OPINION: UT-Tyler Must Not Try To Fund DEI With Student Fees

 (Source: "Backdoor" by Joost Markerink via Flickr)

It is clear from recent developments in Texas higher education that so-called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programming is on the chopping block. For example, in February, the UT-System Board of Regents ordered a system-wide pause on all DEI programs in anticipation of the coming legislative session. Even the Board’s chairman stated that he believed diversity programs had gone too far. Moreover, Texas Republicans in both the Texas House and Senate have also declared restricting DEI's access to state funds (and even its outright abolition altogether) as legislative priorities. 

Yet, despite this opposition, DEI proponents could still possibly try to obtain DEI funding by going around legislative appropriations and tuition, and instead to student fees. This is how the university currently funds both its student diversity director position and also social justice center, The Center for Unity. Both receive their funding from student fees.

So with all the wrath coming down upon DEI, it would be a mistake then for UT-Tyler’s fee committee, which meets this spring and oversees student fee appropriations, to try to get around the legislature’s prohibitions and fund DEI with student fees. An argument in favor of this could be that a restriction of state funding only applies to money from student tuition and legislative appropriations. Student fees, however, are outside of these sources and could be fair game (so the though may go).

Just to be clear, student fees are the student body's own "taxes". The constituency uses them to fund extracurricular activities such as a debate team or a student counseling center or newspaper. They fund the autonomous activity of the student constituency. 

Therefore, one could make an argument that voluntary student activity lies is outside of the state’s purview. Therefore, both the legislature and the governing board cannot make DEI prohibitions apply to student-activity. So, some DEI proponents may try to keep DEI alive by getting funding from student fee appropriations without supposedly violating the legislature’s state funding prohibitions.

However, it would be a mistake for the fee committee to do this for a number of reasons.

For one, to turn to student fees for DEI funding does so in the face of DEI's widespread unpopularity among the voting public. Such a move would appear to many to blatantly defy both The Board’s and The Legislature’s authority. (And it would be!)

Secondly, circumventing the restrictions could lead to the loss of even more self-government at the university-level due to further intervention from state authorities. To many, this action of funding DEI with student money would just look like further proof that higher education is out of control and that it is necessary that The Board rein it in. So, defiance would provide the pretext for more regulation. To take this route would be a mistake.

So, when the fee committee meets this spring (as it does every year), it should not try to keep dying DEI alive with student fees. It should honor both The Board’s and the legislature’s wishes. 

However, despite these two reasons above, one main reason I think the committee should oppose funding for DEI is because it should accept The Regents’ and The Legislature’s moral authority over state education. 

The Board of Regents said in February that it opposes not just DEI programming, but DEI’s very content itself. For the fee committee to then try to say, “We funded DEI, but with student money, not with state money or tuition" simply opposes priorities behind The Regents' position.

So, to try to fund DEI programs through a backdoor simply rejects The Board’s priorities over UT-System (and the Legislature’s authority over the state). This would be inappropriate and the committee should not do it.

The state has taken a position on DEI. I think it is time for those within higher education to accept this. I sympathize with concerns about the loss of local autonomy. However, I think it that those in authority have spoken and despite my concerns, I believe it is time for those underneath them to submit to their authority.

Twitter: @jhescock12

Sign-up for my newsletter!  

Feature image: "Backdoor" by Joost Markerink via Flickr