DEI at Michigan--NYT article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

They bring in income to the school. The income they bring in supports all sports at the University including womens sports.

So the football program is a DEI program? JEEBUS it's EVRYWHERE!!!

No, football is the poster child for meritocracy. You play on the team based on being the best; why can't academics be the same? I don't see any affinity groups for Asian footballers being formed, do you?

The very best college football players on the highest ranked teams are rarely even above average college students. Yet they play at colleges. Because U.S. society has incorporated football into its definition of what college "is about".

What if society chose to make "DEI" issues what college "is about"? Some do think this is what college should be about...

Trust me, I am no fan of college football, and yes, I am aware that these students are usually below the average college student academically. But gaining entry into the team means being the best. If DEI is necessary for getting the best and most diverse of our society, why isn't it applied to football?

What if there are a bunch of stacked Asians who can play equally, if not better, than the current team? Have we used DEI to find them? And if not, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

They bring in income to the school. The income they bring in supports all sports at the University including womens sports.

So the football program is a DEI program? JEEBUS it's EVRYWHERE!!!

No, football is the poster child for meritocracy. You play on the team based on being the best; why can't academics be the same? I don't see any affinity groups for Asian footballers being formed, do you?

The very best college football players on the highest ranked teams are rarely even above average college students. Yet they play at colleges. Because U.S. society has incorporated football into its definition of what college "is about".

What if society chose to make "DEI" issues what college "is about"? Some do think this is what college should be about...

But what is DEI actually about? Nobody even knows. Emails? Surveys? Slogans and workshops? It’s just a bunch of fluff and hot air. It certainly wasn’t about making U of M diverse or inclusive.

The 2023+ plan is published here:

https://diversity.umich.edu/dei-strategic-plan/dei-2-0/

You may have your own opinions but there is certainly enough detail at the link above. So it's not a case of "nobody even knows".

If you were in a position to talk to Michigan staff, I'm sure they could explain what their tasks, deliverables, action items are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

They bring in income to the school. The income they bring in supports all sports at the University including womens sports.

So the football program is a DEI program? JEEBUS it's EVRYWHERE!!!

No, football is the poster child for meritocracy. You play on the team based on being the best; why can't academics be the same? I don't see any affinity groups for Asian footballers being formed, do you?

The very best college football players on the highest ranked teams are rarely even above average college students. Yet they play at colleges. Because U.S. society has incorporated football into its definition of what college "is about".

What if society chose to make "DEI" issues what college "is about"? Some do think this is what college should be about...

Trust me, I am no fan of college football, and yes, I am aware that these students are usually below the average college student academically. But gaining entry into the team means being the best. If DEI is necessary for getting the best and most diverse of our society, why isn't it applied to football?

What if there are a bunch of stacked Asians who can play equally, if not better, than the current team? Have we used DEI to find them? And if not, why?

Because DEI efforts take thought and it's easy to find the same kinds of people "the way we've always done it". That's why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Malcolm X was right, guilt ridden UMC white libs are the worst. Always "whitesplaining" to us black "folk" cause it makes them "feels" good to be the white knight. As a black person reading some of these posts it's really something to behold.

Do you think racism exists in the US today?

If so, do you think it should be addressed? How?

Probably not by sending a bunch of emails and surveys to disaffected students again and again the way Michigan does.

You’re minimizing the work they’ve done over the last decade, including better representation in faculty.

You mean they've mau-maued the faculty into regularly hiring less qualified candidates and made everyone sign terroristic "diversity statements". Yeah good job.

“Interesting” that you automatically assume that means “less qualified”.

Guess we still need DEI.

DP

If they weren't less qualified, they wouldn't need DEI.

We need DEI so people will understand that “qualified” is full of biases.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

Maybe the DEI staff could make the same amount of money if they had the same turnout at their events that the football team does.

Maybe it would be nice if the mission of a university could be more about education and building a better society instead of an archaic, gladiatorial sport where millions watch the efforts of tens of people bashing each other.

