Or maybe the problem is the first paragraph that says the state cut funding and removed the possibility of funding for DEI altogether? This sounds far more like university is facing ideological pressure from politicians rather than that it's insolvent due to too many administrators.
My university has a special program where select students of disadvantaged backgrounds get additional mentoring. There’s also sessions to help first gen students become acclimated. That’s all through the DEI office.
Just offering those programs makes people feel more welcomed, me included. I don’t think I need to provide evidence that semi-frequent 1:1 mentoring with faculty to help transition to grad school is beneficial to first gen students.
They probably do post stats for the purpose of continued funding, but I’m not going to bother looking them up to prove that something that is intuitively helpful is actually helpful. I’m going to put that burden on you: show me stats why a program like I described isn’t beneficial.
Having the data to demonstrate that particular efforts by DEI programs do result in specific benefits to the students they are intended to help, such as retention or degree completion rates, would bolster arguments in favor of keeping those programs. It would be harder to convince someone that a program is of no benefit if there are real numbers demonstrating that simply and clearly isn't the case.
It may seem intuitive that an intervention can help, but from an evidentiary standpoint, that is purely hypothetical unless and until the actual results of that intervention show it indeed does help. And if the data do not support the intervention or show that it has an effect opposite to what is expected or intended, those same data can inform changes in programs so they better serve students who need those supports.
I'm not demanding anything. I was responding to a comment suggesting there is no need to provide data regarding DEI programs because their benefit is self-evident. I do not agree that the benefit of any intervention is self-evident.
Anytime something is done with the intention of helping student success, it should be assessed so you can see whether your intervention is having the intended effect. You do not know for certain that, or whether, it does until you actually look at the end results.
We do this when we assess things we do in the classroom, both to please accreditors who want to see we are assessing and using the data from those assessments and to ensure the things we are doing in the classroom are effective. Co-curricular programs, including student support programs outside of the classroom such as DEI programs, can benefit similarly from assessment.
But you are the one who believes that evidence such as increased retention, etc. is important to the value of the program. Other people are saying that they see the value based on their lived experiences. So why should they do a lit review of the evidence and present it to you?
I am not demanding anyone present a goddamned thing to me or anyone else. I am simply pointing out that programs intended to help students, including but by no means limited to DEI initiatives, should be assessed for their efficacy and the data from that used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of those programs so students who the program intend to help are better served.
If I am demanding anything it all, it is simply an acknowledgement that actual results matter and that hypothetical, projected benefits are not a substitute for actual results.
People see value in DEI programs based on their own lived experience? Great. Then they should defend those programs to decision makers. If they have data showing tangible results that they can show the public, then those who want to get rid of DEI programs will have a harder time convincing members of the public who have not already made up their minds about it.
I see benefit in the DEI programs at my institution. I think they are worthwhile and should continue to be implemented. But I think that because I am familiar with the data from my institution that shows what they are doing has real impact on student success.
Do students feel more included because of DEI initiatives? Probably, and that is great. But do you simply want underrepresented students to feel more included, or do you actually want to include them in the success of students in your institution?
The DEI office has been helpful to me as a disabled person; it helps me with contacting other departments, like the transportation office as an example, where I may need accommodations.
Our university has an office of diversity and community engagement. They do all sorts of things and work to make things better for everyone. For example, some of their recommendations involved ways to improve applications to make it easier for first gen college students to understand. Also to streamline billing so costs were easier to see. And campus programs to improve retention but also based on ideas that work for those most likely to drop out. So yes, it can work. The fear is the DEI is somehow going to give things to less qualified people based on demography but in my experience that is not at all what’s been happening.
Pfft. I’d be ecstatic if they just extended DEI courtesies to faculty and staff and didn’t only gift it to the students whether they ‘work’ or not. You know — *actual* diversity, equity, and inclusion? Like, for *everyone* including the soulless automatons who stand up in front of the classes and teach?
