incorporating moral rationales into our diversity statement could also provide a guideline for how to better verbalize and develop a culture of support for underrepresented minorities. These guidelines could also encourage faculty to use their privilege to amplify student voices (Paynter 2023). Upon discussion with Karen E. Peterson, former chair of the Biology DEC, I learned that the DEC aims to review our diversity statement and Code of Conduct annually. Thus, this upcoming academic year will be a good opportunity for us to renew how our department defines “DEI.”
| Biology Department Diversity Statement |
| In the Department of Biology, we continue to strive for an inclusive and welcoming departmental culture that recognizes and encourages individual differences, that fosters the constructive expression of ideas, and that promotes shared values such as intellectual curiosity, creativity, collegiality, and sense of mission. Traditions of inclusivity can only flourish and reach full potential with continued active nourishment and effort, and with a collective sense of responsibility and mission on the part of the entire community. We as a department are committed to the continued development of our diverse and collegial community of people, ideas, and approaches through our missions of research, education, and public outreach. |
As mentioned earlier, Starck et al. showed that diversity rationales affected student and student caretaker preferences for university enrollment. In this current era of discouraging Supreme Court decisions (such as striking down affirmative action despite its proven benefits for underrepresented minorities (Bleemer 2021) and limiting protections for the LGBTQ+ community against discrimination), the language used in diversity or mission statements could be a powerful method for universities to encourage underrepresented minorities to apply, attend, and remain enrolled. Still, actions can speak louder than words, so we must be able to follow up these statements with sustained support for students throughout their academic careers.
I will be working with Ariel Li of the Psychology department to further explore the histories and futures of the link between diversity statements and departmental culture, so please visit her blog PsyVersity for updates.
Acknowledgements: Thank you to Ariel Li, Melissa Leon Norena, Vaibhav Chhaya, Alexander Robertson, and Karen E. Peterson for the great conversations and help editing this article!
