When I started reading these four articles, I expected them to be about politics. Instead, I found myself thinking about students. As someone who works in college admissions, I spend every day helping first-generation students, low-income students, and students from a variety of backgrounds navigate the complex higher ed system. I couldn't help but think about how these executive orders and policy changes will affect the students.
The White House Executive Order argues that its purpose is to protect civil rights by ending discrimination. It states that "Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" and that the goal is to restore "merit-based opportunity”. But who are they protecting? Not everyone is on the same playing field. Truly what does merit even mean, and how can we not look at things holistically.
As an admissions counselor, I review applications every day. Two students can have similar GPAs but completely different life experiences. One student may have had access to tutors, AP classes, and college counselors, while another worked many hours a week, cared for younger siblings, and attended an underfunded school. Looking at students holistically has never meant lowering standards, it means understanding the story behind the numbers. ( My masters capstone actually analyzed how counselors read applications and how they use holistic review)
The Department of Education takes the Executive Order a step further, announcing that it has "taken action to eliminate harmful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives" and that these changes are meant to prioritize "meaningful learning ahead of divisive ideology in our schools." The Department also states that it removed hundreds of DEI-related guidance documents and training materials from its website. This is outrageous to me. Even at RIC I see these taking action and it breaks my heart. The beauty of RIC is the diversity and we are being forced. We at the college have to remove HSI (Hispanic serving institution) from our marketing materials. So students will no longer see that list on pamphlets and brochures. It hurts to know that something RIC and students should be so proud and the government is making us hide it!
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights presents a very different perspective. It argues that the executive orders are "designed to chill and prohibit lawful efforts to advance equal opportunity." The fact sheet also says that "Equal opportunity and anti-discrimination obligations are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and our federal civil rights laws. The EOs do not and cannot change that. Throughout my career, the goal has been about recognizing barriers and helping students overcome them. Supporting first-generation students, connecting families to resources, and understanding the context of a student's educational journey are not about lowering expectations, they are about creating opportunities.
The Parents for Public Schools statement brought the discussion back to what all of these policies ultimately affect: students. The authors write, "DEI isn't just a buzzword. It's a promise that no child will be left behind because of the color of their skin, the language they speak at home, the disabilities they live with, or the circumstances they were born into." Later, they argue that "When DEI is attacked, every student loses." Those statements made me think about the students I work with every day. Many of them are first-generation college students, come from low-income families, or attend schools with limited resources.
What I appreciated most about reading all four sources was that they all claim to support fairness, but they define fairness differently. The White House and Department of Education argue that fairness means removing race-conscious policies and focusing on individual merit. The Leadership Conference and Parents for Public Schools argue that fairness means recognizing existing inequalities and ensuring every student has meaningful access to opportunity. Students should absolutely be held to high expectations, but educators also have a responsibility to understand the circumstances that shape students educational experiences.
As someone pursuing a career in education, these policy changes matter because they will influence the work educators do every day. Whether in K–12 schools or higher education, we will continue to face difficult questions about how to support students while following changing federal policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment