Written by Chanté Russell, Public School Forum of NC Communication Manager

On May 23 the University of North Carolina System Board of Trustees voted to repeal its Diversity & Inclusion Policy in favor of “institutional neutrality.” This new policy, which was introduced in April, will remove funding for DEI offices and eliminate various diversity-related positions across the 17 UNC System schools. Chancellors will be required to report cuts to existing jobs and DEI spending by September 1.

Since the announcement of efforts to remove diversity and inclusion regulations, students from various UNC System schools have expressed disappointment, frustration and anxiety about the move. The Public School Forum of North Carolina conducted an anonymous survey to hear from students and other community members about their stance on diversity and inclusion, or diversity, equity and inclusion policies. 

“[Inclusive] environments promote diversity awareness and acceptance, as students learn to understand, respect, and value their differences. This exposure is vital in reducing prejudices and promoting social harmony,” wrote one survey respondent. “Inclusion also encourages personalized learning, which benefits all students by catering to individual learning styles and needs, thus improving academic performance and engagement.”

“Inclusive practices are not only a matter of educational benefit but also align with international human rights laws, advocating for the rights of all individuals to receive education without discrimination,” wrote another respondent.

Several of those who completed the survey shared concerns that this policy change will have a tremendous negative effect on efforts to make UNC System schools welcoming environments for students from marginalized communities. 

“With programs like DEI being removed, we will take many steps backward in terms of progress in the area of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to be seen, heard, and grow without being overly conscientious about their race, gender, or sexual orientation,” wrote one respondent.

“The shift from well-defined roles and responsibilities for Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) officers to a vaguer, broader commitment to equality raises ethical concerns about how these changes might affect the inclusivity and welcoming nature of campus environments—a goal that these revisions ostensibly seek to advance,” wrote another respondent.

One respondent emphasized that diversity, equity and inclusion policies don’t only benefit students from certain backgrounds, but all students. “Ultimately, prioritizing DEI in education fosters a more equitable and enriching learning experience for every student, promoting the collective growth and success of every school community, every day,” wrote the respondent. 

Sharing the sentiment, another wrote, “DEI principles not only support the holistic development of each student but also empower educators to recognize and address barriers that may impede learning.”

Many also expressed specific concern for how this will impact their and other students’ experiences at UNC System schools. 

“If D&I initiatives aimed at supporting student wellbeing and performance are perceived as being reduced or limited, it could significantly affect the sense of belonging and participation of minority groups within the university community—something I can personally attest to,” wrote one respondent. 

Another respondent expressed a similar sentiment, writing “This puts more of a target on the backs of our (Black and Brown) young people in academic and STEM settings.”

“I am deeply concerned about the substantial risks that potential failures in this new approach could pose to the wellbeing of minority students like myself,” wrote another.

With this move, North Carolina’s public universities join schools including the University of Florida and the University of Texas at Austin who have been forced to roll back DEI efforts. Nationwide at least 20 states have seen proposals seeking to limit diversity and inclusion programs in public institutions, including universities. The reality is, “institutional neutrality” is not neutral at all. Rather than allowing for an even playing field, removing DEI efforts expresses that a history of exclusion is not an issue and that it may be allowed to continue. Furthermore, it signifies that previous efforts to foster schools where all feel welcome were insincere. Remaining “neutral” to the very real obstacles many students and faculty members face is taking a stance.