Will DEI be dismantled this week in the University of North Carolina System?

A reader sent me the tweet below (I don’t spend much time on Twitter), but it intrigued me not so much because University of North Carolina (UNC) system spends millions on DEI (that’s not unusual), but because it reports that its DEI policy may be eliminated across all UNC schools this week.  Note that there are 686 DEI positions in the system, with salaries adding up to over $70 million ($91 million if you include benefits).

Cutting $2.3 million for DEI at Chapel Hill was just a start.

The University Of North Carolina System spends at least $90 million a year on almost 700 DEI staff: pic.twitter.com/kSBiRRCpsp

— Steve McGuire (@sfmcguire79) May 21, 2024

The article below, from the “Open the Books” Substack site, while a bit rant-y, does give useful information about spending and salaries, even though the UNC system has refused to answer Freedom of Information Act requests from the author.  And the presumably impending end to DEI is also of interest, as it seems to be part of a national trend. Click below to read:

First, the new (the article’s slant is clear):

On Wednesday, the system’s governing board may end the controversial program that institutionalizes bias and prejudice based on neo-Marxist principles and falsehoods.

. . .UNC appears to be joining a group of schools that repudiate the institutionalized bias of “DEI.”

The UNC Board of Governors oversees the entire UNC system. It is expected to vote on a measure this week that would reverse and replace its DEI policy.

This follows an April vote by the Board’s five-person committee on University Governance to dismantle DEI offices.

Last week, UNC Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees diverted $2.3 million to Public Safety from DEI, as the campus has been embroiled in Pro-Palestinian protests and encampments.

I’ve already reported on the last statement: the diversion of money from DEI to campus cops and security—exactly the opposite of what progressives want.  Here’s how they calculated the payrolls (since the UNC system is part of the state government, salaries are publicly available).

Our audit team at OpenTheBooks.com reviewed official university payrolls after filing records requests and searched university websites for DEI committees and their membership lists. Here’s how the UNC program breaks down:

• 288 are employed in DEI-related roles listed on the UNC system’s payroll.
• Another 398 people were found to hold DEI-related roles not shown in the payroll records. Found on university websites, these employees are members of DEI committees, commissions and councils.
• An additional 80 students were appointed to mostly volunteer DEI roles.
• Another 66 employees are listed on the university websites for DEI committees but don’t appear in the university payroll – likely meaning the websites are out of date.

We found at least 30 DEI-focused groups steering DEI across the 16 universities. These pulled professors, lecturers, advisors, librarians, directors, and deans out of their academic functions and into efforts to spread DEI policies and principles.

We uncovered empirical evidence that DEI has permeated 300 departments across every aspect the UNC system of 50,000 employees.

For a truly complete picture, we know there is more research to be done. While we compiled a long list, there are indications that even more people are working in DEI-related roles.

Besides the money spent above, the site gives the salaries of the highest-paid UNC system officials connected with DEI, with salaries corrected for likely benefits:

In likely violation of North Carolina’s freedom of information laws, UNC has not acknowledged our April public records request for all university payroll to include all cash compensation (salaries, bonuses, other pay, benefits, etc.). UNC was required to respond, “as promptly as possible.”

After six weeks, the UNC system has only provided a ‘base salary’ payroll list. So, the payroll numbers are most likely 10-15 percent higher than disclosed. For total student and taxpayer cost — tack on another 30-percent for the cost of benefits.

It’s hard not to believe that UNC is stalling here. I wonder why. . .

It’s really a travesty to divert $91 from education to DEI initiatives.  A couple of million would suffice to prevent bias or expand admissions and hiring efforts to try to increase diversity. But “diversity” is invariably a euphemism for “racial diversity”, and while I do want to see that, I also want to see viewpoint diversity, which is the real meat of the college experience: the whetstone against which you hone your ideas.

There’s a lot more in the article, like some of the DEI-related courses taught or certificates conferred, but we’ll leave that for your own reading. The good news is that the UNC system is getting rid of a diversion that is ineffective (though generally well intended) and probably largely illegal.

If you want to see how DEI has been used as a way to eliminate candidates with the “wrong” sociological views, have a look at this New York Post article on how Cornell University has been using diversity statements as reasons to hire or dismiss job candidates. The data—e.g., 21% of candidates for a “hard science” faculty job were rejected based on DEI statements alone—were leaked from Cornell to its Free Speech alliance, which then made it public.