Closing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) offices around the country is a powerful step in halting the illiberal and divisive harm-centric monoculture that has taken over higher education. However, there remain far too many student-facing administrative offices that seek the same goals. Whether in residential services or student life offices, administrators wield significant power and influence over students, affecting their learning and future trajectories. It’s crucial to address any dangerous or divisive behavior exhibited by these administrators.

A clear illustration of the depth and size of these non-DEI offices involves the University of Texas-Austin (UT-Austin), which recently announced the firing of about 60 people who were directly involved in the university’s DEI programs. Their dismissal is good for both higher education and UT-Austin but we cannot forget that the school’s housing office employs over 1,600 staff, some of whom are just as deeply involved in DEI programming but are not categorized as such.

DEI offices have had a profound influence over the higher education landscape for years, and likewise, these other behemoths of the administrative class now need to be reined in and reconstituted to be neutral and support all students.

Sarah Lawrence College (SLC), where I teach, provides a straightforward case.

Only a handful of administrative staff are technically in the “diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging” (DEIB) office, for instance. But that has not stopped the overt and inappropriate activism of many other staff members employed by SLC to theoretically help elevate all students.

One example involves the fairly new center on campus: the SLC Learning Commons.

The Learning Commons is purportedly “committed to providing comprehensive and inclusive academic support services that meet the needs of a vibrant and diverse student body. Our objective is to provide a wide range of helpful resources that will enable all students to thrive within the college’s unique pedagogical structure.” The Common’s claims to support students through a host of programs from academic coaching, research skills, a writing center, language tutoring, and health and wellness programming. This all sounds useful, but the Commons is active on social media, publically and regularly “liking” posts that demand divestment from Israel or other aggressive posts that might harm Jewish students, as well as the promotion of shutting the school down at the behest of liberal and aggressive student and faculty groups.

Another related illustration involves the school’s library, which should be completely neutral as an institution and provide access to materials across the political and ideological spectrum. The problem here is that there are activist librarian staff members who chill students with divergent, heterodox views. A notable instance involves a recent event on campus—“The Freedom University”—which was promoted as  “an academic strike in line with the Global Day of Action called for by @palestinianyouthmovement.” The various sponsoring groups did indeed “occupy Westlands [the College’s main administrative building] for the entire work day,” and they asserted that “There will be no business as usual while Sarah Lawrence remains complicit in genocide.”

One of the speakers, a digital humanities librarian, presented a talk entitled “Justice-Oriented Scholars in an Unjust World.” This is overtly political and progressive, and while this librarian was hired with activism in mind per the SLC’s advertisement for the position, this is dangerous to the school’s pedagogical mission as this role exists to support all students and not just those of a particular ideological position. Conservative students may rightly feel that they will receive disparate treatment from progressive administrators, if treatment at all; SLC staff routinely has ignored my requests over the years, and students are not unaware of these dynamics. Students have come to me many times in recent years and have shared stories of staff being unwilling to help them or paying them little attention as they did not properly virtue signal or share the right identity politics with the staff member at the outset. This is clearly unethical and runs counter to the school’s mission of intellectual diversity and education.

Another clear instance of non-DEI administrative overreach is the school’s residential education office, which this academic year appointed a recent college graduate  as a ‘resident fellow’ with the task to, in her/their own words,  “support (DEIB) Diversity Inclusion & Belonging within Residential Life on campus.” While residential education serves an important function, it also must remain inclusive and neutral but at SLC, like countless other schools, it often takes on the characteristics of an activist office affiliated with the DEI movement. At SLC, the same resident fellow describes “her/their” job as one to help “lead the design and implementation of a Residential Education curriculum that focuses on enhancing the lived experience and well-being of residential students. Collaborating with planning and implementing Student DEIB programming in residential and non-residential settings. Support student DEIB groups, initiatives, spaces, and space leaders including the THRIVE Mentor Program, and affinity group spaces.” These programs are divisive, racially exclusive, and the very sort of programs that many states are necessarily rolling back as these initiatives balkanize and hurt students as well as stifle questioning and debate, which lie at the very core of a truly liberal education.

At SLC, various administrative offices and staff well beyond the DEI department contribute to student harm and stifling viewpoint diversity, open inquiry, and intellectual exploration through their overtly political and activist stances. It’s crucial for the college, as well as all other higher education institutions, to curtail this excessive administrative influence. Regardless of whether it falls under the DEI umbrella, the detrimental effects on students and campus culture persist.

When a Jewish student who supports Israel and believes in its defense against Hamas or a conservative student who values traditional marriage and is pro-life seeks assistance from these shadow activist offices, they can’t expect equal treatment or support when the school’s staff is openly hostile towards them and has expressed disdain—or worse—on social media or in public statements. Jewish students, in particular, will be effected by residential staff who are calling for the death and destruction of their family in Israel or referring to Jewish students as evil Zionists. Even if the staff member is open to helping the student, the environment is unwelcoming and sends a clear message that not all students can benefit equally from the library’s or the Learning Commons’s resources, which is inappropriate and directly limits students from fully engaging in campus culture, community, and the educational experience.

Ironically, in response to a well-deserved Title VI complaint for rampant anti-Semitism at the college, SLC’s President recently and emphatically stated that the school’s “commitment [is] to provide an environment in which all of our students — regardless of background, belief, or circumstance — have the unimpeded opportunity to actively and fully participate in the educational experience that is at the center of Sarah Lawrence’s mission.” Everyone should remain skeptical of this sort of commitment at Sarah Lawrence and elsewhere, given the well-known activism on the part of the student-facing administrative staff. Despite being employed by colleges and universities to support their educational mission and students, these staff members are as biased and dangerous as the DEI offices themselves.

Photo by Jared Gould — Adobe — Text to Image