The University of California, Davis, is continuing to build on its track record of creating an inclusive environment for faculty, and was today (Feb. 7) recognized with the highest award available for that work from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The honor, a silver in the association’s STEMM Equity Achievement (SEA) Change initiative, recognizes self-assessment and improvement in equity in the fields of science, technology, engineering, math and medicine, or STEMM. But UC Davis has gone even further, applying its efforts in areas like hiring, retention and reducing salary inequities to all disciplines of the university.
“The most creative ideas and discoveries arise when we empower people with a variety of backgrounds and perspectives to participate in STEMM,” Chancellor Gary S. May said. “Voices like these are key to our university and we will always value their contributions.”
The award will be presented next week in Boston.
“We are proud of the many efforts we have undertaken to make UC Davis the most inclusive, equitable and welcoming institution it can be because we know how much all aspects of our work are strengthened by the diversity of thought, experiences, inspiration, courage and determination of our scholars,” said Philip Kass, Vice Provost of Academic Affairs.
5-plus years of progress
UC Davis in 2019 was one of the first three universities to earn a SEA Change bronze award. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS, requires a five-year wait before applying to the next award; it also requires awards to be earned in sequence from bronze up to gold.
UC Davis is the first university to earn the silver award in the program’s history.
As part of the application for the silver award, staff from 10 campus units evaluated UC Davis’ progress since earning the bronze award in 2019. They found a decrease in salary inequities among faculty members of different genders and ethnicities, and found no differences in advancement success in the university’s Step Plus promotion system among faculty members of different gender, ethnicity, veteran status or disability status.
And since the passage of California’s Proposition 209, which has banned the consideration of race, sex or ethnicity in employment for nearly 20 years, UC Davis has continued to make gains in the diversity of its faculty, including a 29% increase in African American women and a 50% rise in Native American women since 2019.
The evaluation also highlighted a cost-effective way for departments to evaluate their own culture and increase inclusivity. Known as DEI Blueprint, that program has been tested in four departments at UC Davis and will soon be expanded.
Major milestones, broad support
Many of UC Davis’ programs to bolster diversity among faculty members have a long history. Last fall, the university welcomed its 10th class of scholars for the Center for the Advancement of Multicultural Perspectives on Science, or CAMPOS, as well as the newest scholars for the Center for the Advancement of Multicultural Perspectives on Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, or CAMPSSAH.
UC Davis made progress on another longstanding goal last fall, becoming eligible to be one of the nation’s few research-intensive universities designated as a Hispanic-Serving Institution, or HSI, after fall enrollment numbers crossed the threshold for HSI status for the first time.
The campus already secured the federal government’s status as a Minority Serving Institution in 2019 as an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution, or AANAPISI.
A leader for other universities
UC Davis’ efforts toward creating a diverse and inclusive environment are serving as a model for others.
One example, a reference check policy, has functioned as a template to help prevent sexual harassment in science. During faculty hires at the assistant professor 4 level and above, UC Davis contacts the administration of the applicant’s previous institution(s) to ask whether there have been substantiated findings of misconduct that would violate the UC Davis’ Faculty Code of Conduct. Kass testified to Congress in 2019 about the policy, and the plan was noted by the National Academies of Science, Medicine, and Engineering in 2022 as a shining example.
Other UCs have also emulated UC Davis’ use of statements of contribution to diversity, equity and inclusion. Applicants for tenure-track faculty positions at UC Davis must submit statements outlining their contributions to promoting a diverse and inclusive environment, along with statements about their research and teaching contributions, letters of recommendation and other requirements.
“In the more than 10 years that UC Davis has dedicated to becoming a leading university in diversity, equity and inclusion, we have experienced profound and impactful positive changes on our campus while making substantial strides in recruiting and retaining faculty and students from underrepresented populations,” Mary Croughan, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, wrote in a letter of support for the silver SEA Change award, calling it “a significant honor to be recognized as a leader among our peers within the UC system” and elsewhere.
The next 5 years
Just as UC Davis evaluated its progress after earning the bronze SEA Change award, goals are already being laid out for the university’s time as a silver award-holder. Namely, the university plans to continue to reduce salary inequities, increase faculty retention, improve department climate and more.
Starting next year, more departments will be trained in the use of the DEI Blueprint tool. A planned campus website will also serve as a repository of awards related to campus efforts advancing diversity, equity and inclusion goals. And staff members will continue to track and analyze salary and advancement data.
From article: “The campus already secured the federal government’s status as a Minority Serving Institution in 2019 as an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution, or AANAPISI.”
Since Asians are already over-represented on campus, wouldn’t this designation be at odds with DEI goals?
Answer: depends
DEI initiatives often aim to address historical and systemic barriers to access, rather than focusing purely on proportional representation. While Asian Americans, as a broad category, may be “overrepresented” in certain academic metrics on some campuses, this does not necessarily mean all Asian subgroups have equal access or outcomes.
Some DEI frameworks focus on addressing disparities within racial groups, recognizing that certain Asian subpopulations (e.g., Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders) face significant educational and socioeconomic challenges.