Success at one type of effort is much harder to measure.

And my point is proportion anyway. Millions are spent on football which is mainly a branding and loyalty generating engine. And yes, it earns money, but that revenue just funds more sport. So blah blah the DEI coordinators are paid a lot...so are the coaches, the law profs, the b-school profs, senior faculty, etc. The salaries are only outrageous if you think the work has no value. I understand that's your belief. But the salaries are on par with other well-paid, middle income jobs.

DP.
it's not that I think DEI has no value. it is proving itself out to have no value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The money would probably be better spent on scholarships for disadvantaged, low income kids.

They have that for in-state kids.

https://goblueguarantee.umich.edu/ann-arbor/

Now compare the funding.

The clearest brochure I could find says $333M in undergrad aid in 2022-2023 (one year). Other literature is showing 90-100% of estimated financial need met under very middle class income levels.

I re-read the article. The $250M sum appears to be funding since 2016 when the DEI initiative being directly examined began.

So crudely, the DEI initiative since 2016 is in the same magnitude as one year of aid (low hundreds of $M). There are a lot of ways to deconstruct spending and all the details are not public, so I'll go with this as a comparison point. Elsewhere I saw that an older year (2019-20) of free college was $20M for just the "free" guarantee. So that would be $160M at that rate over 8 years. There were other sources of grants.

Found elsewhere: a proposed 570 space parking lot is $35M. For those who care about parking.

A new building for the B-school was $150M ish a decade or so back. Plus $135M renovation to other buildings in the complex.

I understand that many people implicitly oppose $250M in spend on DEI programs over 8 years. But the spend amount is not way out of line with other big ticket items and initiatives that the University is engaged in (and there are many of those). A services-providing organization that has revenues in the $10B range deals with large sums.

Rereading the article, I get the impression that the unexpected circumstances of the pandemic definitely complicate the assessment of success or failure. Particularly organizational culture and sentiment analysis.

It would be instructive to look at general societal surveys with similar time frames.

Or we could just declare the experiment a failure.

It's proven itself a failure, hasn't it?

No. I consider it unproven as to whether the entire initiative is a failure or whether the pandemic and racial unrest and economic damage of the last few years are mainly accountable for survey-based (plus anecdotal) reports of unhappiness. There were 60 people interviewed for the article, so there wasn't even a representative body of students. So the 2021 survey seems to be the main data source for results that is publicly shared. 2023 brought Gaza, which is a real tough challenge for any university with a substantial Jewish population and large local Middle Eastern Muslim population. The environment may equally be impacting on-campus conditions.

I am willing to hear the University's response to this article. We do not know what changes have been made as this experiment has gone along or what may change now.

Society and education are still recovering from the pandemic.

There's always going to be an excuse if you search hard enough for one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

Maybe the DEI staff could make the same amount of money if they had the same turnout at their events that the football team does.

Maybe it would be nice if the mission of a university could be more about education and building a better society instead of an archaic, gladiatorial sport where millions watch the efforts of tens of people bashing each other.

Success at one type of effort is much harder to measure.

And my point is proportion anyway. Millions are spent on football which is mainly a branding and loyalty generating engine. And yes, it earns money, but that revenue just funds more sport. So blah blah the DEI coordinators are paid a lot...so are the coaches, the law profs, the b-school profs, senior faculty, etc. The salaries are only outrageous if you think the work has no value. I understand that's your belief. But the salaries are on par with other well-paid, middle income jobs.

The work doesn’t seem to have value. Can you point us to the successes of the work? What have they done lately? Should be easy to find, right?

PP. I will admit that I cannot point to the successes of the work because I am not employed at U of M. Nor can I determine with fine detail what their staff people do.

However, after reading the article, I am comfortable continuing to support the University to continue trying to make DEI efforts better and continuing on. Even if I'd rather not hear a land acknowledgement before every theater performance.

