The university is aware of false allegations made regarding the opening remarks of Tabbye Chavous, the vice provost for equity and inclusion and chief diversity officer, at the Social Justice Changemaker Lecture on Thursday, October 17, 2024. The university strongly disputes those allegations. A transcript of her remarks follows.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Beth. I’m Tabbye Chavous, vice provost for Equity & Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer. Thank you for inviting me to attend this year’s changemaker lecture featuring the esteemed Nikole Hannah-Jones. Profesor Jones. The theme of this lecture, realizing justice and equity in the long arc of history, is particularly appropriate for what we face today, locally, nationally and globally.

Let’s take a moment to think back to 2020 – we were just talking that feels like 18 years ago – in the aftermath of George Floyds murder and the national protests that followed. It felt like, at the time, there was a race among universities and industries to outdo each other in their public commitments to anti racism and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Almost every week new initiatives were being rolled out, whether in hiring, research or training programs. At the time, many of us hoped that it was the country’s wake up call, a pivotal moment where we may actually see the arc of history bending a little closer to justice.

Now, just four years later, it feels like every day we hear about corporations, colleges and universities backing away from these very same efforts. Politicians and other external forces – many of whom don’t truly understand higher education – are pushing anti D.E.I. legislation. Just recently we’ve even seen coverage – very very recently, like yesterday. Yesterday, we’ve seen coverage from a major news outlet on our campus’s diversity equity and inclusion efforts that lacked crucial context and factual accuracy.

These types of stories present a skewed narrative. They play on stereotypes and tropes, use anecdotes as data, exaggerate claims or state straight-out falsehoods. In doing so, they ignore or obscure the substantive progress that has been made on the ground by many of you. Our work speaks for itself, supported by data and real results that reflect significant strides in areas from affordability and access, to demographic diversity across the university, among many areas.

Despite this, the justifications we often hear for the current wave of regressive actions against equity, diversity and inclusion efforts include fears of litigation, responses to political pressure and misleading, non data driven arguments questioning whether D.E.I. works. On top of that, diversity equity and inclusion efforts are being attacked under the guise of blaming them for antisemitism, a centuries old form of oppression and white supremacy. And questioning the legitimacy of admitted students or students of color or D.E.I.-hires and claiming that D.E.I. stifles free speech.

It is both ironic and worth pointing out that many of those criticizing diversity, equity and inclusion work and pushing anti-D.E.I. agendas are actually working to suppress free speech and diversity of thought. For instance, banning books, restricting the teaching of certain subjects and sanctioning peaceful protest based on viewpoint. Over the past year, I have spent countless hours answering questions about the efficacy and value of diversity, equity and inclusion work. Questions that were far less frequent just some years ago, which would be great – I love questions – if there was a genuine interest in evidence-based answers.

Established evidence-based practices such as inclusive hiring protocols, strategic outreach and engagement strategies and other legally compliant programs and approaches are being newly scrutinized and challenged. This is happening despite – and perhaps because – of the tangible progress that we are making to broaden access. And also despite over three decades of empirical evidence showing why we need to do this D.E.I. work and why we also need to do it better.

I thought Professor Jones’s comments in a recent interview with Bazaar magazine summed up perfectly where we are right now. She said:

“This period of backlash, what we are up against, we are up against propaganda, right? We can spend, as we did on the 1619 Project, months and months researching and writing, with some of the most renowned historians writing for the project, endnotes and peer review, and someone who just has an ideology can come out and say something and write something and that is taken as equivalent to the work we are doing. I do know that the reason they are banning and the reason they are trying to delegitimize work like the 1619 Project is that they know we are right and they can’t make a better argument.”

These are her words.

“They cannot refute the argument with facts, so they refute with propaganda, because it is easier to soak in, because it speaks to the heart not to the head. Our adversaries in this have a different arsenal. They don’t have the same ethics. I can’t just say something. We can’t just say something in this work that we do. I have to actually be able to back it up. We have ethics as journalists, we have ethics as academics and, frankly, we just have ethics as human beings. We are up against people who don’t have that.”

At the University of Michigan, we back it up with evidence because that is how we have made diversity and equity work improve and move the needle on areas of affordability and access. Because of these efforts, we bring in students from nearly every county in Michigan, for instance, which boosts socioeconomic and social-identity diversity, across all groups.

But even so, what people still hear, or tend to hear, is that it only helps students from certain racial backgrounds. It’s only about race. That said, we can’t minimize the need to continue to pay attention to race and work for racial equity, given the indisputable evidence of persistent racial inequalities in every societal sector, from education, to health, to workforce opportunities and more.

At the same time, we have demonstrated, with the wealth of data and metrics, that our definition of diversity, equity and inclusion is broad. Our efforts touch every part of our community, supporting diverse racial/ethnic and cultural communities, diverse gender and sexual identities, advocating for disability communities, fighting ableism and enhancing religious and cultural understanding and inclusion, to name a few.

Yet, those attacking our work still complain that DEI is narrow, or focusing “only” on certain groups (and again this usually means race or more specifically, it usually means Black people).

We know that our hiring initiatives, aimed at bringing outstanding scholars with D.E.I. commitments to the university, have successfully attracted top talent from across the country. These scholars not only produce groundbreaking research but they also lead social justice efforts. Even so, some are arguing that these initiatives compromise excellence, reducing these excellent scholars to mere “D.E.I. hires.”

We can also point to the ways our D.E.I. work seeks to expand and reward intellectual diversity, foster genuine dialogue across differences, and actively support and protect free speech, especially for the most marginalized voices. Despite this, critics will say that D.E.I. work hinders diversity of thought and promotes a single ideology. Saying that D.E.I. is not important is just as ideological.

The unfortunate pattern in all of this is the growing disregard for evidence and facts. So, how do we, as changemakers—and I mean everyone in this room, and many who are not – not just those with a title, degree or other form of privilege—how do we continue to lead with integrity, stay grounded in our values and remain committed to evidence-based action?

First, we need to act. History shows us that resistance is inevitable when pursuing progress and it also reminds us that inaction is not an option. Each of us has influence—in our professions, our social circles and our communities. At a time when we’re being challenged by those seeking to obscure truth and to dictate what we can teach or research, every conversation, presentation, research paper, and teaching moment makes a difference.

Second, we need to tell our own stories, not let others define them for us. We must continue using our voices to explain how and why diversity, equity and inclusion matter – say it often, a lot, and precisely. Everyone here has a story to tell and by sharing yours – even things we need to do better – you can strengthen those who are uncertain and challenge those who are questioning the value of our work without evidence.

Third, we should look to the example of people like Nikole Hannah-Jones, who faced public opposition from some of the most powerful people in the world, and also experienced immense personal attacks. Yet, she continues to speak boldly and tell the truths about our history.

I’m so glad she is here today to share her experiences and wisdom as a changemaker with the current and future changemakers in this room.

Again, thank you for inviting me and I’m looking forward to the rest of the program.