A 2024 analysis of UK higher education found that students from minority ethnic groups are more likely than white students to drop out and less likely to be employed after graduation (see go.nature.com/4cakscu). Similar disparities exist in the United States, where white and Asian students have better graduation rates and career outcomes than do Black, Hispanic or Native American ones (see go.nature.com/42atwz2). The problems extend to staff members, as well: Black people, for example, are under-represented in both UK and US academia.
‘Silence is complicity’ — universities must fight the anti-DEI crackdown
UK universities are working to remedy these gaps by investing in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. But, in the United States, things have taken a stark turn: affirmative action at universities and DEI programmes in the federal government have been stopped. The administration of US President Donald Trump has also threatened to withhold federal funding and other forms of support from institutions and businesses that continue to pursue inclusivity-related goals. Although dismantling systems aimed at addressing inequities is highly misguided, supporters of DEI initiatives do recognize that there is room for improvement in how these programmes are implemented.
The broad scope of DEI can often cloud meaningful discussion about what works and what doesn’t. For instance, a 2019 report by a collective of UK universities and the National Union of Students recommended measures — such as fostering a diverse campus environment and curricula that reflect the experiences of minority ethnic groups — to close the academic achievement gap (see go.nature.com/4jrgpfc).
Such interventions risk overlooking a simpler, if less palatable, explanation for racial disparities: instructors’ biased behaviour. Research has shown that when submitting work of identical quality, white students are given higher grades and are seen as more capable than are those from minority ethnic groups1. In another study, researchers posed as prospective PhD students and contacted some 6,500 potential supervisors at top US universities2. Those with white-sounding names were most likely to get a response, especially from supervisors at private institutions, despite all their e-mails and qualifications being identical otherwise2. Moreover, this finding was independent of the proportion of women and people from minority ethnic groups at contacted universities.
Don’t wait out four hard years: speak truth to power
In these situations — grading academic work and applying for a PhD — a highly diverse campus will probably not solve the problem, although it could provide other benefits. This is why it is important to acknowledge the reality of bias in universities, set clear objectives for DEI initiatives and develop standardized metrics to measure progress. Too often, DEI interventions end up being symbolic gestures that fail to address the real barriers faced by students and researchers from minority ethnic groups.
