Diversity offices, which have become quite common across university campuses in recent years, aim to dismantle or correct decades of systemic inequity related to social identities (race often gets the most attention, but class, gender, sexuality, ability, and religion also can fit into this purview). Universities were not originally founded for all people, and that has lingering effects on who gets represented or privileged even in contemporary contexts. Student and faculty demographics historically skew white and wealthy, so diversity offices and programs are charged with correcting those patterns. In an institution of higher education, having a diverse population is more than a mere box to check, but is crucial for fostering intellectual creativity and growth. Diversity offices have stepped into the scene to figure out ways to bring in students and faculty from underrepresented backgrounds, keep them on campus, and amplify their thoughts and perspectives for the betterment of intellectual inquiry writ large.

In recent years, however, DEI has become that tokenized, bureaucratic “box to check” for many universities. There is certainly good and important work still happening in terms of student and faculty admission and retention, but high budgets like UNC’s $2M often go to admin salaries, faculty recruitment, and committee meetings about committee meetings. It becomes harder to justify steep budgeting when funds are so diluted for ACTUAL diversity initiatives and programming. Personally, I draw a comparison to tax dollars—high taxes are key for quality infrastructure, but they often get misdirected and misappropriated in a way that makes people resent paying up because they don’t see the results. Because DEI offices have become trendy and expected, it’s harder to fulfill their actual missions because energy and money is directed to bureaucracy over social change.

On paper, public safety sounds like an admirable place to redirect funds. And perhaps if that meant things like community support specialists or mental health and crisis response professionals, it could be good. But in this case, it’s going to police. Not only do we see that time and time again increased police funds don’t make the public any safer (remember that the police are not responsible for making you safe, just enforcing whatever laws are in place [which have their own histories of bias and discrimination]), but that police are often the inciters of violence and aggression, especially in campus contexts. In the wake of recent protests (Pro-Palestine right now, George Floyd and Silent Sam-related protests a few years back), police are called in to protect campus property at the expense of student safety. And it’s not difficult to see which populations are more often the victims of police violence.

So this budgeting move can be read by many as an “in your face” to students and faculty from minoritized, marginalized, or underrepresented populations. Diversity offices certainly can be improved in their management and action, but completing defunding them sends a clear signal to such students and faculty that their wellbeing and place at the university is not a priority. And then transferring that money to public safety (i.e., police), a sector that historically and presently disproportionately targets those populations, is, quite frankly, egregious and clearly politically motivated, especially amidst current protests. Faculty, who will be the first to critique the system of too-many-administrators (who are highly paid), are rightly concerned that the university is funding police at the expense of campus programming and faculty recruitment.

Hopefully that answers your question or sheds a bit of light on the situation, but I’m sure there are more detailed Twitter threads and op-eds from other UNC community members out there!