Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Higher Education

In 2022, only 6% of full-time faculty at U.S. colleges were Black, and just 5% were Hispanic. Despite decades of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, higher education is increasingly under attack by state legislatures across the country for supporting cultural centers and programs that serve marginalized student populations. From biased admissions practices to the lack of representation in classrooms and administrative leadership, many argue that DEI efforts are more critical now than ever. This essay argues that colleges must move beyond symbolic gestures and implement measurable, systemic changes to create truly inclusive and equitable environments for all students. By increasing faculty diversity and protecting student cultural spaces, institutions can begin to close the equity gap and fulfill the promise of higher education for everyone.

Biased admission policies continue to perpetuate disparities in higher education by favoring privileged applicants over equally qualified underprivileged students. Legacy admissions policies, which admit relatives of alumni applicants with preferential treatment, are disproportionately biased toward white and affluent students. Harvard University's legacy applicant acceptance rate, 33%, between 2014 and 2019, significantly exceeds the acceptance rate of 6% in total. This advantage is compounded by the reality that 70% of Harvard's legacy applicants are white. Such practices destabilize the notion of meritocracy in addition to deterring the diversification of student populations. Standardized testing also aggravates such imbalances. Children in the wealthiest 1% of American families, according to a 2023 study by Opportunity Insights, were 13 times as likely to have scored 1300 or more on an SAT/ACT compared to their low-income counterparts. ¹ Critics argue that these tests are not tests of ability but expressions of prevailing socioeconomic inequalities. As FairTest notes, standard tests fail to consider the multiple educational and cultural histories of test-takers, with corresponding biased outcomes. The Supreme Court's recent decision to close race-conscious college admissions policies only further complicates the dynamics of college admission. This court decision challenges the colleges to seek alternative and equitable means of achieving diversity without direct reference to race. In turn, some universities are reconsidering the practice of standardized tests in admissions. For instance, the University of Texas at Austin re-established requirements for SATs and ACTs on the basis that such tests provide critical information about readiness among students. Nevertheless, this has invited criticism on whether such a move will sustain deep-seated inequalities. To craft a more equitable admissions practice, colleges will have to seriously reconsider and re-fashion these practices. Eliminating legacy preferences, reassessing the weight given to standardized tests, and implementing holistic review processes that consider the different experiences and barriers faced by all applicants are important steps toward developing inclusivity and fairness in higher education.

Furthermore, the lack of diversity in college classrooms and executive management further exacerbates the difficulty of creating truly inclusive campuses. Student populations have increasingly diversified, while the number of faculty members who belong to the underrepresented constituencies appears to have been disproportionately slim. In 2020, less than 6.4% of full-time instructors were Black and 5.5% Hispanic, compared to a nearly 60% presence among the total faculty of U.S. colleges, including White faculty. ² This underrepresentation is specifically felt in disciplines such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, where students of color are also underrepresented. Studies continually identify that students of color succeed both academically and socially if they can recognize themselves with those faculty members sharing similar lived experiences. Without a diverse faculty, students feel isolated and cannot see themselves reflected in the curriculum, which can prevent them from succeeding academically and feeling a sense of belonging. Equally concerning is the disparity in leadership within the administration, where people of color are significantly underrepresented. In 2022, only 12% of college presidents were people of color, while nearly 70% of college presidents were White despite growing student body diversity. ³ The disparity in leadership creates a gap between institutional decision-makers and the communities they serve. Diverse leadership is responsible for creating policy that promotes inclusivity and advocates for the interests of historically underrepresented groups. Without it, colleges may perpetuate policies that fail to address the unique needs of underrepresented students, and institutional potential for meaningful change is wasted. To reverse these disparities, colleges must take affirmative steps to diversify not only administrative but also faculty leadership. This involves not only recruiting members of underrepresented groups into such positions but also building support systems enabling the retention of diverse administrators and faculty. Positive mentoring, equitable hiring practices, and proactive leadership development programs are all needed to foster a diverse academic environment.

