By Michael Hicks
Guest Columnist

MUNCIE — I am thankful that the U.S., and especially Indiana, finds itself at a turning point in diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Gov. Mike Braun signed an executive order ending DEI in state government, because much of it has been rightly adjudicated as unconstitutional. No doubt it will soon be extinguished in state universities and local government.

Michael J. Hicks

At the same time, President Trump illustrated the dangers of a DEI hire by appointing a ridiculously unqualified Christian nationalist to become the secretary of defense. This might lead us to suppose that deepest intentions of many DEI opponents are less motivated by the Constitution than by the types of people who benefit. We must do better.

It’s necessary to think about DEI in a constructive way and consider what policies are both constitutional and might occasion more equal opportunity for all Americans. It’s also useful to revisit the ugliness of what DEI has become.

Students v. Harvard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will effectively end DEI in government-funded activities, exposed raw discrimination by Harvard against Asian students. This is something that every Asian-American knows is ubiquitous in college admissions. Harvard is a private school, so it is free to discriminate, as long as it doesn’t take federal money. It has chosen to take the money.

Most public universities have a similar track record, whether or not it has reached the courts. They must comply with Students v. Harvard.

DEI training in many workplaces and universities devolved from honest efforts to explain differential outcomes by race or gender— things most Americans would benefit from learning — to racialist propaganda. Thankfully, in most places, the worst of that is behind us. But, it also should make us ask some questions. How can we ensure that everyone has equal access to schooling, health care and economic opportunity?

The end of DEI should make those of us who distrusted it push for legal and fair policies to improve access to opportunity for all Americans. We should begin by admitting some facts.

I’ll focus on educational opportunity. Life is easier for kids and young adults who were raised by parents with some affluence. Those kids are more likely to receive good health care and are more likely to live in better school districts. They have access to more academic support when they struggle, and they’re more likely to have more resources to participate in, and excel at, sports.

American communities cluster by income, so kids from more affluent families are more likely to be surrounded by more people with higher education and income. This gives them more exposure to career and educational options and all other types of advantages.

These advantages accrue to kids regardless of their race. However, income is not distributed equally across races, or indeed within races. The income gap between ethnic groups of whites is actually larger than the income gap between white and Black Americans. Self-identified Appalachian ancestry (Scots-Irish) do worse than those of Ethiopian and Haitian ancestry.

It was lazy for DEI programs to focus on race when worried about equal access. Race is a covariate of income, but income differences dominate our access problems. So, what policies might offer more opportunity for poorer kids?

First, we should boost academic requirements for all kids at a very early age. Poorly performing schools shackle kids to a culture of low expectations. I’m with Thucydides, who said, “There is no need to suppose that human beings differ very much one from another; but it is true that the ones who come out on top are the ones who have been trained in the hardest school.”

It’s worth noting that harder schools, whether K-12 or colleges, are enjoying record enrollment, while those with softening standards are losing students.

Second, we should use the PSAT and SAT as a tool for college admissions. The use of standardized tests was designed to mitigate the effects of poverty and have been rigorously researched. At best, SAT-optional policies have no effect. At worst, they pressure down standards for college admissions and merit non-academic factors that favor high-income students. Time to end this fad on campus.

Third, we should offer unconditional acceptance to all state universities for students in the top 15% of their class. Texas does this (at 10%) and it means good kids from bad schools get to attend college in state.

Fourth, we should charge school corporations state tuition for any of their graduates who have to take remedial English or mathematics at state universities. This will provide a financial carrot for schools to ensure everyone who might go to college is ready out of high school. And yes, this will require a statewide exam and some exemptions (say, for kids who don’t attend college right away).

Fifth, we should redirect DEI money to summer supplement programs for new students from low-income households. These summer bootcamps should pay low-income students to take two months of math and writing courses and provide them with room and board at the college they will attend.

These, and many other programs that focus on family income and local economic conditions, offer the possibility of improving access to education for low-income students. It is almost certain that these programs would be offered to a higher share of Black and Hispanic students than white students. But, they treat a poor white kid from rural Perry County the same as a poor Black kid from Gary.

That’s the point of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

To be fair, Indiana already does some of this well. Take our school funding formula, for example. There’s no racial component to the formulas. We provide a base level of funding per student, then supplement it based on measures of poverty, need for special education and places with high levels of people who didn’t learn English at home. Nearly all the variation between schools is because of the poverty formulas.

In this wholly colorblind formula, the average Black student receives $1,013 more per year for education than the average white student, and the average Hispanic student $623 more. This may not be the right amount to address poverty, but it is a good-faith attempt by the legislature to provide better educational outcomes to lower-income students without regard to their race, gender or national origin.

It is time for more good-faith efforts to live up to the broad promises of our founding.