DEI at Michigan--NYT article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Lots of conclusions here. What data do you have to support this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Lots of conclusions here. What data do you have to support this?

Especially in light of this from the article:


Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Lots of conclusions here. What data do you have to support this?

The survey had UM data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Lots of conclusions here. What data do you have to support this?

Especially in light of this from the article:


Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.

Either you or the articles author neglected to include the additional thinking around the climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1 This thread is actually proof DEI has been successful. People are having the hard conversations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, Joseph, and Mary. $250 million on DEI bullcrap. Imagine how many scholarships that money could have paid for, how many professors' salaries or research initiatives. What a waste.

So wasteful. They will realize soon enough, though. They have a massive problem on their hands. It comes in the form of their students.

OP here.

The craziest part of the article is that NO ONE seems to benefit from Michigan's DEI initiative.

Black students feel that they haven't benefitted.

Professors are living in fear.

Vast amounts of money spent, and it's had absolutely no measurable benefit.

The programs are a bureaucracy that exists for its own benefit

+1 A self-licking ice cream cone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you actually read the article? I have no personal experience of DEI at UMichigan (nor with the author of the article, which may be biased), but from the article, it appears that faculty go see DEI counselors to find out how to tell students they are doing badly. And everybody spends tons of time doing DEI busywork (which they can't spend on research or teaching) to then be afraid to offend with anything they say (the article gives examples of formal complaints that were absurd). So they just don't say anything anymore. There are no more tough or critical conversations to be had, at least on that college campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you actually read the article? I have no personal experience of DEI at UMichigan (nor with the author of the article, which may be biased), but from the article, it appears that faculty go see DEI counselors to find out how to tell students they are doing badly. And everybody spends tons of time doing DEI busywork (which they can't spend on research or teaching) to then be afraid to offend with anything they say (the article gives examples of formal complaints that were absurd). So they just don't say anything anymore. There are no more tough or critical conversations to be had, at least on that college campus.

i did read it. And you’re extrapolating out that a handful of examples are the norm and that’s all that happens. No, these were examples over multiple years.

The article itself gives examples of tough conversations.

People should think before they speak. The sexist professor shouldn’t make women uncomfortable because he’s working on being less sexist.

[Anonymous]

PP.

For those who are still following, here is the U of M DEI exec's response:

https://michiganchronicle.com/dr-tabbye-chavous-a-battle-for-truth-setting-the-record-straight-on-dei-at-u-m/

Among select interesting points:

1) the $250M includes funding for the low income scholarships already discussed on this thread as a better use of the money.

2) the NYT asked the U to fact check the article on short notice but did not accept the corrections.

3) incidents included in the article did not happen and/or were improperly attributed to formal university DEI initiatives.

4) Dr. Chavous points out some unnecessary descriptive info that the journalist kept inserting about her at odd points.

This is exactly what I meant about reserving judgment when spicy and polarizing news comes out. It's important to hear and consider the rebuttals and allegations of misquoting. And they often come.

Even though I do value the mainstream media, I've been around long enough to see stories reported by big news outlets with mistaken assumptions or factual mistakes where I had direct knowledge but no authorization to speak. So I believe the U of M exec has made some valid rebuttal points. Many of them were already presented in this thread.

Read for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1 This thread is actually proof DEI has been successful. People are having the hard conversations.

This is so dumb. Presumably, if Michigan fires all its DEI bureaucrats, we will have another thread with a hard conversation about that. Meaning, according to your logic, that thread will be proof that firing all the DEI bureaucrats is an also a successful method to stimulate dialogue about diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1 This thread is actually proof DEI has been successful. People are having the hard conversations.

This is so dumb. Presumably, if Michigan fires all its DEI bureaucrats, we will have another thread with a hard conversation about that. Meaning, according to your logic, that thread will be proof that firing all the DEI bureaucrats is an also a successful method to stimulate dialogue about diversity.

Florida news covers all kinds of censorship/cancelling/erasure/firings/controversy/upset. And it impacts people's opinion of Florida/Florida government/Florida public education.

PP's point stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP.

For those who are still following, here is the U of M DEI exec's response:

https://michiganchronicle.com/dr-tabbye-chavous-a-battle-for-truth-setting-the-record-straight-on-dei-at-u-m/

Among select interesting points:

1) the $250M includes funding for the low income scholarships already discussed on this thread as a better use of the money.

2) the NYT asked the U to fact check the article on short notice but did not accept the corrections.

3) incidents included in the article did not happen and/or were improperly attributed to formal university DEI initiatives.

4) Dr. Chavous points out some unnecessary descriptive info that the journalist kept inserting about her at odd points.

This is exactly what I meant about reserving judgment when spicy and polarizing news comes out. It's important to hear and consider the rebuttals and allegations of misquoting. And they often come.

Even though I do value the mainstream media, I've been around long enough to see stories reported by big news outlets with mistaken assumptions or factual mistakes where I had direct knowledge but no authorization to speak. So I believe the U of M exec has made some valid rebuttal points. Many of them were already presented in this thread.

Read for yourself.

Yes. The whole piece seems lopsided and sensationalized.

I wonder how much of that was the journalist vs the editor.

[Anonymous]

“ For instance, while the reporter frames our DEI programs as primarily focused on race, he overlooks that much of the “quarter billion” U-M has invested in DEI over the past eight years (from a $12 billion annual budget) goes toward socioeconomic access and financial aid programs like the GoBlue Guarantee. This program has been key in recruiting students from across Michigan, particularly white students from rural counties.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you actually read the article? I have no personal experience of DEI at UMichigan (nor with the author of the article, which may be biased), but from the article, it appears that faculty go see DEI counselors to find out how to tell students they are doing badly. And everybody spends tons of time doing DEI busywork (which they can't spend on research or teaching) to then be afraid to offend with anything they say (the article gives examples of formal complaints that were absurd). So they just don't say anything anymore. There are no more tough or critical conversations to be had, at least on that college campus.

i did read it. And you’re extrapolating out that a handful of examples are the norm and that’s all that happens. No, these were examples over multiple years.

The article itself gives examples of tough conversations.

People should think before they speak. The sexist professor shouldn’t make women uncomfortable because he’s working on being less sexist.

This was exactly my point above:
“ The article is framed as representing the campus perspective on the follies of DEI, but the reporter states an interview group of 60 people total across students, staff, faculty, and administrators. This represents 0.06% of U-M’s population of 100,000 students and employees. This would not be problematic if the interviewees were selected systematically to reflect different schools, colleges, units, positions, and roles; but they were not. As a result the analysis is very skewed and reflects a narrow perception not necessarily held by a critical mass.”

[Anonymous]

Is anyone other than someone getting a paycheck for this work going to bat for them? Seems telling that the DEI wants to defend themselves but who else will vouch for the work?