I believe they will do the best they can. Perhaps the article may help in some way. It is always good to have a detailed, synthesized analysis shared where many can examine the details and reflect.

Maybe making DEI better means scrapping it and starting over. Throwing more money at it won’t make the problem go away. It’s a naive take.

You should have stopped after the first 7 words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

Maybe the DEI staff could make the same amount of money if they had the same turnout at their events that the football team does.

Maybe it would be nice if the mission of a university could be more about education and building a better society instead of an archaic, gladiatorial sport where millions watch the efforts of tens of people bashing each other.

Success at one type of effort is much harder to measure.

And my point is proportion anyway. Millions are spent on football which is mainly a branding and loyalty generating engine. And yes, it earns money, but that revenue just funds more sport. So blah blah the DEI coordinators are paid a lot...so are the coaches, the law profs, the b-school profs, senior faculty, etc. The salaries are only outrageous if you think the work has no value. I understand that's your belief. But the salaries are on par with other well-paid, middle income jobs.

The work doesn’t seem to have value. Can you point us to the successes of the work? What have they done lately? Should be easy to find, right?

PP. I will admit that I cannot point to the successes of the work because I am not employed at U of M. Nor can I determine with fine detail what their staff people do.

However, after reading the article, I am comfortable continuing to support the University to continue trying to make DEI efforts better and continuing on. Even if I'd rather not hear a land acknowledgement before every theater performance.

I believe they will do the best they can. Perhaps the article may help in some way. It is always good to have a detailed, synthesized analysis shared where many can examine the details and reflect.

This is what Michigan is known for. Trying to improve society through research.

Well now it's known for spending $250 million on DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

They bring in income to the school. The income they bring in supports all sports at the University including womens sports.

So the football program is a DEI program? JEEBUS it's EVRYWHERE!!!

No, football is the poster child for meritocracy. You play on the team based on being the best; why can't academics be the same? I don't see any affinity groups for Asian footballers being formed, do you?

The very best college football players on the highest ranked teams are rarely even above average college students. Yet they play at colleges. Because U.S. society has incorporated football into its definition of what college "is about".

What if society chose to make "DEI" issues what college "is about"? Some do think this is what college should be about...

But what is DEI actually about? Nobody even knows. Emails? Surveys? Slogans and workshops? It’s just a bunch of fluff and hot air. It certainly wasn’t about making U of M diverse or inclusive.

The 2023+ plan is published here:

https://diversity.umich.edu/dei-strategic-plan/dei-2-0/

You may have your own opinions but there is certainly enough detail at the link above. So it's not a case of "nobody even knows".

If you were in a position to talk to Michigan staff, I'm sure they could explain what their tasks, deliverables, action items are.

Yet they can’t “continue to ensure” when they failed to do that in 1.0. That’s the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

Maybe the DEI staff could make the same amount of money if they had the same turnout at their events that the football team does.

Maybe it would be nice if the mission of a university could be more about education and building a better society instead of an archaic, gladiatorial sport where millions watch the efforts of tens of people bashing each other.

Success at one type of effort is much harder to measure.

And my point is proportion anyway. Millions are spent on football which is mainly a branding and loyalty generating engine. And yes, it earns money, but that revenue just funds more sport. So blah blah the DEI coordinators are paid a lot...so are the coaches, the law profs, the b-school profs, senior faculty, etc. The salaries are only outrageous if you think the work has no value. I understand that's your belief. But the salaries are on par with other well-paid, middle income jobs.

The work doesn’t seem to have value. Can you point us to the successes of the work? What have they done lately? Should be easy to find, right?

PP. I will admit that I cannot point to the successes of the work because I am not employed at U of M. Nor can I determine with fine detail what their staff people do.

However, after reading the article, I am comfortable continuing to support the University to continue trying to make DEI efforts better and continuing on. Even if I'd rather not hear a land acknowledgement before every theater performance.

I believe they will do the best they can. Perhaps the article may help in some way. It is always good to have a detailed, synthesized analysis shared where many can examine the details and reflect.

