Buying Evidence, Not Anecdotes About Diversity on Campuses

Anecdotes can be treated as evidence. A single person can report encounters with racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of harassment, discrimination and abuse to a department chair, dean, HR professional, union representative or executive level leader on campus. When this occurs, institutions have a duty to take seriously those reports, investigate them and pursue remedies on behalf of the employee who experienced harm. Even if it is just one person who reports such an experience, that one person deserves to be taken seriously.

A different response is warranted, though, when a former employee of some institution publicly reflects via a highly publicized magazine article and in media interviews, for instance, on troubling observations and experiences at a college or university. Readers everywhere, including colleagues and administrators at the institution named therein, should read that person’s account with an open mind, even past the point where it makes reckless turns and deeply problematic generalized claims. But there are at least four things that should not occur.

First, observations and experiences one person publicly shares should not be presumed to be outliers or isolated occurrences. They very well could be emblematic of larger structural, systemic and cultural problems that negatively affect a few more or several other professionals who share similar racial, gender, religious and other characteristics. For years, I have suggested to current postsecondary professionals and aspiring leaders that articles published in Inside Higher Ed and elsewhere about one institution should inspire reflections and stimulate conversations among colleagues across the nation about the possibility of similar trends on their campuses.

Second, it should not be presumed that one diverse person’s publicly reported experience is universal. More than two decades ago, I created qualitative campus climate–assessment protocols that yield much more robust understandings of cultural realities and people’s experiences at postsecondary institutions. Seven years ago, my research center at the University of Southern California launched the National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates, a suite of peer-reviewed and rigorously validated survey tools administered separately to undergraduates, students in graduate and professional degree programs, faculty members, and staff across all role types. Those surveys have since been administered on hundreds of campuses in every geographic region of the United States.

I am not saying that anecdotes and singular accounts have no value. Instead, I am insisting that in addition to investigating those, institutions really should systematically pursue insights into whether dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people on their campuses are having experiences similar to what one person publicly describes in an op-ed, media interview or elsewhere. And then, of course, leaders should disseminate climate-study findings across their campuses and strategically act on challenges revealed therein. “Paying to Ignore Racism,” as I called it in my 2015 Inside Higher Ed essay, remains a dishonest waste of everyone’s time and money.

My third insistence is somewhat related to the second. Higher education professionals, as well as reporters, podcasters, policymakers and others outside of campuses should not misunderstand anecdotes and one person’s perspectives as universal truths. Sometimes it is hype. I am not saying don’t believe the hype—perhaps some portions of it are worthy of attention. Instead, I am insisting that very smart people ought to be able to recognize hype for what it often is: attention-seeking, financially good for the speaking tour and leverageable for a book deal.

Some very smart people who have spending authority to bring speakers to campuses will look past these motives because the hype fits their particular narratives about DEI, wokeness and racist claims of Black intellectual inferiority. It seems even better for them if the hype man is Black. I am strongly advising against wasting already limited financial resources on hype. I personally love free speech and viewpoint diversity. In fact, I model and fiercely advocate for it in my newest book, Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics. However, a single magazine essay ought not instantly qualify a lone writer’s viewpoint for handsomely compensated speaking invitations on campuses across the country.

And fourth, institutions really should not finance a “higher education is broken and DEI is the blame” national tour based largely on anecdotes from a single institution where the headliner spent four to five years as a tenure-track assistant professor. Instead of spending money to bring that person to campus to speak, it would be fiscally much more responsible to invest resources into assessing their own campus climate. Doing so will enable leaders and others to determine if employees on their campuses are experiencing phenomena similar to what the trending article author recounted about the culture and climate at a completely different, faraway institution.

“We paid $10,000 to rigorously pursue truths about what members of our campus community experience” is fiscally more justifiable than “we paid a $7,500 speaker’s fee plus travel and event costs to bring the author of one trending magazine article here to talk about what he experienced at an institution that does not even resemble ours.” Spend the $10K on the climate assessment, whether it is the NACCC or some other instrument. Then use the results to make structural, systemic and cultural revisions on campus. Do so with sustainability in mind, as opposed to merely responding to a moment. Truth-seeking, institutional integrity and measurable improvement should be the most important goals.