Thoughts on Challenging Anti-DEI Right-Wing Policies at American Institutions of Higher Education: A Hypothesis

 

The current regressive political or illiberalism movement, which seeks to silence diverse voices and perspectives and cancel opportunities for diversity, equity, and inclusion, is not just a passing trend but a severe threat. It is sweeping across the U.S. at an unprecedented rate. Several U.S. states have enacted or proposed legislation restricting or banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, particularly in higher education. These measures generally aim to prohibit DEI offices, mandatory diversity training, and the use of diversity statements in hiring or admissions processes. Several of these institutions have fired DEI staff in efforts to adhere to state policies, e.g., the University of Texas at Austin or the University of Florida. The implications of these policies are far-reaching, potentially leading to a homogenized and exclusionary curriculum and ethos in the higher education landscape. 

 

To challenge this regressive movement, various forms of activism (e.g., legal activism, student activism, scholarly activism, or other grassroots efforts) are not just necessary but crucial. Hypothetically speaking, because many of these states have major NCAA Division I athletic programs that employ athletes who undergird a multi-billion-dollar collegiate sports industry, their involvement in activist efforts could be game-changing. Whether in the form of making specific demands or opting not to attend institutions within states with anti-DEI policies, their actions will shift the balance of political power in favor of DEI policies – the hypothesis. Furthermore, hypothetically speaking, what if parents or guardians of Black athletes specifically, or Mayors of southern cities, advised them not to attend universities that adhere to anti-DEI policies? The mere thought of advising athletes to make these sacrifices would cast them in the broader historical context with the efforts of individuals who have challenged systems of exploitation, oppression, and social injustice. It would also alter the athletic labor force of these universities, potentially altering their bottom line.

 

What would this proposition look like if employed? The following are the states with anti-DEI policies and a list of the NCAA Division I Institutions from Power Five conferences located in those states.

 

 

States	Power Five Conferences Universities	Policies*
Florida	1.     University of Florida (UF) - Gators 2.     Florida State University (FSU) - Seminoles 3.     University of Central Florida (UCF) - Knights 4.     University of South Florida (USF) - Bulls 5.     Florida International University (FIU) - Panthers 6.     Florida Atlantic University (FAU) - Owls	Florida has been a leader in the anti-DEI movement, implementing laws that prohibit the use of public funds for DEI initiatives at public colleges and universities.
Texas	1.     University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) - Longhorns 2.     Texas A&M University - Aggies 3.     University of Houston (UH) - Cougars 4.     Texas Tech University - Red Raiders 5.     University of North Texas (UNT) - Mean Green 6.     Rice University - Owls (private, but notable) 7.     Southern Methodist University (SMU) - Mustangs (private, but notable) 8.     Baylor University - Bears (private, but notable) 9.     Texas State University - Bobcats 10.  University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) - Roadrunners	Similar to Florida, Texas has passed legislation that effectively eliminates DEI offices at public higher education institutions. This includes the closure of various multicultural and LGBTQ+ support centers, replacing them with more general resource centers that do not specifically cater to minority groups.
Utah	1.     University of Utah - Utes 2.     Utah State University - Aggies 3.     Brigham Young University (BYU) - Cougars (private, but notable)	Utah's legislation, which will take effect in July 2024, limits DEI programs across public education and government institutions. This includes shutting down multicultural and LGBTQ+ centers and restricting staff from working on related issues.
North Carolina	1.     University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) - Tar Heels 2.     North Carolina State University (NC State) - Wolfpack 3.     East Carolina University (ECU) - Pirates 4.     Appalachian State University - Mountaineers	These states have enacted laws that restrict DEI efforts in public institutions. The specific provisions vary but generally include bans on mandatory diversity training and the use of diversity statements in hiring and admissions.
North Dakota	1.     No Power Five Conference Universities
Tennessee	1.     University of Tennessee (UT) - Volunteers 2.     Vanderbilt University - Commodores (private, but notable) 3.     University of Memphis - Tigers
Arizona	1.     University of Arizona (UA) - Wildcats 2.     Arizona State University (ASU) - Sun Devils	These remaining states have proposed or passed legislation aimed at restricting DEI activities.
Iowa	1.     University of Iowa - Hawkeyes 2.     Iowa State University - Cyclones
Kentucky	1.     University of Kentucky (UK) - Wildcats 2.     University of Louisville (UofL) - Cardinals
Missouri	1. University of Missouri (Mizzou) - Tigers
Nebraska	1.     University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) - Cornhuskers
Oklahoma	1.     University of Oklahoma (OU) - Sooners 2.     Oklahoma State University (OSU) - Cowboys
South Carolina	1.     University of South Carolina (USC) - Gamecocks 2.     Clemson University - Tigers (public land grant)
Alabama	1.     University of Alabama 2.     Auburn University	This bill prohibits universities from sponsoring DEI initiatives and eliminates DEI offices, DEI training, and identity-based preferences.