Maybe making DEI better means scrapping it and starting over. Throwing more money at it won’t make the problem go away. It’s a naive take.

You should have stopped after the first 7 words.

But I didn’t. It’s still a naive take to think throwing money at a bad idea will suddenly make it better. Just money down the toilet. Back to the drawing table would be a better move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The money would probably be better spent on scholarships for disadvantaged, low income kids.

They have that for in-state kids.

https://goblueguarantee.umich.edu/ann-arbor/

Now compare the funding.

The clearest brochure I could find says $333M in undergrad aid in 2022-2023 (one year). Other literature is showing 90-100% of estimated financial need met under very middle class income levels.

I re-read the article. The $250M sum appears to be funding since 2016 when the DEI initiative being directly examined began.

So crudely, the DEI initiative since 2016 is in the same magnitude as one year of aid (low hundreds of $M). There are a lot of ways to deconstruct spending and all the details are not public, so I'll go with this as a comparison point. Elsewhere I saw that an older year (2019-20) of free college was $20M for just the "free" guarantee. So that would be $160M at that rate over 8 years. There were other sources of grants.

Found elsewhere: a proposed 570 space parking lot is $35M. For those who care about parking.

A new building for the B-school was $150M ish a decade or so back. Plus $135M renovation to other buildings in the complex.

I understand that many people implicitly oppose $250M in spend on DEI programs over 8 years. But the spend amount is not way out of line with other big ticket items and initiatives that the University is engaged in (and there are many of those). A services-providing organization that has revenues in the $10B range deals with large sums.

Rereading the article, I get the impression that the unexpected circumstances of the pandemic definitely complicate the assessment of success or failure. Particularly organizational culture and sentiment analysis.

It would be instructive to look at general societal surveys with similar time frames.

Or we could just declare the experiment a failure.

Read the article which specifically discussed the arboretum’s lack of parking. That point wasn’t pulled out of thin air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The football coach and assistants make much more.

#priorities

https://footballscoop.com/news/contract-and-salary-details-for-two-of-michigans-new-coordinators#:~:text=New%20head%20coach%20Sherrone%20Moore,his%20first%20million%2Ddollar%20coordinator.&text=Jim%20Harbaugh's%20staff%20at%20Michigan,Ben%20Herbert%20(%241%20million).

Maybe the DEI staff could make the same amount of money if they had the same turnout at their events that the football team does.

Maybe it would be nice if the mission of a university could be more about education and building a better society instead of an archaic, gladiatorial sport where millions watch the efforts of tens of people bashing each other.

Success at one type of effort is much harder to measure.

And my point is proportion anyway. Millions are spent on football which is mainly a branding and loyalty generating engine. And yes, it earns money, but that revenue just funds more sport. So blah blah the DEI coordinators are paid a lot...so are the coaches, the law profs, the b-school profs, senior faculty, etc. The salaries are only outrageous if you think the work has no value. I understand that's your belief. But the salaries are on par with other well-paid, middle income jobs.

The work doesn’t seem to have value. Can you point us to the successes of the work? What have they done lately? Should be easy to find, right?

PP. I will admit that I cannot point to the successes of the work because I am not employed at U of M. Nor can I determine with fine detail what their staff people do.

However, after reading the article, I am comfortable continuing to support the University to continue trying to make DEI efforts better and continuing on. Even if I'd rather not hear a land acknowledgement before every theater performance.

I believe they will do the best they can. Perhaps the article may help in some way. It is always good to have a detailed, synthesized analysis shared where many can examine the details and reflect.

This is what Michigan is known for. Trying to improve society through research.

Well now it's known for spending $250 million on DEI.

So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The money would probably be better spent on scholarships for disadvantaged, low income kids.

They have that for in-state kids.

https://goblueguarantee.umich.edu/ann-arbor/

Now compare the funding.

The clearest brochure I could find says $333M in undergrad aid in 2022-2023 (one year). Other literature is showing 90-100% of estimated financial need met under very middle class income levels.