Additionally, DEI is not just about racial balancing but also about fostering an inclusive environment where all students, regardless of background, feel supported and have equitable opportunities to succeed.
In that sense, Asian American students might still benefit from DEI initiatives addressing issues such as discrimination, mental health challenges, or stereotypes like the “model minority” myth, which can obscure real difficulties they face.
So, while the high representation of some Asian groups in higher education might seem at odds with DEI goals on the surface, a more nuanced approach would consider disparities within the category and the broader aims of inclusion and support.
Regarding your first point, it seems that Asians should not be considered as a single category in regard to these “celebrations of equity”.
What, exactly, does an (“an inclusive environment where all students, regardless of background, feel supported and have equitable opportunities to succeed”) mean?
From article: ” . . . or stereotypes like the “model minority” myth, which can obscure real difficulties they face.”
Like what, in comparison to the difficulties that everyone else faces?
From article: “. . . and the broader aims of inclusion and support.”
Does that “broader aim” have any concrete meaning?
How’s DEI working for Jewish students?
“Group ranks UC Davis as one of the most anti-Jewish colleges in America”
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/uc-davis-anti-jewish-ranking-stop-antisemitism/
In November 2024, the advocacy group Stop Antisemitism ranked UC Davis among the most anti-Jewish colleges in America.
In response to such concerns, UC Davis has implemented several measures to support its Jewish community. The university’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has organized events addressing antisemitism and promoting understanding of Jewish diversity.
There was a lecture titled “Resisters: How Ordinary Jews Fought Persecution in Hitler’s Germany” was presented, and in February 2024, a panel discussion on antisemitism and Islamophobia that was co-sponsored by the Jewish Studies Program and Middle East/South Asia Studies.
Additionally, UC Davis offers a Jewish Studies Program that promotes research and teaching on Jews and Judaism in their global diversity. The program includes Hebrew language instruction and the study of classical and modern Jewish texts.
Despite these initiatives, challenges persist.
In December, the U.S. Department of Education reached an agreement with the University of California system, including UC Davis, to resolve complaints from Jewish and Muslim students regarding discrimination and harassment during protests over the Gaza war. The agreement mandates enhanced reporting procedures, a review of past complaints, and increased training for employees and campus police.
UC Davis has implemented DEI initiatives to support Jewish students, but recent incidents suggest that there is room for improvement in effectively addressing antisemitism and ensuring a fully inclusive environment.
Honestly, it seems to me that the same type of progressive mindset that generally supports DEI is the same type of mindset that leads to hatred of Jews (and whites, at times). Usually from white people, themselves.
I think this speaks to our collective failure to grapple with our past. We have failed to embark on some sort of restorative or truth/ reconciliation process.
MLK once said, “ the oppressed people of the world must not succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter or indulging in hate campaigns. To retaliate in kind would do nothing but intensify the existence of hate in the universe. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can only be done by projecting the ethic of love to the center of our lives.”
I’m surprised to see you agree with my underlying point.
Truth be told (and I know that some continue to reject this), I have felt plenty of blatant hostility directed at me due to my skin color – and so has everyone else who shared my skin color and grew up where I did.
But DEI (and the overall mindset behind this) seems more likely to continue this pattern of hatred toward others. The underlying message is nothing new – despite having a new name. In fact, it exacerbates the problem I experienced.
There is no honesty whatsoever in sanctioned/official education and training regarding the topic. In fact, it’s leading in the opposite direction. (I believe that conservatives generally recognize this.)
It is essentially a “forced message” to an audience that knows when they’re being lied to.
DG say: “In response to such concerns, UC Davis has implemented several measures to support its Jewish community. The university’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has organized events addressing antisemitism and promoting understanding of Jewish diversity. ”
The last thing I want is UC Davis applying DEI to the Jewish hatred paradigm. Applying DEI in its current form to the Jewish experience will only increase hatred. F-off, we’ll take care of ourselves, thank you.
Depends on how one interprets DEI and how it is implemented. At its core, DEI is meant to promote fairness, opportunity, and inclusion for historically marginalized groups.
However, as you note, critics argue that in practice, some DEI frameworks can foster division by emphasizing identity categories in ways that may inadvertently fuel resentment, exclusion, or even discrimination against certain groups.
If DEI policies are applied in a way that singles out or marginalizes particular demographics—whether it’s Jewish students, Asian students, or any other group—then there is a legitimate concern that it could perpetuate new forms of bias while trying to rectify old ones. Instances where DEI efforts prioritize certain narratives over others, or fail to adequately address issues like antisemitism, could reinforce divisions rather than heal them.
On the other hand, when implemented thoughtfully, DEI can create environments that encourage mutual understanding and respect rather than animosity. The challenge is ensuring that these initiatives remain true to their stated goal of inclusivity rather than becoming ideological or exclusionary.
So, whether DEI “continues a pattern of hatred” depends on how it is put into practice. In cases where it reinforces group-based grievances rather than fostering genuine dialogue and unity, critics may have a point. But in cases where it meaningfully addresses discrimination and promotes mutual respect, the concern may be less warranted.