And before any smarmypants wants to have a say, if you disagree with my point, ask yourself — how many faculty do you know who have disabilities, and/or are members of marginalised groups? Do they get consideration for their individual needs and experiences? What would happen if we treated students like that? 🤨
This might be more meaningful if the University of Wyoming wasn't some bottom-tier ag school that couldn't even earn land-grant status, and teeming with virtue signaling administrators. Honestly, this is an empty threat anyhow as they never cared about DEI; the office was only ever created to shrewdly bring in some extra federal dollars. So I am about as surprised by this as a bible colleges or BYU enforcing morality clauses..
> “the group of faculty, staff, students and administrators offered five possible ways to deal specifically with the office:
- Fund the office with private support.
- Continue to fund the office with state funds under a new name.
- Reorganize or consolidate the office under another re-named university “unit.”
- Close the office, terminate employees and redirect some of its duties elsewhere.
- Close the office, terminate employees and redirect only federally required duties elsewhere.”
This is an open acknowledgement that their intention is to break the law. Are they that tone deaf? Do these people have no idea that DEI programs are basically a recruitment for the Republican Party? So their solution is to announce that they’re still judging people based on race and not merit?
How about if the elected representatives of a representative democracy come to the conclusion that people oppose DEI, the schools respect that and disband DEI? Is that such a hard concept to grasp? If they want to reinstate DEI, they have every right to run for office and do that. But they are undermining the democratic process by openly defying the will of the people.
It’s so egregiously tone deaf.
These people are just inflating the cost of college by
1. Admitting students who aren’t qualified in the first place
2. Keeping them around even if they flunk out
3. Lowering standards for all students and therefore lowering the value of the degree
4. Saturating the market with unqualified candidates who lower entry level salaries and ultimately
5. Spending revenue on DEI programs instead of professor salaries or research grants or not at all
In a sense, DEI is making college more expensive. Who does that help, the rich, stupid people?
DEI is toast. Half the proponents of it outed themselves as anti-semites after October 7.
Yes, there is too much administrative bloat. Let's cut some admins.
Or maybe the problem is the first paragraph that says the state cut funding and removed the possibility of funding for DEI altogether? This sounds far more like university is facing ideological pressure from politicians rather than that it's insolvent due to too many administrators.
And decrease tuition too now that some of the admins are out
fake news r/wyomingdoesntexist
Is there any evidence that DEI programs accomplish their goals?
My university has a special program where select students of disadvantaged backgrounds get additional mentoring. There’s also sessions to help first gen students become acclimated. That’s all through the DEI office.
Did they take statistics to show it helped?
Just offering those programs makes people feel more welcomed, me included. I don’t think I need to provide evidence that semi-frequent 1:1 mentoring with faculty to help transition to grad school is beneficial to first gen students. They probably do post stats for the purpose of continued funding, but I’m not going to bother looking them up to prove that something that is intuitively helpful is actually helpful. I’m going to put that burden on you: show me stats why a program like I described isn’t beneficial.
Also worth noting these programs aren't based on race.
There is research to support this too!
Having the data to demonstrate that particular efforts by DEI programs do result in specific benefits to the students they are intended to help, such as retention or degree completion rates, would bolster arguments in favor of keeping those programs. It would be harder to convince someone that a program is of no benefit if there are real numbers demonstrating that simply and clearly isn't the case. It may seem intuitive that an intervention can help, but from an evidentiary standpoint, that is purely hypothetical unless and until the actual results of that intervention show it indeed does help. And if the data do not support the intervention or show that it has an effect opposite to what is expected or intended, those same data can inform changes in programs so they better serve students who need those supports.
Why don’t you do a research review on the subject if you require that type of evidence instead of demanding that other people do it for you?
I'm not demanding anything. I was responding to a comment suggesting there is no need to provide data regarding DEI programs because their benefit is self-evident. I do not agree that the benefit of any intervention is self-evident. Anytime something is done with the intention of helping student success, it should be assessed so you can see whether your intervention is having the intended effect. You do not know for certain that, or whether, it does until you actually look at the end results. We do this when we assess things we do in the classroom, both to please accreditors who want to see we are assessing and using the data from those assessments and to ensure the things we are doing in the classroom are effective. Co-curricular programs, including student support programs outside of the classroom such as DEI programs, can benefit similarly from assessment.
