By Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
This column has previously reported on the threat directed at the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy especially at elite universities in the United States.
This follows from the alleged plagiarism by the then president of the Harvard University as pressed by some interested individuals and groups that have been targeting the president for some time. This consequently led to an assault on universites’ DEI efforts to recruit and retain faculty and students of colour, launched in early 2023.
While university administrators say their DEI efforts are an effective strategy to repair decades of exclusionary policies and practices that repelled communities of colour from their campuses, conservative leaders say the practices violate free speech, break anti-discrimination laws, and are a misuse of public money.
The debate surrounding DEI driven primarily by Republicans is proposing measures such as:
(a) Eliminating DEI offices. Advocates for this approach seek to dismantle dedicated offices focused on DEI;
(b) Ending anti-bias training. Some lawmakers aim to discontinue programmes designed to address bias and promote understanding; and,
(c) Banning diversity statements. Efforts are underway to prohibit institutions from requiring or promoting diversity statements pushing back hard on higher education programmes that use racial preferences to recruit and retain more students and faculty of colour, and promote inclusivity for students of all identities. Many are now having to rethink – and in some cases completely dismantle – those efforts.
Such on-going debate over DEI continues to make the situation uncertain in how universities need to operate, with respect to infrastructure development, policies as well as the academic ecosystem.
Yet, proponents of DEI efforts insist that they are helpful in creating a sense of belonging, trust, build inclusive learning environments and increase student success on campuses.
Of late however, there seems to be a U-turn on DEI policies. For example, reportedly, Yale University announced it would reinstate standardised testing requirements in the autumn of 2025.
Dean of Undergraduate Admissions stated: “Our analyses have found that applicants without test scores have been less likely to be admitted; concerningly, this was especially true for applicants from lower-income backgrounds and those attending high schools with fewer college-preparatory courses.”
Earlier, Dartmouth College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have also taken similar actions: literally overturning their DEI policies. The former “will reactivate the standardised testing requirement for undergraduate admission beginning with applicants to the Class of 2029,” after suspending it in 2020.
A standardised testing requirement will improve —not detract from — the ability to bring the most promising and diverse students to the campus, it noted. At MIT, research conducted by the admissions office shows that the standardised tests are an important factor in assessing the academic preparation of applicants from all backgrounds.
The standardised exams are most helpful for assisting the admissions office in identifying socio-economically disadvantaged students who are well-prepared for MIT’s challenging education, but who do not have the opportunity to take advanced coursework, participate in expensive enrichment programmes, or otherwise enhance their university applications.
The Institute suspended its longstanding requirement in 2020 and 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic that prevented most high schoolers from safely taking the exams.
Overall, higher education commitment to DEI reached its peak in 2020 with criticisms of standardised tests becoming more racially-driven, and critics labelling the tests as “racist.”
As the US absorbed millions of immigrants from Europe beginning in the 19th century, the day’s leading social scientists, many of them White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, were concerned by the infiltration of non-whites into the nation’s public schools.
Yet proponents of standardised tests have argued for decades that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) and ACT (American College Test) give low-income students the opportunity to demonstrate their academic qualifications.
Research points to non-academic hurdles on the road to university like filling out financial aid forms, writing admissions essays, obtaining letters of recommendation, and registering for entrance exams. There are dozens of details to remember, deadlines to meet, forms to complete and fees to pay.
Parents who have gone through this process themselves, and have the time and resources, can coach their children through it. Other children are largely on their own. Nothing can come closer to “an informed, well-resourced parent.”
It is also noted that there is a tendency for universities to blindly follow the latest actions by some vested interest. This must be thoroughly checked as universities come to realise its importance.
Rather than, as some put it, “have had their heads buried in the sand for years, or they actively chose to ignore this information to follow the lead of zealots.” Indeed, a group of about 150 university leaders mainly from community colleges, is organising to counter negative stereotypes about DEI efforts.
As such, bringing back standardised tests, and putting back DEI policies seems to be a step in the right direction. – BACALAHMALAYSIA.MY
- The writer is Rector at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)
