What the DEI Audit Tells Us

As a general rule, I’m no fan of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. But on the other hand, the kind of programs that might be captured under that term are so diverse in themselves that I’ve thought it was a mistake for opponents of DEI to just condemn everything that might fall under that broad rubric.

So, the answer, at least at the state level, was an audit. While there’s no reason to believe that Speaker Robin Vos reads YSDA, we’ve been calling for such a study for years. And about a year ago Vos called for it too. Last week the respected, nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau issued its report. The report looked at DEI as practiced in the UW System and in the rest of state government.

Here are two broad takeaways.

While the audit was valuable, it didn’t answer the central question I have, which has less to do with how much money is spent or even specific activities than overall philosophy. To be specific, what I really don’t like about DEI is that it sometimes takes on a quasi-Marxist point of view as expressed by the writer Ibram X. Kendi. That point of view is that America is racist to its core, that people are either victims or oppressors based solely on their group identity, that people are first and foremost members of those groups and not individuals, and that past discrimination can only be made up for by current and future discrimination. I find Kendi’s ideas both wrong and abhorrent and it’s those ideas that I’d like to see rooted out. But the audit didn’t explore any of that.

The audit did find what I suspected: DEI is most charitably described as complex. It’s less charitably described as a mess. State government provides no clear guidance from the top about what DEI should be. The UW is so loosely managed that each campus and department could define it anyway it wanted. On the Madison campus DEI ran amok with its leader, LaVar Charleston, doling out huge raises without justification as well as spending lavishly on conferences, hotels and even haircuts and massages. And that was only discovered thanks to this audit. One thing is for sure and it goes beyond DEI: the UW’s internal management is too weak. There’s too much autonomy granted to campuses and to departments within campuses. Sometimes you need more autonomy and sometimes you need more top down. Right now the UW needs more command and control.

So, here’s what I hope might happen.

The governor and the UW System president need to issue orders clearly defining the philosophy behind DEI. That philosophy needs to make it clear that Kendi’s ideas are way out of bounds and that programs should be based on the simple ideas of being opposed to discrimination and making state government and campuses welcoming to everyone.

The Department of Administration and the UW System need to write DEI plans with tight budgets and clear, measurable goals. The UW’s DEI programs should be run centrally out of the chancellor’s office on each campus and based on guidelines established by the Regents. In the rest of state government they should be run out of DOA.

This may sound like window dressing, but DEI has become such a discredited concept that it should be called something else. This goes to another central question: should these programs be reactive, enforcing laws and rules against discrimination, or should they be proactive, trying to create better environments? I think most of the trouble comes with the latter stuff. I’m generally of the view that anti-discrimination laws should be enforced and just leave it at that. So, for me, I would simply retitle these as “anti-discrimination” efforts. If you have a more optimistic take on what might be accomplished through proactive efforts then some other title would be appropriate. But let’s get rid of the dreaded “DEI.”

Let’s give Vos credit for making this audit happen and let’s give the LAB its due for doing a thorough job, even if I thought they missed the central question. Let’s give the Democrats no credit for fighting even this attempt to gain understanding of a complex issue. DEI has become such a religion on the left, that Democrats — who are always harping on “evidence-based” policy making — opposed even this nonpartisan study. They didn’t want to risk hearing anything that might contradict their sacred beliefs.

The audit certainly doesn’t answer every question, but the data produced should form the basis for better-informed policy-making as the Legislature works on the next state budget.

On this website we believe in:

Free speech.

The rule of law.

Reason.

Tolerance.

Pluralism.