*Sources: https://www.chronicle.com/article/here-are-the-states-where-lawmakers-are-seeking-to-ban-colleges-dei-efforts; https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/anti-dei-laws-take-aim-students-color-and-lgbtq-students

 

When examining the racial demographics of some top programs among these forty-one university football teams, this proposition could impact their athletic success and, thus, the overall revenue they generate. Football is justified because it is the largest revenue generator for most, if not all, of these universities.

 

University	Athletic Revenue FB*	Percentage of Black Males FB**
University of Florida	$99 mil	68%
University of Texas	$183 mil	56%
University of Alabama	$129.3 mil	60%
Auburn University	$127 mil	65%
University of Oklahoma	$141.1 mil	55%
University of Tennessee	$135 mil	60%

*Source: https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2023/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/. ** Data was collected using official university athletic departments’ 2024 football rosters. 

 

If this hypothesis is partially conceived with just Black male football players opting to attend universities in states that do not practice illiberalism, it could have impactful consequences. State lawmakers may be concerned if the athletic capital at their respective state universities begins to diminish in value.

 

Well, this is just a proposition and an unlikely one for several reasons. First, with NIL legislation, the transfer portal policy, and the potential for revenue sharing on the table, these emancipatory acts have created economic and mobility opportunities that distract substantive efforts for athlete activism. Many athletes are finally getting paid for their athletic labor now; why mess that up with the thought of protesting against anti-DEI policies? Besides, the athletic bubble physically and mentally segregates athletes from clearly understanding the need for DEI.

 

Secondly, unlike athletic activism in the sixties, when there were unified groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) or the Olympic Project for Human Rights (O.P.H.R.), there needs to be a collective voice among athletes in Power Five conferences. Remember, one of the mandates of O.P.H.R. was that Black athletes should not play where they could not work as coaches. Imagine if a collective voice would emerge today and galvanize Black athletes around a central ultimatum that “we cannot play where anti-DEI policies are endorsed.”

 

Finally, there are no modern-day Dr. Harry Edwards or Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) to organize a mass group of individuals (college athletes specifically) around a cause. Current leaders are fighting other social injustices on different fronts. This is not to be dismissive of the legal activist efforts that have helped athletes achieve NIL opportunities or a semblance of free agency with the transfer portal or the organizing efforts of individuals like Ramogi Huma and the College Athletes Players Association or Kain Colter and the College athlete union. Yet, as mentioned earlier, organizing interscholastic and college athletes to address anti-DEI legislation, among the distractions of NIL, and asking them to make sacrifices to delay gratification would take charismatic leadership at varying levels, e.g., academic, governmental, legal, religious, etc.

 

So, here we are with an untestable hypothesis; an entertaining proposition of what-ifs. Hopefully, in the case of the spread of illiberalism among regressive political leaders, the arc of the moral universe will shorten and bend quickly toward justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Billy Hawkins, Ph.D.

Professor

University of Houston

Enable GingerCannot connect to Ginger Check your internet connection
or reload the browserDisable in this text fieldEditEdit in GingerEdit in Ginger×

The Myth and Reality of the Absentee Black Father: A Critical Examination

Yes, I believe! I am caught up in the Coach Deion “Prime Time” Sanders’ Mania and social phenomena. Not because of the football hype, his brief messianic tenure and success at Jackson State University, or his abrupt transition and mission to the University of Colorado. Or is it the economic impact he has attracted to the city of Boulder and the University of Colorado, or his 3-0 start to his first season? Not even the fact that he was an incredible athlete in his day: three-sport college athlete and a Hall of Famer in college and pro football. None of these opportunities or accomplishments resonate with me, like his presence as a Black father and his public display of Black male affection toward his sons, specifically within the context of football. This is extremely refreshing and a reprieve from the persistent images of Black fathers being assassinated by cops in front of their families as eyewitnesses or by way of the media (Philando Castile, George Floyd, Eric Garner, Manuel Loggins, and the list goes on….) and definitely from the dominant narrative of the absentee Black father.  

The narrative surrounding the absentee Black father has been deeply ingrained in American society for decades. This stereotype posits that Black fathers are disproportionately absent from their families, thereby contributing to a cycle of poverty, crime, and underachievement within the Black community. However, this narrative is not only overly simplistic but also empirically flawed. This op-ed aims to critically examine the issue of the absentee Black father by briefly highlighting some of the social, economic, and systemic factors that contribute to this stereotype while also highlighting how this narrative perpetuates racial inequality. Finally, I conclude that Coach Sanders is not an anomaly but, for me, the norm, despite what statistics seek to imply.

