Black Academics Debate DEI on Campus
Dr. Marc Lamont Hill saw DEI as a work in progress, while Dr. Carol M. Swain advocated its abolition.

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill and Dr. Carol Swain clashed over the efficacy of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education during a debate co-sponsored by College Democrats and College Republicans at Washington and Lee University on Wednesday.

The October 11, 2023 session in Stackhouse Theatre was moderated by Patrice Onwuka as part of The Steamboat Institute’s national Campus Liberty Tour, and was externally sponsored by The Generals Redoubt alumni group. [CLICK HERE to view a recording of the debate].

Hill — who hosts BET News, The Grio, Al Jazeera UpFront, and the Coffee & Books podcast — was selected as “one of America’s 100 most influential Black leaders” by Ebony magazine.

Swain, a well sought after television guest, was the vice-chair of the Trump-era 1776 Commision. Supreme Court decisions have cited her scholarship on three occasions.

The debate opened with an online poll asking attendees if they supported the following resolution: “Be it resolved, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives do more harm than good in higher education and should be abolished.” 63% of the audience expressed support, 28% opposed it, and 9% were undecided.

After brief remarks from the Steamboat Institute, College Democrats, and College Republicans, both debaters delivered opening statements.

In her statement, Swain contended that DEI was not necessary to promote diversity. Rather, she argued that DEI programs divide organizations by separating people into ethnic, gender, and other groups. Swain claimed that, in reality, DEI is a drain on university resources.

Swain criticized UVA for having 94 “DEI staff,” which she argued does little to improve the campus experience for minority students. Moreover, Swain contended that the sex-based, racial, and other discrimination which often accompany DEI programs are violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

She stated that compelled speech, often included in DEI training, violates the First Amendment. Swain contended that we “should be a nation E Pluribus Unum…out of many, one” and resist DEI policies.

Hill began his opening statement by stating that diversity ought to include ideology, religion, geography, and many other factors — not just race. He clarified that DEI programs are not, and should not, be philanthropic programs meant to bequeath benefits on minorities. Diversity benefits everyone, he claimed.

Referencing recent studies, Hill argued that homogenous groups solve problems more quickly, but heterogeneous groups find more creative solutions. “Diversity of thought matters as an institutional benefit for everyone,” he said.

Hill agreed that DEI programs should not lead to the hiring or admitting of unqualified candidates, and conceded that DEI programs often contain abuses. While not specifying what these abuses were, he made it clear that “I don’t want to abolish it [DEI]. I want to fix it.”

Swain rebutted that DEI initiatives are typically designed to benefit LGBT+ individuals, women, Hispanics, black people, and other minority groups. She also disputed Hill’s argument that diverse communities make more creative decisions.

She retorted that by seeking heterogeneous ethnic backgrounds, DEI programs instead create politically homogeneous bodies.

Swain referenced a study which found that 96% of Ivy League professors’ political donations go to Democrats. This, she claimed, was not true diversity.

She concluded her rebuttal by stating that “DEI does not integrate, it divides.” If we “just have support of colleges and universities [for minorities] in other traditional departments,” she contends that DEI initiatives would be unnecessary.

Hill agreed that “we should scrap DEI, and have other reasonable programs … if we could trust universities to treat minorities well.” Hill, however, does not have this faith in the university system.

Onwuka, the moderator, then opened the debate to audience questions.

Hill continued to assert that the issues Swain found with DEI initiatives “are arguments for doing it better, not getting rid of it.” He added that “equality and democracy” do not always seem equitable to oppressed people.

Swain compared DEI initiatives to “neo-Marxism,” claiming that universities “are no longer the marketplaces of ideas” that they ought to be. She said that the Civil Rights Movement was fought “to end discrimination, not re-introduce it.”

The speakers disagreed on the history of racial and gender discrimination in American universities. Hill exclaimed, “There’s a reason Wellesley and Barnard exist!”

Hill also corrected Swain for inaccurately stating that W.E.B. DuBois graduated from Harvard in 1933. DuBois received his Ph.D. in history in 1895.

The two also disagreed about the effects of affirmative action admissions on minority students. Swain noted that minority students scored lower on post-baccalaureate professional exams such as the LSAT, whereas Hill pointed out that black student drop-out-rates at institutions such as Harvard are as low or lower than the rates for white students.

Swain agreed that sometimes, when she was young, minorities had to be “three times as good” as the other guy to get in, but you could still get in. Hill interjected and asked if this was not a contradiction, to which Swain re-iterated that she simply wished to see the doors opened.

“DEI is a $1 billion industry on top of affirmative action,” Swain said, again arguing that both initiatives are entirely unnecessary. She advocates for outreach and recruiting efforts towards minorities instead of practices which discriminate in their favor.

In response, Hill cited research showing that black job applicants with traditional African-American names such as Jamal are less likely to be hired than black applicants with names which pass as white, such as Marc. Hill said he would oppose any DEI program which hired people solely for having a traditional African-American name. However, Hill supports DEI insofar as programs reduce the bias of employers towards people with traditional African-American names.

Hill expressed support for the Israeli people in light of the recent Hamas terrorist attacks, adding that Jewish communities on American college campuses ought to be able to hold ethnically separate meetings, and that universities ought to include programming to fight anti-Semitic rhetoric. Hill argued further that blacks and other minorities should likewise be permitted to have separate programming.

While Swain also expressed support for Israel and agreed that anti-Semitism ought to be combatted, she rejected the need for identity-exclusive programming, which she sees as a form of segregation.

Swain got the final word, returning to the concept of E Pluribus Unum:  “DEI is directly opposed to this because it separates us into groups … I maintain that we can have diversity without discrimination.”

An exit poll showed improvement for Hill’s position, which jumped from 28% to 30%, while Swain’s side dropped from 63% to 58%.

“I kinda went in with a closed mindset,” one VMI rat told The Spectator, “but I definitely agree with the moderator that … I learned something I was not expecting.”

Speaking about the event, Provost Lena Hill told The Spectator that "The debate was lively, provocative, and cordial.”

Provost Hill continued, “I appreciated the introductory remarks by the College Republicans and College Democrats, and I left the moderated exchange even more deeply committed to improving our efforts to build a diverse, equitable, and inclusive W&L community. I look forward to additional campus opportunities to engage respectfully across different ideas."

The Spectator asked Hill and Swain if they had anything else they wished to clarify after the debate.

Hill suggested that DEI programs nationwide ought to adopt common goals, standards, and definitions in order to reduce malpractice. He clarified that he does not support government regulation or oversight of DEI programs.

Swain expanded on her idea of “increasing outreach and recruitment” to minority communities. She referenced the work of Roland G. Fryer of Harvard University, which argues that it is effective for universities to “found and fund schools that educate disadvantaged students” as opposed to engaging in DEI and other discriminatory practices.