The New York Times has recently published two guest essays presenting opposing views on the effectiveness of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in academic institutions.

According to a report by Fox News, the contrasting pieces were published just months apart, with the first essay supporting DEI efforts and the second critiquing their efficacy.

In January 2024, Harvard Business School professors authored an essay titled "Critics of D.E.I. Forget That It Works," advocating for the continued implementation of DEI programs. However, in August 2024, Stanford scholars published a piece titled "D.E.I. Is Not Working on College Campuses. We Need a New Approach," challenging the effectiveness of current DEI strategies.

Contrasting Views On DEI Effectiveness

The January essay, penned by Harvard professors Dr. Caroline Elkins and Dr. Frances Frei, along with author Anne Morriss, argued in favor of DEI initiatives. They defined inclusion as creating conditions where everyone can thrive, and differences are not only tolerated but valued. The authors emphasized that pursuing DEI benefits leads to organizational wholes greater than the sum of their parts.

The Harvard team urged organizations not to abandon DEI objectives, even in the face of challenges. They suggested that doing so would be detrimental to individuals, organizations, and American society at large. Their essay aimed to encourage continued support for DEI programs despite potential difficulties in implementation.

However, the August essay by former Stanford Law School dean Paul Brest and Stanford associate professor Emily J. Levine presented a markedly different perspective. They argued that while some DEI programs may serve important goals, many others are overly ideological and may exacerbate the very problems they intend to solve.

Stanford Scholars Propose Alternative Approach

Brest and Levine expressed concerns about the compatibility of certain DEI programs with higher education's mission of cultivating critical thinking. They proposed an alternative approach based on pluralism, which would focus on providing students with the self-confidence, mindsets, and skills to engage with challenging social and political issues.

The Stanford scholars noted that diversity training on campus often leads to unintended consequences. They stated:

Rather than correcting stereotypes, diversity training too often reinforces them and breeds resentment, impeding students' social development. An excessive focus on identity can be just as harmful as the pretense that identity doesn't matter.

This observation suggests that current DEI strategies may be counterproductive in achieving their intended goals of fostering understanding and inclusivity among diverse student populations.

Potential Negative Impacts Of Current DEI Programs

The Stanford essay further elaborated on the potential drawbacks of existing DEI initiatives. Brest and Levine argued that these programs might inadvertently undermine the very groups they aim to support by instilling a victim mindset and creating divisions among students.

They expressed concern that an overemphasis on identity-based approaches could lead to unintended negative consequences. The authors suggested that such programs may reinforce stereotypes rather than break them down, potentially hindering students' social development and their ability to navigate diverse environments effectively.

This critique represents a significant departure from the earlier Harvard essay, which had strongly advocated for the continuation and expansion of DEI efforts. The contrasting views presented in these two essays published by the New York Times highlight the ongoing debate surrounding the effectiveness and implementation of DEI initiatives in academic settings.

Shifting Perspectives In Academic Circles

The publication of these opposing viewpoints in the span of a few months suggests a potential shift in academic discourse regarding DEI strategies.

While the Harvard professors emphasized the importance of persevering with DEI efforts despite challenges, the Stanford scholars advocated for a reevaluation of current approaches and the adoption of alternative methods.

This contrast in perspectives indicates that even within academic circles, there is no consensus on the best way to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The debate appears to be evolving, with some scholars questioning the efficacy of established DEI practices and calling for new, potentially less ideological approaches.

The fact that the New York Times published these conflicting views in such close succession demonstrates the newspaper's willingness to present diverse perspectives on this complex and often contentious issue. It also reflects the ongoing nature of the conversation surrounding DEI in higher education and beyond.

Conclusion

The New York Times has published two contrasting guest essays on the effectiveness of DEI initiatives within a span of several months. The first essay, written by Harvard professors in January 2024, advocated for the continuation of DEI programs, arguing that they work and are beneficial to organizations and society.

The second essay, authored by Stanford scholars in August 2024, critiqued current DEI approaches, suggesting they may be counterproductive and proposing an alternative pluralist-based strategy. This juxtaposition of viewpoints highlights the ongoing debate surrounding DEI practices in academic institutions and reflects the evolving nature of this complex issue.