The term “DEI” is unavoidable in today’s political context. From local school board meetings, to laws passed by state governments, to speeches by the President of the United States, the debate over whether or not DEI should be a part of official policy is raging on. The University of Virginia is not immune from this debate, either. Last month, UVA’s Board of Visitors voted unanimously to dissolve the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and provided President Jim Ryan with a 30-day deadline to put forward a plan for the elimination of the office. While the deadline has now passed, the specifics of the plan are not yet known.
In the wake of this decision, UVA’s Civil Discourse Initiative decided to hold a discussion about DEI and education. The Civil Discourse Initiative (“CDI”) is a student-led organization on Grounds that holds regular discussions on issues considered to be controversial. Notably, the group has held talks on issues such as abortion, immigration, and, most recently, tariffs. The panel was moderated by Henry Brown, a second-year student who is CDI’s Logistics Director and also a section editor at the Jefferson Independent. The three panelists were Jaeda Fontaine-Rasaiah, a second-year student and member of the Queer Student Union’s political education committee; Emily Frost, a second-year student who serves as Student Council’s Director of University Relations; and Talmadge Gunter, a first-year student serving as University Democrats’ Social Chair.
The first question asked the panelists to define what exactly DEI means to them. Fontaine-Rasaiah responded first, stating that for her, DEI represents a commitment from institutions to uphold the rights of marginalized communities and ensure all people have the same opportunities to succeed. She further noted that as a woman who is both queer and black, the knowledge that an institution practiced DEI made her feel safer. Frost agreed that the symbolic value of DEI can be comforting to students, and further noted that DEI services at UVA, such as the Office of African American Affairs and services for First Generation/Low Income Students. Gunter stated that DEI was important for maintaining a sense of community at UVA, and emphasized that, in his view, DEI is not something new, but a continuation of promises made in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
The next question dealt with how the recent repeal of DEI would affect on-Grounds organizations. Fontaine-Rasaiah noted that it is difficult to know just how far the repeal’s effects would reach, as it has never been clear which specific programs fall under the DEI umbrella. Frost stated that the Jefferson Council’s recent statement on DEI may offer some insights into how the policy might play out, as multiple members of UVA’s Board of Visitors are members. Gunter pointed out that programs not removed as part of the policy could be moved to different departments under different names, but as it is not yet known what the final report on DEI will entail, student-run organizations should “prepare for the worst.”
Brown then asked the panelists how the organization they are specifically a member of are planning to respond to changes in DEI policies. Gunter stated that as a member of University Democrats, which is an inherently political organization, political activism was probably the best means of dealing with any changes that might harm its activities. Frost emphasized that while the Student Council is a nonpartisan organization, it has been having discussions about what to do in the event that there are any disruptions to services as a result of DEI policies or even federal executive orders. Fontaine-Rasaiah reiterated the Queer Student Union’s concerns about funding cuts, especially funding from alumni organizations. Additionally, she compared the recent decision on DEI to the Supreme Court’s overturning of affirmative action in colleges, but stated that “working around” the DEI decision would be much more difficult.
Subsequently, the panelists were asked whether or not they trusted the University administration to deal with the changes to policy. Fontaine-Rasaiah expressed distrust towards the administration, stating that it was likely they would attempt to stake a middle course so as not to anger the Board of Visitors. She also expressed sympathy for President Ryan, noting that he was more of a “politician” with limited power than someone with the capacity to resist the Board of Visitors. Gunter reiterated the idea of a “middle course,” and lamented the fact that the Board of Visitors rarely receives direct criticism due to not having a visible “face,” as the University administration does. Frost also re-emphasized the effective powerlessness of the President in the face of the Board of Visitors.
The conversation then shifted to whether the practice of the Governor of Virginia appointing the Board of Visitors was necessary. Frost noted the practical necessity of the Board of Visitors for funding purposes, but expressed dissatisfaction with political appointments and appointments of people with little connection to the University. Fontaine-Rasaiah stated that she held a more idealistic perspective: it makes little sense that the state government, which only provides 6-10% of UVA’s funding, should have so much influence in its internal affairs, and so it would make more sense to have a voting student and faculty member of the Board who would be elected by those at UVA. Gunter agreed with the others’ frustrations with the system, particularly the seeming lack of knowledge about the University on the part of state government officials whose job it is to confirm nominees to the Board.
To follow up, Brown pushed the panelists to provide examples of increased accountability from the Board of Visitors. Gunter re-emphasized the lack of a “face” for the Board, and lamented the fact that difficult-to-decipher meeting minutes were often the only way to get the exact text of Board proceedings. Frost advocated for town halls as a means for students to engage with the Board, but also expressed reservations about how frequently students would actually attend such events. Fontaine-Rasaiah wished there were more opportunities for student testimonials during proceedings, and made clear her dissatisfaction with the inefficient organization of the Board’s schedule and website.
The final questions dealt with the Trump administration’s policies on DEI, particularly whether or not UVA should stand up to the administration, as Harvard recently did, and what Trump’s victory has meant for the perception of DEI. All three panelists believed the University ought not to simply “give up” in the face of pressure from the government, especially considering the dubious legality of some of Trump’s orders, but also acknowledged the limits of a public versus a private university resisting the government. On Trump’s victory, all three also noted that there seems to have been a national shift towards conservative attitudes, in which DEI holds much less social prowess than it did before.
At the moment, it is not clear to what extent the end of DEI will affect the lives of students at the University. What is clear, however, is that we need spaces for open discussion on the policy and avenues to make student voices heard. Organizations like the Civil Discourse Initiative are a crucial component of this effort, and UVA students would do well to use structured conversations such as this one to facilitate discussions among their peers as well.
Leave a Reply