I re-read the article. The $250M sum appears to be funding since 2016 when the DEI initiative being directly examined began.

So crudely, the DEI initiative since 2016 is in the same magnitude as one year of aid (low hundreds of $M). There are a lot of ways to deconstruct spending and all the details are not public, so I'll go with this as a comparison point. Elsewhere I saw that an older year (2019-20) of free college was $20M for just the "free" guarantee. So that would be $160M at that rate over 8 years. There were other sources of grants.

Found elsewhere: a proposed 570 space parking lot is $35M. For those who care about parking.

A new building for the B-school was $150M ish a decade or so back. Plus $135M renovation to other buildings in the complex.

I understand that many people implicitly oppose $250M in spend on DEI programs over 8 years. But the spend amount is not way out of line with other big ticket items and initiatives that the University is engaged in (and there are many of those). A services-providing organization that has revenues in the $10B range deals with large sums.

Rereading the article, I get the impression that the unexpected circumstances of the pandemic definitely complicate the assessment of success or failure. Particularly organizational culture and sentiment analysis.

It would be instructive to look at general societal surveys with similar time frames.

Or we could just declare the experiment a failure.

Read the article which specifically discussed the arboretum’s lack of parking. That point wasn’t pulled out of thin air.

Actually I did re-read the article and it's new/additional parking at the botanical gardens that hasn't been funded. The Arb is brought up more because of the shared management structure.

But Michigan classes can get free chartered bus trips for custom times if they reserve them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The money would probably be better spent on scholarships for disadvantaged, low income kids.

They have that for in-state kids.

https://goblueguarantee.umich.edu/ann-arbor/

Now compare the funding.

The clearest brochure I could find says $333M in undergrad aid in 2022-2023 (one year). Other literature is showing 90-100% of estimated financial need met under very middle class income levels.

I re-read the article. The $250M sum appears to be funding since 2016 when the DEI initiative being directly examined began.

So crudely, the DEI initiative since 2016 is in the same magnitude as one year of aid (low hundreds of $M). There are a lot of ways to deconstruct spending and all the details are not public, so I'll go with this as a comparison point. Elsewhere I saw that an older year (2019-20) of free college was $20M for just the "free" guarantee. So that would be $160M at that rate over 8 years. There were other sources of grants.

Found elsewhere: a proposed 570 space parking lot is $35M. For those who care about parking.

A new building for the B-school was $150M ish a decade or so back. Plus $135M renovation to other buildings in the complex.

I understand that many people implicitly oppose $250M in spend on DEI programs over 8 years. But the spend amount is not way out of line with other big ticket items and initiatives that the University is engaged in (and there are many of those). A services-providing organization that has revenues in the $10B range deals with large sums.

Rereading the article, I get the impression that the unexpected circumstances of the pandemic definitely complicate the assessment of success or failure. Particularly organizational culture and sentiment analysis.

It would be instructive to look at general societal surveys with similar time frames.

Or we could just declare the experiment a failure.

Read the article which specifically discussed the arboretum’s lack of parking. That point wasn’t pulled out of thin air.

Actually I did re-read the article and it's new/additional parking at the botanical gardens that hasn't been funded. The Arb is brought up more because of the shared management structure.

But Michigan classes can get free chartered bus trips for custom times if they reserve them.

The botanical gardens are located miles away from the arb, for those who aren’t aware of UM.

[Anonymous]

DEI overall has had a net positive in our society. Including at UMichigan.

Better representation in classrooms and conference rooms.

Bias and inclusion training.

People more willing to have tough conversations and examine their own biases/assumptions.

Overall, there will be painful times when we are bringing everything to the surface and having these critical conversations. And there will be mistakes along the way. But overall the ship is heading in the right direction.

For UMichigan, a lower % of students feel discrimination today than they did in 2016. BUT the student representation on campus has not budged. They need to do more to make it an attractive campus for talented black students.