The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Does Hiring Diversity Officers Increase University Diversity?
It is easier for universities to hire administrators than to engage in meaningful change.
A new study in the Southern Economic Journal suggests that university efforts to enhance diversity by hiring DEI executives to oversee diversification efforts were largely ineffective. Specifically the study, "The Impact of Chief Diversity Officers on Diverse Faculty Hiring," finds that hiring CDOs had no effect on faculty diversity.
The abstract reads:
Racial diversity among faculty, students, and administrators is increasing at universities in the United States. These changes have been uneven, with growth in underrepresented students exceeding that of faculty diversity. To address these and other inequities, a growing number of universities have established an executive-level chief diversity officer (CDO). Our study offers a first empirical examination of this effort at selected 4-year U.S. universities from 2001 to 2019 using unique data on the initial hiring date of a CDO and publicly available demographic data. We provide a comprehensive overview of demographic trends within our data and find confidence intervals around the estimated instantaneous average treatment effect for an executive-level CDO on diverse hiring tightly contain zero. Estimated treatment effects are small and lack statistical significance within 4 years of a CDO position being established. We discuss other possible factors that explain trends toward higher diversity on campus and several possible constraints.
Should the paper's results be surprising? Not particularly. It is relatively easy for a university (or any large, bureaucratic institution) to hire administrators and adopt superficial policies. Actually changing hiring practices, on the other hand, can be quite difficult, and changing the composition of a faculty can be quite slow. If a university faculty is resistant to hiring people of different backgrounds (or viewpoints), hiring a few administrators is unlikely to change things very much.
None of this means that hiring DEI administrators has no impact. There are certainly anecdotal accounts suggesting that some such efforts can affect university culture (and perhaps in quite negative ways--as seems to have occurred at the University of Michigan). The point is that such investments do not appear to produce the sorts of changes that they promise.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What an unsurprising outcome
It's funny, but until I saw that headline, the question never even occurred to me, and I had to think for a minute about why not. All that woke crap is pure virtue signalling. Hiring a CDO is as useful as flying a pride flag or painting a pride crosswalk. If I had to guess their function, I'd say to crank out press releases bragging about pride crosswalks. Actually affecting hiring would have been bottom of the list. Beyond typing up pride press releases, I cannot for the life of me imagine anything they do in their job, useful or not.
DEI is a masking ideology for Marxism attack on our way of life. Class warfare failed in the USA. Trotsky lived in the Bronx a short time. He said that because the working class has it too good here. So class has been replaced by overly entitled and crybaby minority groups. Zero tolerane for DEI.
That being said, all PC, all DEI, all Marxism is case. Microaggression for example is called a hostile work envirnoment. It compensated by outrageous payouts, most of which enrich the lawyer. After taxes, the plainitff may have to borrow money to pay the income taxes on the settlement. The lawyer runs a tighter ship than the Soviet secret police. One may not even make a joke at work without risking the entire business. The schools want to avoid ruinous litigation by the lawyer enemy. To stop this Marxist attack on our nation, the lawyer profession must be stopped. A campaign of lawfare must be reciprocated on the lawyer and judge profession. Violence has justifiation in formal logic when immunity prevents accountability. The judges allowing these cases should be run out of town. Report their websites. Report each paint chip on their homes. Stop them for going 1 mph overy the speed limit. Measure the sink heights in their offices. Run a campaign in social media. Publish their divorce proceedings. They are our enemy. She show us no quarter.
This is the Marxist enemy trying to destroy America from within.
The irony. African immigrants and their children have darker skins. They come from intact patriarchal familes. They are Christian. They love America. They are also top performers, the New Koreans. They will sweep up all advantages. They do not complain about microaggressions. They are just scoring all the macroprizes. They outperformed whites in the 2010 Census. DEI is to advantage stupid people, but the DEI staff is stupid itself.
Of course not. The proper way to increase diversity is to create a diversity task force.
And who better suited for that task than a CDO?
Although, wholly mackerel, the atmosphere in a CDO office must be tense, all those clowns on the lookout for the slightest hint of deviation from DEI, waiting to pounce and cancel someone and get a promotion.
Sinecure positions at universities have been growing rapidly for decades. What so you do when the professional market for educators i.e. high paid people on the government tit, all too likely to look fondly on the procees, is saturated? Create a new domain. Now such spots outnumber professors at some universities.
Diversity asymptotically approaches complete lack of diversity.
You get down to "are all groups represented in the Sophomore Microbiology students". Think about it.
Pro Sports has the right approach, if he had a nasty slider any MLB team would sign Luigi Mangione, Kohberger, or Sean Puffy Combs, some of the best gas-passers in my group have been Dot-heads, and XX’s, you earn, I could give a (redacted)your origin or if you eat at the “Y”, don’t care about your religion or lack of it either
Except for the A-rabs, but that’s more of a safety (and hygiene) ish-yew, oh, and Baptists
Frank
That's the whole grift. A whole bunch of otherwise unemployable ideological clowns got special unearned status and wealth. They got to sniff their own farts and pat themselves on the backs while taking down ginormous paychecks and not really doing anything for real.
Do universities really need a minimum number of white female students?
What does skin color have to do with education?
Let me point you back to basics.
The goal is lots of money (tax funds especially) being paid to left wing totalitarians as they indoctrinate the next generation of freedom haters.
And a highly paid position that cannot be judged by any objective criteria is the holy grail.
Our diversity "officers" have generally been remarkably uninterested in helping us find diverse candidates. Instead, they saw their job as taskmasters - flogging us for not meeting their expectations.
Is it, maybe, seeping in that GOPs have made all this stink over something about as consequential as corporate mission statements?