While there are systemic obstacles for minority groups in higher education, protected spaces on campuses, including cultural centers and identity groups, are necessary to have a welcoming campus where marginalized students are heard and are valued. As seen here at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), we have the Intercultural and Diversity Affairs (IDAC) Center. The IDAC serves as a soft space for students to relax in between classes, as well as a safe space where students can be their authentic selves. Since the Trump Administration took office in January 2025, the IDAC has been under attack for its efforts to create a safe space for students. On January 30, House Bill 622 was filed in the Tennessee House of Representatives. HB 622, entitled the "Dismantle DEI Act," “prohibits local governments and public institutions of higher education from basing hiring decisions on any metrics that consider an applicant's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability, or hiring a particular candidate to achieve any goals to increase diversity, equity, or inclusion in the workplace.” Upon favorable passage of this bill, the IDAC would cease to exist. With the high likelihood of this bill passing, Danielle Rochelle, Director of the Intercultural and Diversity Affairs Center, has been working tirelessly to help find new ways to rebrand the IDAC. When faculty and staff returned from Winter Break, Rochelle hit the ground running, researching anti-DEI bills being filed in the Tennessee General Assembly. Being her program assistant, I have helped Rochelle keep an eye on bills as well as brainstorm ideas for the IDAC’s eventual rebranding. As a result of having this position, I’ve connected with Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students Dr. Khalilah Doss and Dr. Monica Smith, Assistant to the President for Community Engagement and Inclusion. When inquiring about a meeting, Dr. Smith took the reins when conversing via email. Although she has been away at a conference, she made sure to answer any questions I had. In response to asking about how the University will operate when DEI gets outlawed in Tennessee, Dr. Smith wrote to me, “For background and clarity, on most college campuses, including MTSU, community engagement and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have distinct focuses, though they can intersect…Community engagement & inclusion at MTSU specifically refers to how the university connects with and includes both its internal campus community and the broader external community.” In summary, in a post-DEI Tennessee, as a University, MTSU will outsource and provide community resources for the campus community. In conclusion, while MTSU grapples with the issues of the possible dismantling of DEI initiatives, commitment to fostering community engagement and inclusivity will continue to be critical in ensuring that all students are supported and appreciated regardless of the political environment.

Critics of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives on campuses also feel that DEI initiatives undermine meritocracy and introduce division. Their notion is that placing priority on DEI policies such as affirmative action or preferential treatment programs for underrepresented groups leads to discrimination against greater-merit students. Some feel that DEI initiatives suppress free speech by discouraging free debate and dissenting opinions. As the National Association of Scholars would have it, these programs "create a divisive culture where students and faculty are more concerned with identity politics than intellectual diversity and academic rigor." While it is indeed the case that DEI programs have sometimes been contentious, their benefits exceed criticisms. Second, DEI initiatives do not replace meritocracy but rather broaden its definition to include qualities such as lived experience, resilience, and potential, which have been overlooked in the past under traditional evaluations. Research shows that diverse classrooms and teams are more innovative and produce better results because they allow for a greater variety of perspectives to be considered. A study done by Harvard Business Review in 2020 found that diverse groups are 35% more likely to perform better than homogeneous groups on problem-solving tests. ⁴ Secondly, instead of suppressing free speech, DEI programs encourage the sharing of diverse ideas and create a forum where all students feel free to express their opinions without fear of being marginalized. Studies have shown that students who are safe and supported in an inclusive environment are more likely to engage in meaningful, productive discussions that promote critical thinking and personal growth. The American Council on Education states that 88% of college students agree that diversity initiatives make for a more open and stimulating campus climate, where diverse voices can be heard and valued.

In short, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are not just a good thing to do; they're a necessity for colleges and universities. Some critics claim that such initiatives harm meritocracy or limit free speech, but the reality is that DEI programs create healthier and more collaborative learning environments in which all students, no matter what their background is, can thrive. By enrolling more diverse staff, fostering safe spaces for students, and updating outdated admissions policies, schools can build campuses that are reflective of their diverse student bodies and that make everyone feel like they belong.

Works Cited

American Council on Education. The American College President Study 2021. American Council on Education, 2021, www.acenet.edu/Research-Insights/Pages/Diversity-Equity-Inclusion/.

American Psychological Association. "How Culturally Inclusive Teaching Can Improve Student Learning." APA, 2019, www.apa.org/education/undergrad/culturally-inclusive.

National Association of Scholars. The Impact of Diversity on Higher Education. National Association of Scholars, 2021, www.nas.org.

Rock, David, and Heidi Grant. “Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter.” Harvard Business Review, 2020, hbr.org/2020/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter.

Tinto, Vincent. "Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research." Review of Educational Research, vol. 45, no. 1, 2017, pp. 89-125, www.jstor.org/stable/42704311?seq=1.

Tennessee General Assembly Legislation. House Bill 622, 30 Jan. 2025, wapp.capitol.tn.gov/Apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0622.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Digest of Education Statistics 2020. National Center for Education Statistics, 2020, nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_315.20.asp.