Query
Template: /var/www/farcry/projects/fandango/www/action/sherlockFunctions.cfm
Execution Time: 10.3 ms
Record Count: 1
Cached: Yes
Cache Type: timespan
Lazy: No
SQL:
SELECT top 1 objectid,'cmCTAPromos' as objecttype
FROM cmCTAPromos
WHERE status = 'approved'
AND ctaType = 'moreinfo'
objectidobjecttype
11BD6E890-EC62-11E9-807B0242AC100103cmCTAPromos

Why we should care about the defunding of the UT-Knoxville Diversity Office

May 25, 2016 Chris Purcell

This past week, the governor of Tennessee failed to veto a bill that strips all of the funding from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville Office of Diversity and Inclusion for one year. The office, as we know it, will be dismantled and funds from will be redirected to engineering scholarships for minority students. Along with a reorganization of services for students of color, the UT Pride Center director will return to faculty ranks and the office will continue without staff . The defunding is direct retaliation against the office by state government for posts on its’ website informing the campus about gender-neutral pronouns and giving guidance to holding inclusive holiday parties. The decision has thus far been lost in the noise of an avalanche of aggressive anti-LGBT+ state legislation, but has serious implications for us as student affairs practitioners. Here are 4 things to consider as we move forward after this move by the state Tennessee:

1. There is a new precedent for program-level state intervention. Each day we as practitioners design and execute programs to ensure equity for students of multiple marginalized identities. With this decision, there is a new precedent that individual programs at state institutions are up for state government wide scrutiny. As a result, we must be more intentional about developing programs that are both research-based and done in coalition with faculty and students (both of whom arguably have more political capital on our campuses). This is particularly important on campuses or in states that are traditionally resistant to LGBT+ inclusion. Even so, none of these practices saved the UT diversity initiatives. To do this work effectively we will have to be even more intentional in how we implement programs moving forward.

2. We are susceptible to losing the narrative as to why social justice programming exists. Those following the situation in Tennessee closely know that despite the best efforts of advocates, the media narrative almost exclusively focused on the “political correctness” of the various initiatives of the UT-Diversity office. There was little discussion of the difference in graduation rates between students of color and white students at the institution. Nor did we hear the struggles of transgender students at the institution to thrive and persist the way their cisgender peers do. Driving the media narrative on social justice issues will be imperative moving forward.

3. Our lack of data may continue to haunt us. Institutions and opponents have been resistant to collecting information on sexual identity and gender identity. However, when progressive initiatives are moved forward like gender inclusive pronouns, opponents cite a lack of numbers as a reason to resist. While gender identity will now appear on the common application in addition to sex assigned at birth, this is a just first step in ensuring our transgender students are visible and counted nationwide. We need better data around LGBT+ students to be able to advocate more effectively.

4. We need to recommit to coalition building. The defunding of the UT office impacts LGBT+ students, students of color, queer students of color, and students of a variety of multiple marginalized identities. Students across these broad identities mobilized on campus to save the office, but to no avail. We could learn a lesson from these students and build broad coalitions to ensure the work of our fellow social justice practitioners is fully supported. It is particularly important that those of us at private or more progressive institutions stand up for those doing this important work on resistant campuses. We as practitioners need to partner with statewide organizations across identity to protect equity initiatives and staff. We also need to press our statewide and national student affairs organizations to take a stronger role in advocating on behalf of our work. We often impart on our students the need to organize and advocate on behalf of what they need. Now it is time we follow our own advice and organize around sustaining equity work on campuses. We now know there is a cost to not doing so.

Chris Purcell is the Director of LGBTQI Life at Vanderbilt University and a doctoral student in the higher education leadership and policy program at Vanderbilt’s Peabody College.