Diversity is synonymous with tyranny. Defund the universities to the point that "diversity" disappears and they only have enough money for instruction and research in STEM degrees and the traditional core humanities. Everything else is completely privately funded. Eliminate the production of superfluous credentialed idiots.
If by 'defund' you mean reduce tax subsidy, it should be complete.
They can get along on tuition and endowments, or sell out and go home.
By defund I mean eliminate student loans and research grants for anything other than STEM degrees and the traditional core humanities. If you want a sociology or fill-in-the-blank studies degree foot the bill yourself.
Maybe the US Senate should get one, Seeing as how the current count is 83 (and 1023/1024) White, 7 Hispanics, 5 Blacks, and 1 (and 1/1024) Native Amurican
OK, that was a lot of work to do a Poke-a-Hontas Joke
and surprisingly 7 MOTT's* good thing it's a close Senate and No Moose-lum has ever been a Senator (Bonus Trivia question, who was the only Moose-lum to be nominated by a major party? Big Hint, he lost to a guy who just had a Stroke)
*could be a Jerry Seinfeld routine
"What is with Jews voting for DemoKKKrats?? I can see voting for Jacob Javitz, or Joe Lieberman, but Chuck Schumer??? "Danang Dick" Blumenthal?? at least Eichmann ran off to Argentina!"
Frank
The worst part is that students have to pay these salaries with interest in their student loans. These hires add not one whit to their education or one penny to their future salaries.
I'm all for reforming the student loan system and firing these people is step one.
Diversity exists by definition in the population from which you sample but if the samplers are not themselves 'diverse' the same problem comes up, it is an infinite regression.
In the main , the way to get the natural complement of differences is to not strain anyone out. But why do we want everything to mirror the general population. Isn't that a form of bigotry.
Consider the almost humorous result of desegregation
In a speech in the early 1980s, as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Clarence Thomas said, "I refuse to pursue desegregation policies which penalize black colleges. They were not the ones doing the discriminating. Realizing the importance of the continuing contribution of black colleges, I approach enforcement with great care. I insist that the state plans have as a major objective the enhancement of black institutions. "
NOw that is common sense
You have to understand that the definition of "diversity" used by these efforts isn't "reflecting the general population". It's more like, "minimizing the number of whites and men".
If you look at Harvard, for instance, in the name of "diversity" they continue prioritizing hiring more women, even in departments where the staff is already 70-80% female.
Notice, by the way, that the two right-most columns in that table, "availability" and "current year goal", are identical in every case? They are explicitly aiming at just hiring as many non- white males as they possibly can, regardless of where the numbers already stack up.
For instance, their school of dentistry staff assistants are already 70% female. If you were trying for actual diversity, you'd be looking for men! Instead, their goal is to just hire every woman they can manage.
Even if diversity was meant to replicate the proportion found in the general population, I would still be opposed to it.
Take your example of dental assistants. It isn't 70% female because the schools discriminate against men. It is because various societal factors influence a greater proportion of women to decide to go into that field. To "correct" for that is to give a boost to men who don't deserve it and there is nothing being corrected.
It is a false assumption that every endeavor will neatly replicate the racial demographics in the general population AND that any deviation from that is a result of racial discrimination.
"It isn't 70% female because the schools discriminate against men."
That's a pretty confident thing to say when looking at internal documents revealing that they do, in fact, discriminate against men. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what the numbers would look like if they hadn't been discriminating for years now.
I love Clarence but that statement doesn't make sense. If we have agreed that desegregation is the goal, then there should not be such an institution as a "black college."
If you believe that they contribute something positive then you are saying that desegregation isn't really all that it is cracked up to be.
Yeah, he's just making excuses for discriminatory measures whose need has long since passed. Ironic, given that this is exactly what's driving the sort of discrimination he's currently warring against, too.
Consistency isn't easy for anybody, really.
No "Black Colleges"??
think of all the great Half Time shows we'll be missing, Jeezo-Beezo, when ever I see that stupid (the) Ohio State "dotting the I" routine I'm ashamed for being a Honky. First year in Montgomery we lived a short walk from Alabama State University, the Marching Band had better Ath-uh-letes than the Foo-bawl team.
Frank
If we are going to call Alabama State a black college, shouldn't we call the University of Alabama a white college as historically only whites attended?
Alabama State's Student Body is 94% Black, 1% White (the Football teams Punter/Kicker)
University of Alabama is 74% White, 11% Black (the Football/Basketball teams)
so actually University of Alabama is the more diverse school.
Frank
So, if I understand the paper, 'diversity', however defined, continued to increase at the institutions that hired CDO's, just not at a statistically significant faster rate than before they were hired.
That could mean that the CDO's had no impact, or it could me that they do, but the further you push the "diversity" agenda, the more extreme measures you have to engage in to maintain progress.
In any event, it would be nice to have a rigorous definition of "diversity". The paper lists several definitions that range from vague to vague AND extremely conclusory.
These organizations were already pursuing "diversity" to the nth degree while maintaining the facade that they were complying with the Supreme Court. But in practice it was to accept any underrepresented minority that they could have any remotely plausible reason to accept without it being so obvious that it was a quota system.
I don't know how hiring a CDO would have increased that activity in any meaningful way.
That's pretty much my conclusion. They were "diversitying" as hard as they could already, nothing a CDO could do to push it any further.
"Diversity" exists because "Multiculturalism" exists.
"Multiculturalism" exists because a certain people, who are way over represented, inequitably so, who control the levers of society or subvert when they don't, believe that a "multicultural society" is "safe" for their people. It's objectively worse for everyone else, mind you.