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.
While Marxism leads to Marxists effectively owning and controlling everything, crony capitalism leads to crony capitalists effectively owning and controlling everyhing. All this huffing and puffing about their being a supposed difference between the two, between Marxists and crony capitalists, is just so much smoke-blowing.
The governments of Oceana, Eurasia, and Eastasia did the same huffing and puffing about how their ideologies were supposedly diametrically opposed. This is no different.
Consider also, if they actually accomplish what they are hired to do, they are out of a job.
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.
But STEM is the source of almost all the problems. The positivist, reductionist, mechanistic attitude (fully false) is what crowds out the Liberal Arts, the Great Books, a Classical eductation, the long-esteemed Trivium.
and I have a Science degree and say this.
What's 'crowding out' most of that is actual hostility towards those things on the part of the left, because they're the product of people who were "too white". It's not engineering students trying to destroy the liberal arts. It's liberal arts students!
But think: If you drive up the fraction of the population pursuing degrees, they increasingly have to be degrees that will yield economic returns, because any other outcome would be economically insupportable! Economically unproductive education doesn't scale.
Better said by you. Thanks
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.
Government Aid raises tuition drastically. Bill Bennett made the case and so did some Fed researchers but anytime I've brought this up in a public forum it is irrationally denied
In 1987 then-Secretary of Education William J. Bennett argued that “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”
A 2017 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the average tuition increase associated with expansion of student loans is as much as 60 cents per dollar. That is, more federal aid to students enables colleges to raise tuition more.
==============
and as a college teacher of 10 years, I affirm that the students get worse by the year. THey can't read and don't read, they have the long-noted hideous inability to write , and are math-phobic.
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.
Is it your contention that every profession up and down the line would be 50/50 between men and women but for invidious discrimination? There are no professions, not even nurses, that the disparities cannot be explained by natural factors?
No, my contention is that, in an environment that features invidious discrimination, and has for at least a couple decades, you simply can't say what the organic distribution would be in the absence of discrimination.
But unless you assume that documented discrimination is simply ineffectual, it seems reasonable to assume that proof of discrimination against men is at least evidence that men would be more common in a group absent that discrimination.
Except you vitiate your point by ignoring the results
Everyone in education knows this
UCLA med students alarmingly sub-standard, as school 'cuts corners', admits applicants based on race
Over 50% of UCLA med students failed standardized tests on family medicine, internal medicine, emergency medicine, and pediatrics.
A professor described one operating room incident, during which a student could not identify a major artery when asked.
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
Wow, epic logic fail. EPIC
It makes complete sense. .As he says elsewhere , people like you think that if it's all Black it is ipso facto inferior !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For sure I am not making the fallacious conclusion that since some institutions need desegregating ALL MUST
"Inferior" doesn't have anything to do with his point. The 14th amendment and the Civil rights acts don't have "Unless it isn't inferior" clauses. The HBC's could be the best institutions on Earth, but if you can't legally have a "white college", you can't legally have a "black college". BOTH are discriminatory, and the 14th amendment doesn't have any exemption for discrimination in the 'right' direction.
But then you are discriminating against All Black Schools in the name of helping Blacks that want those schools, classic insensitive robotlike government misrule.
Why is this different with all-male prep schools ? Aren't they discriminating against females !!! Yours seems to be the "Puree school of social justice"
"in the name of helping Blacks that want those schools,"
No, just in the name of enforcing a constitutional amendment that doesn't distinguish between black and white.
"Why is this different with all-male prep schools ?"
Because the ERA was never ratified.
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.
I can't follow you on that because the data is against you.
Here's two things to consider
-----May 18, 2017 — The share of recently married blacks with a spouse of a different race or ethnicity has more than tripled, from 5% in 1980 to 18% in 2015
---- by K Bryc · 2015 · Cited by 784 — Genome-wide ancestry estimates of African Americans show average proportions of 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American ancestry .
Rather facilitating the natural diversity that exists and is being furthered in society, we are returning to Plessy v Ferguson where you are Black by the one-drop rule or whatever.
You want to further the real goal, oppose abortion, which is destroying diversity hugely, esp in regard to race and gender
“Since the number of current living blacks
(in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents
an enormous loss for, without abortion, America’s black
community would now number 41 million persons. It would
be 35 percent larger than it is currently. Abortion has swept
through the black community cutting down every fourth
member.”
Why Do Feminists Ignore Gendercide?
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/why-do-feminists-ignore-gendercide
You can't follow him because you're semiliterate and he's being coy. He's saying that the Jooooos are forcing blacks onto whites.
This is of course, stupid and wrong. It relies on the I-have-never-met-an-actual-person assumption that if someone had a kid rather than an abortion, that she would have the same number of kids going forward in this counterfactual world than she actually did.
It is quoted from Congressional testimony that no one challenged on your illogical grounds. Damn, you are a stupid cuss. The Guttmacher Institute (very pro-abortion) has these stats.
We know the number of abortions, we know the race of the women. Damn, you are just intolerably illogical
• Abortion is the leading cause of death for African Americans, more than all other causes combined, including HIV, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease.
• Abortions are performed on black women at a rate 3.5 times higher than white women; black women have over 30 percent of abortions though they are only 12.6 percent of the population.
• Over their lifetimes, black women average 1.6 more pregnancies than White women but are 5 times more likely to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion.
• Approximately 360,000 pre-born black babies are aborted every year, nearly 1000 per day.
• More than 16-million black babies have died by abortion since 1973.
• The percentage of the black population in the U.S. has dropped from 12.6 percent in 2010 to 12.4 percent in 2020. The black population in the U.S. (41 million) has dropped precipitously below the Hispanic population (63 million), numbers that would be radically different had 16 million black lives mattered enough to society to protect them from abortion and raise them to fruitful adulthood.
Black Death Toll (2008):
360,000 Surgical Abortions1
Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, August 2011 ↩
OLd Statistics but the source is impeccable.
The Guttmacher Institute may be a moral horror show, but precisely because the don't see anything wrong at all with late term abortion, or even early infanticide, they don't bother lying about them, either. So their statistics are fairly reliable.
Unlike the 'pro-choice' outfits that support these things, but on some level realize that they're evil, and so lie about them.
HARVARD LAW REVIEW (with citation)
Consider sex: In 1990, Nobel Prize–winning Harvard economist Amartya Sen, in an arrestingly titled article, documented the statistical reality that, worldwide, More than 100 Million Women Are Missing35 — a result, Sen argued, so far from the baseline norm expected in nature as to be statistically explainable only on the premise of some form of culpable human intervention, likely including severe medical neglect, deliberate female infanticide, and the predictable impact of China’s “one-child family” policy given a strong cultural preference for boys.36 In 2011, journalist Mara Hvistendahl, in her book Unnatural Selection, reported that the number of missing (and presumed dead) women and girls in Asia alone had reached 160 million and counting.37 This didn’t just happen. Hvistendahl convincingly demonstrates that the reason for the large demographic disparity in the male-female birth ratio is sex-selection abortion.38
https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-134/abortion-as-an-instrument-of-eugenics/
This all assumes that 'diversity officers' are intended to increase diversity.
They are not. They are intended to *police* diversity. To eliminate it. To ensure conformity.