The Historical Context of the Absentee Black Father

One must examine the historical context to understand the origins of the absentee Black father stereotype. The roots can be traced back to the era of slavery, where Black families were systematically torn apart for economic gain. Black men, women, and even their children were torn away and sold as property to the highest bidder. The offspring of Black fathers were economic value and gain to the enslaver; however, fathering was not esteemed and rarely condoned. Post-slavery, the Jim Crow era further marginalized and terrorized Black men, making it difficult for them to fulfill traditional familial roles. However, there are counternarratives (see, e.g., Libra R. Hilde’s account on slavery and fatherhood) that inform of how some Black fathers, despite the perils of slavery, were able to maintain a role as a father in the enslaved Black family. Regardless of these few counternarratives, the historical context of slavery and the post-slavery eras are crucial for understanding the contemporary issues facing Black fathers, as they set the stage for systemic disadvantages often overlooked in mainstream discourse.

The Statistical Shift

Despite data from the U.S. Census Bureau or the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which suggest that the majority of Black children lived in single-family households that are headed chiefly by women, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other reputable sources, like the Black American Dad Foundation, indicate that Black fathers are just as involved—if not more so—in the lives of their children compared to fathers from other racial and ethnic groups. They are more likely to feed, bathe, play with, and read to their children daily. The narrative of the absentee Black father, therefore, is not only misleading but also damaging, as it perpetuates a stereotype that is not supported by empirical evidence. This statistical shift exposes the myth of the absentee Black father. Yet, there are still changes to increasing Black father’s presence in Black households.

Systemic Factors and the Absentee Black Father Narrative

The prevalence of white supremacy has been pervasive in the systemic factors associated with the narrative of the absentee Black father. Thus, the issue of absentee Black fathers cannot be discussed without addressing the systemic factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Mass incarceration, fueled by policies such as Nixon’s War on Drugs and Clinton’s Crime Bill, has disproportionately affected Black men, removing them from their families and communities. For example, Black men lead all racial groups in the U.S. on the likelihood of being imprisoned, where one in every three Black men can expect to be incarcerated in their lifetime, compared to one in every 17 White men. Economic factors such as unemployment and underemployment also play a significant role. These systemic issues create a cycle that is difficult to break and is often mischaracterized as a failure of individual responsibility rather than a system failure. Currently, the weaponization of white supremacy and anti-black racism magnifies these systemic factors, creating additional challenges to and attacks on Black fatherhood.

Cultural and Media Perceptions

Ideological hegemony and the role of media images often reinforce the stereotype of the absentee Black father. Television shows, news reports, and movies frequently depict Black fathers as neglectful, irresponsible, or altogether absent. These portrayals perpetuate this stereotype and contribute to internalizing these negative images within Black communities, affecting self-perception and perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage. Often, Hollywood’s portrayal of the Black men is as expendable because they are usually the first ones maimed or murdered. As Black TV dads, the images range from the questionable antics of George Jefferson to Dr. Cliff Huxtable. Sadly, the personal indiscretions of Bill Cosby have tarnished the image of this once successful and celebrated Black TV dad. And, I have yet to forgive “them” (CBS, specifically, and Hollywood in general) for killing off James Evans in Good Times. 

The Consequences of the Stereotype

The absentee Black father stereotype has real-world implications extending beyond the individual and family unit. It serves to justify the following:

• Racial profiling has contributed to police violence and the killing of Black men and women;

• Discriminatory practices are evident in the job market and contribute to higher employment rates. Discriminatory practices also create racial disparities in homeownership and education achievement and attainment. By perpetuating this stereotype, society implicitly argues that Black people, in general, and Black men specifically, are less deserving of the rights and protections afforded to others, thereby reinforcing systemic inequality.

Conclusion: It’s a Family Affair

The re-entry of Coach Sanders as the coach of a Power 5 conference athletic program has captured significant media attention. Undoubtedly, the focus is on whether he can succeed at this level in turning around an athletic program (as football goes, so goes the athletic program) and a team to its 1990s championship status.   

Despite this football hype, I am caught up in the Black family affair narrative. He has two of his sons playing for him, and his daughter, Shelomi Sanders, has transferred as a walk-on for the women’s basketball team. I hope these stories are not silenced amidst the football hoorah. Although he has had a public life and demonstrated Black fathering in TV reality shows like Deion and Pilar Sanders: Prime Time Love or Deion’s Family Playbook, this stage is affording him an additional opportunity to deconstruct the myth of the absentee Black father and present a reality, a counternarrative that many Black fathers are living out on different stages.