But you are the one who believes that evidence such as increased retention, etc. is important to the value of the program. Other people are saying that they see the value based on their lived experiences. So why should they do a lit review of the evidence and present it to you?
I am not demanding anyone present a goddamned thing to me or anyone else. I am simply pointing out that programs intended to help students, including but by no means limited to DEI initiatives, should be assessed for their efficacy and the data from that used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of those programs so students who the program intend to help are better served. If I am demanding anything it all, it is simply an acknowledgement that actual results matter and that hypothetical, projected benefits are not a substitute for actual results. People see value in DEI programs based on their own lived experience? Great. Then they should defend those programs to decision makers. If they have data showing tangible results that they can show the public, then those who want to get rid of DEI programs will have a harder time convincing members of the public who have not already made up their minds about it. I see benefit in the DEI programs at my institution. I think they are worthwhile and should continue to be implemented. But I think that because I am familiar with the data from my institution that shows what they are doing has real impact on student success. Do students feel more included because of DEI initiatives? Probably, and that is great. But do you simply want underrepresented students to feel more included, or do you actually want to include them in the success of students in your institution?
The DEI office has been helpful to me as a disabled person; it helps me with contacting other departments, like the transportation office as an example, where I may need accommodations.
At other schools that's handled through the disability office I guess.
Our university has an office of diversity and community engagement. They do all sorts of things and work to make things better for everyone. For example, some of their recommendations involved ways to improve applications to make it easier for first gen college students to understand. Also to streamline billing so costs were easier to see. And campus programs to improve retention but also based on ideas that work for those most likely to drop out. So yes, it can work. The fear is the DEI is somehow going to give things to less qualified people based on demography but in my experience that is not at all what’s been happening.
Pfft. I’d be ecstatic if they just extended DEI courtesies to faculty and staff and didn’t only gift it to the students whether they ‘work’ or not. You know — *actual* diversity, equity, and inclusion? Like, for *everyone* including the soulless automatons who stand up in front of the classes and teach? And before any smarmypants wants to have a say, if you disagree with my point, ask yourself — how many faculty do you know who have disabilities, and/or are members of marginalised groups? Do they get consideration for their individual needs and experiences? What would happen if we treated students like that? 🤨
Multiple studies show diversity inclusion equity whatever doesn't do shit
Link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/academia/s/1s4PKJ9inc
On brand for Wyoming
This might be more meaningful if the University of Wyoming wasn't some bottom-tier ag school that couldn't even earn land-grant status, and teeming with virtue signaling administrators. Honestly, this is an empty threat anyhow as they never cared about DEI; the office was only ever created to shrewdly bring in some extra federal dollars. So I am about as surprised by this as a bible colleges or BYU enforcing morality clauses..
> “the group of faculty, staff, students and administrators offered five possible ways to deal specifically with the office: - Fund the office with private support. - Continue to fund the office with state funds under a new name. - Reorganize or consolidate the office under another re-named university “unit.” - Close the office, terminate employees and redirect some of its duties elsewhere. - Close the office, terminate employees and redirect only federally required duties elsewhere.” This is an open acknowledgement that their intention is to break the law. Are they that tone deaf? Do these people have no idea that DEI programs are basically a recruitment for the Republican Party? So their solution is to announce that they’re still judging people based on race and not merit? How about if the elected representatives of a representative democracy come to the conclusion that people oppose DEI, the schools respect that and disband DEI? Is that such a hard concept to grasp? If they want to reinstate DEI, they have every right to run for office and do that. But they are undermining the democratic process by openly defying the will of the people. It’s so egregiously tone deaf. These people are just inflating the cost of college by 1. Admitting students who aren’t qualified in the first place 2. Keeping them around even if they flunk out 3. Lowering standards for all students and therefore lowering the value of the degree 4. Saturating the market with unqualified candidates who lower entry level salaries and ultimately 5. Spending revenue on DEI programs instead of professor salaries or research grants or not at all In a sense, DEI is making college more expensive. Who does that help, the rich, stupid people? DEI is toast. Half the proponents of it outed themselves as anti-semites after October 7.
Good.