The evolving situation at the University of Missouri School of Medicine serves as a crucial reminder about the continuous battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in higher education. Despite the façade of disbanding its DEI office, the university appears to have merely rebranded it, disguising the very practices its administration claims to have eliminated.
A recent report from the Washington Free Beacon highlights how the School of Medicine has sought to remove its name from a list of institutions maintaining DEI offices, asserting that it now operates under a new program called Community, Professional Proficiency, and Student Success (CaPS). This change comes across as nothing more than an attempt at misdirection. The letter sent to the watchdog group Do No Harm insists that CaPS is distinct from the previously disbanded DEI office, yet the underlying structure and personnel largely remain unchanged.
“Based on this information, we respectfully request that your organization remove the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine from its list of medical schools with DEI offices,” the university’s correspondence stated. However, as journalists and critics alike scrutinize the university’s claims, it becomes evident that CaPS echoes many of the same goals and initiatives as the original DEI office.
The university’s president, Mun Choi, defends the decision, suggesting that this reorganization aims to facilitate a “positive dialogue” with conservative lawmakers while avoiding potential budget cuts tied to anti-DEI sentiments. However, the recorded history shows that the university’s DEI initiatives were deeply rooted, driven by the framework established during the tenure of its former dean for diversity and inclusion, Laura Henderson Kelley.
Institutional leaders may attempt to relabel their DEI offices, but the fundamental issues remain. This strategy to sidestep opposition is reminiscent of other educational institutions, such as the University of Colorado, which recently renamed its DEI office to the “Office of Collaboration.” Furthermore, the California Institute of Technology simply promoted an existing DEI administrator under a new title, signifying a lack of genuine change or commitment to transparency.
Ian Kingsbury, director of research at Do No Harm, underscored this trend, stating, “Some medical schools look to be fully compliant with Trump’s executive order on DEI. Others continued on as if nothing happened and still feature offices labeled ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.’ But some have tried to split the difference, rebranding the office but maintaining the same functions and even the same personnel.”
Such actions highlight a broader issue within many universities. If merely changing a name can suffice, it might lead to complacency among those opposed to DEI initiatives. This is not just a singular instance but part of a larger pattern that requires constant vigilance. The notion that the battle against wokeness is won should be approached with caution. Institutions may opt for new labels in an effort to shield themselves from backlash, but the core operations can continue under these clever guises.
It is also important to recognize the cultural context surrounding the term “wokeness.” As it garners more skepticism and becomes associated with negative perceptions in various communities, institutions are left walking a tightrope, attempting to appease both progressive advocates and conservative critics. What was once a matter of pride in inclusivity can quickly turn poisonous for reputations and funding.
The University of Missouri’s attempt at rebranding is not an isolated case; it represents a broader phenomenon in academia where institutions grapple with changing political landscapes while trying to maintain funding and institutional support. The solution is not merely changing labels but examining the integrity and intentions behind such initiatives.
In summary, the situation at the University of Missouri School of Medicine underscores the ongoing need for scrutiny regarding DEI programs. Rebranding may provide short-term relief from criticism, but it does not resolve the underlying ideological battles. Continual vigilance is essential to ensure institutions do not slip into old habits masked by new terminology. The fight over DEI is far from settled, and the implications of such rebranding efforts warrant careful consideration.
"*" indicates required fields
