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
No comments:
Post a Comment