I guess I don’t see the need for it (for myself), at least. I don’t hate anyone based upon skin color, gender, or any other immutable characteristic. Maybe others need it, but when I attend schools, universities, or employment – I’m not looking for others to tell me what I “need to do” to make them feel that they’re “included”.
No one is asking me what they can do to make me feel included. (And in fact, the allegation is that I don’t know what it’s like to “not” be included, which is nothing but hot, hateful air.)
I don’t know where this idea came from, that white people (for example) are a cohesive group, preventing others from achieving anything. (That’s one way that hatred originates.)
And when you have meaningless “celebrations” of skin color, it’s (at best) exclusionary itself.
If you personally treat people with respect and don’t judge based on identity, it makes sense that you wouldn’t feel the need for DEI programs in your own life. Many people who share your perspective feel that fairness should be based on individual merit rather than group identity.
That said, DEI initiatives aren’t necessarily designed for people who already approach the world this way—they’re often aimed at addressing systemic barriers and unconscious biases that others may not experience or recognize. Some people do face real obstacles in education and the workplace, and DEI efforts are, at least in theory, intended to level the playing field.
One of my comments (in response to Alan’s comment) was not posted. But I’ll go ahead and respond to yours, regardless.
Those “systemic barriers” and “unconscious barriers” that you refer to are also subject to interpretation. For example, do black people (on average) commit more crime? Or, is disproportionate incarceration the result of “systemic racism”?
I’m pretty sure that you see the world differently than the “average American” regarding that type of question.
Also, is the reason that Asians “get ahead” (including ahead of whites these days) due to systemic racism, or is it due to a culture that values education, etc.?
Those are rhetorical questions, of course.
Bottom line is that I’m pretty sure it’s “every man/woman for himself”, in the end. Not that many people care about unequal outcomes, when you come right down to it. Most people just hope that they’re more “equal” than others – including other people who share their skin color. Truth be told, I’m not sure that most people care about members of their own extended families, when the you-know-what hits the fan.
Like I said, we live in a competitive world.
Or more to the point, I believe that someone with your perspective believes that (although black people might commit more crime on average, and Asian people might be more inclined to apply themselves in school), an underlying “systemic racism” is responsible for that.
Whereas I believe most people would say that it’s not an institutional problem that’s responsible for that outcome – at least at this point.
One really does have to ask why immigrants seem to do well, on average. Apparently, they’re less-concerned about societal inequities, and more-focused on making the system work for themselves. (Another word for those type of people is “winners”.)
There is nothing “wrong” with copying the habits/perspective of “winners”, and it’s probably a lot more effective than blaming institutions, etc.
DG, I basically agree with most all of what you wrote there. And I have found, surprisingly, little of the more extreme DEI forced on us in State service that I felt went over the line in trainings or hiring, and if I’d expect to find it anywhere it would be California government. I do very specific technical work that requires you know the subject and have a mind for work, and I hire the best candidates. In that, I’ve hired white people, Jewish people, Asian people, gay people, men, women . . . and I’ve only hired a handful of people in the time I’ve been hiring. I cringe categorizing employees in that way, but it’s more to say I don’t exclude by any such ‘identities’ and I don’t know anyone else who would, and by hiring the best we seem to get a diverse workforce. The only candidates who have concerned me are a few who have been a bit too open about their politics to the point it seemed it could bias their work, but I believe they were white (not sure as we only see people once they get through screening and make interviews). I can’t stop discrimination in others, and it does exist, but government rules can’t stop the remaining bigotry either, and I think makes it worse in some cases. I’m not so convinced that the UC system is still not going to so-called ‘affirmative action’ in disguise, and apparently some feel that strongly enough to file that federal lawsuit.
Alan M. “The only candidates who have concerned me are a few who have been a bit too open about their politics to the point it seemed it could bias their work, but I believe they were white (not sure as we only see people once they get through screening and make interviews).”
Honestly, they almost always are “white”. And if these people feel so strongly about it, maybe they shouldn’t be applying for jobs that might otherwise be occupied by someone of color.
I’d say the same thing about housing – stop buying where there’s “too many” white people, if you’re white. And if you’re selling a house, price it below-market (and sell it to someone of color). (Assuming you don’t experience a lawsuit as a result of that.)
Another reason that DEI fails is because we live in a competitive world in so many ways (educational, employment, housing, etc.). In that type of environment, concern about the skin color of those you’re competing with is (let’s just say) not very high on the list of priorities. Very few people care about others who share their skin color in that type of environment, let alone those who don’t have the same skin color.
I can’t help but think of the black school board member in San Francisco (who was recalled). One of the things she said (which got her into trouble) is that Asians are using “white supremacy” to get ahead (something like that).
So apparently, Asians might be using white supremacy (whatever that means) more-effectively than white people. Which I find quite amusing.
Strange this long, over-detailed, defensive essay is coming out just days after the UC system is being sued in federal court for discriminating against Asian American and white students in its admissions process, and that isn’t mentioned. Oh, yeah, its not strange at all.