How many DEI staff is too many?

In “Bloated Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Staffs Explode Cost of Higher Education,” The Daily Signal cites a study by The Heritage Foundation (which funds The DS, in an apparent circle of affirmation), which found that:

“’the average university has 45.1 people tasked with promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion,’ and that at some schools, the number is much higher. They found that the University of Michigan, for instance, has 163 diversity, equity, and inclusion personnel and that many other schools had similarly high numbers.”

It’s a first, but I’m actually in agreement with The DS that 45.1, 163 and “similarly high numbers” are totally wrong.

How many people should promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a school (or any organization)? What is enough and not too much?

Whatever the total numbers of employees is.

I cannot think of someone who works with – and, in the case of schools, for other people: namely students and families – who shouldn’t be tasked with co-creating a workplace and a community that is mutually safe, and in which every individual experiences dignity and belonging and is able to thrive. Not. a. one.

Oh, and add volunteers. For sure, the board of trustees/board of regents should be counted as DEI staff.

[Aside: This outrage over a “bloated” focus on DEI made me wonder about the size of the athletics staff at these universities. I’m guessing that some are well over 45.1 and even 163 employees. This is, of course, comparing soil to apples – e.g. it is not a thing. DEI is the soil; athletics is one of the hopefully thriving and healthy things that can grow in it.]

Removing my tongue from my cheek, what strikes me about the foundation’s outrage over this many – or quite likely, any – DEI staff is how familiar it is. There’s a prevalent attitude, conscious or not, among predominantly white, predominantly male and predominantly wealthy organizations (which, to be clear, are predominantly so by design, not by accident) that a DEI office comprising a director (sometimes with administrative support) is sufficient. To, you know, oversee DEI in all aspects and at all levels of the organization.

And this is because of a root belief (again, conscious or not) that the Office of DEI is like a complaint center.

Which is problematic because this belief:

• Personalizes inequity and exclusion, as if injustice is just something Alison is upset about, so how do we make it better for her/make her go away?
• Localizes injustice in specific, isolated incidents, in just another version of the “bad apples” theory.
• Minimizes reports of exclusion and inequity by suggesting they are just “complaints,” as opposed to very real threats to individual and collective lives and well-being.

This “complaint center” notion of DEI is also inaccurate. DEI is not just reactive. Yes, any DEI commitment comprises reaction and response to injury and issues, as well as proaction and strategy. Because DEI isn’t personal or local. It’s systemic and cultural.

So what I believe we need to do in organizations that are striving toward justice is: yes, have dedicated DEI staff (especially given the current status of DEI in most organizations, which is that DEI is not part of the design, and DEI fluency is uneven or low across staff and leadership), and ensure that DEI is embedded in the responsibilities of every employee and volunteer. Because everyone has to own DEI in what they do. It is the one office that exists solely in service of every office.