Month: June 2024

By Mark Doggett

Kentucky post-secondary institutions would be wise to back off their obsession with so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).”

In the most recent Kentucky legislative session, Senate Bill 6 proposed a ban on discrimination against college students and employees, providing protections for political and social viewpoints that run counter to institutional DEI inclinations. The bill did not advance to the floor for a vote only because House members attempted to replace it with even stronger legislation banning DEI offices and courses promoting or endorsing specific DEI political viewpoints.

If SB 6 had passed, Kentucky would join  28 states that have now introduced legislation limiting or defunding DEI with 11 of those states passing some form of DEI limitations. 

So why do post-secondary schools love DEI? On the surface the words diversity, equity, and inclusion  seem harmless enough, and even virtuous. And who doesn’t want to be virtuous? The devil is always in the details.    

Inclusion means “to be a part of” or “belonging.” Who would object to that? However, in practice inclusion also means excluding or shutting out those who are not part of the “in-group.” For DEI, the in-group is anyone of color or someone who claims to be a victim of oppression. Claim to be marginalized and you can be part of the group. Who is not included? Anyone of European descent. They are considered “oppressors.” Even white allies who support DEI are oppressors because they have “privilege.” Asians and Jews are also called oppressors.

The DEI definition of diversity follows the same convoluted logic. In science, diversity is the difference between things, indicating a variety. Diversity is thought to be a strength. However, DEI turns diversity into tribalism by dividing people into groups sorted by their “identities.” Identity politics assumes beliefs and values are based on a set of visible characteristics. DEI places people into categories based on their race, religion, sex, color, or ethnic origin. To be DEI approved, you must identify as being oppressed or declare your privilege.

Equity is the most disturbing of the DEI triad. Proponents attempt to use it as a synonym for equality, but equity is distinctly different. Equity is about fairness or a lack of favoritism, but DEI gives favoritism to those in the preferred tribal group. Supposed oppressors need not apply. In fact, anyone who expresses unapproved  political views, has apparent privilege, or perceived merit is a “colonizer.” DEI asserts that we must be decolonized to achieve the “virtuous” goals of DEI. Imagine what decolonization would look like.

DEI divides us into tribes and plays favorites. Reverse discrimination is not empowerment or an improvement.

Freedom to earn our success and improve our personal lives is what unites us.

I believe parents will eventually send their children to schools that promote a rigorous education over political activism. Will college administrators begin to think differently about pushing DEI onto students and faculty? Probably not, but they should know that DEI is operating on borrowed time. DEI is the walking dead that nobody really wants.

Mark Doggett, PHD

About Mark

Mark Doggett is a professor in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Western Kentucky University.

By Gary Houchens

Kentuckians’ ballots this November will have more than just a contentious presidential race. Parents seeking a broader range of options for their kids’ education will be paying close attention to a state constitutional amendment to enable new learning options for families. For those families to win the day, the flawed but pervasive arguments in favor of the status quo need serious scrutiny.

Already those opposed to robust choice in education are repeating their familiar slogans, most notably that “public dollars are for public schools.” Slogans are often simplistic, but this one truly falls apart when confronted with some overwhelmingly inconvenient facts.

First, public dollars are already used in private colleges and universities. Pell grants, the GI Bill, and government-subsidized student loans all follow beneficiaries to the college of their choice, including private, faith-based institutions. Even the Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES) program, which gives high school students money for college tuition based on their grades, can be used in private colleges. Many opponents of school choice have championed preschool programs that would empower Kentucky families with resources to choose from both public and private early childhood options.

Outside of education, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the WIC program, Section 8, and Social Security are all programs that allow beneficiaries to choose from a wide variety of providers, almost all of which are private entities. It’s only in K-12 education that we systematically deny low- and middle-income a choice in who educates their children.

The second reason the “public dollars for public schools” argument doesn’t work is it assumes education tax dollars automatically belong to public school districts and the state. Instead, school choice is based on the idea that, like the other programs just described, education is a highly personal public good. Education dollars are for helping children thrive intellectually. Families should be able to direct those resources to the provider that best fits their needs in the same way Medicare beneficiaries choose their own doctor and hospital.

The bottom line is that defenders of the education status quo want no possible threat to their monopoly when it comes to the education of children from low- and middle-income families. They simply do not want to compete for the dollars those students represent.

Sloganeering aside, the fight voters will witness over the coming months really comes down to one important question: Who should decide how state education dollars are directed? Should they be directed by parents to serve the unique needs of their children … or public officials managing a largely top-down system?

Kentucky lags its neighbors when it comes to empowering parents in this arena. Every single state that touches our Commonwealth has at least one robust parent-centered choice program in place.

It’s time for Kentucky to join the rest of the country and treat families with the respect they deserve. Voters should pass the school choice constitutional amendment so we can start funding students, not systems.

Gary W. Houchens, Ph.D., is professor in the School of Leadership and Professional Studies and Director of the Educational Leadership doctoral program at Western Kentucky University. From 2016-2019 he served as a member of the Kentucky Board of Education.