☆ De Anza College's ousted DEI director: Fix DEI by reprioritizing equal opportunity
Half a year ago, Dr. Tabia Lee—who happens to be a Black woman—was fired from De Anza College because her approach to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was too “white” (read: she didn't reduce students to their check box identities). In an exclusive chat with Opp Now, Lee analyzes DEI's impact on local institutions, her preference for the classical (not critical) DEI approach, and why she sustains hope for colleges' DEI programs.
Opportunity Now: Since you got fired from De Anza College and started speaking out against the predominant critical Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion approach, would you say local folks are becoming more attuned to what's going on?
Tabia Lee: I certainly hope so. It seems people are beginning to see—especially in light of rising antisemitism and Islamophobia on college campuses since October 7—that hyperfocusing on race and gender breeds division. And that it harms the very students DEI purports to help; we see that in dismal achievement scores from K-12 all the way up to higher education. The data is undeniable: students are demotivated by this toxic critical social justice approach to DEI.
People should continue questioning their local boards of trustees, who set and monitor progress towards DEI goals in their district (at least in the California Community College system). More members of the public need to be looking into those board agendas, missions, and visions.
ON: You've written about how DEI condones antisemitism at local colleges. Have you seen DEI cultivate racist sentiments against other “white-adjacent” groups, like Asian students?
TL: Yes; I've seen active exclusion of multiple groups. That's the problem when you start focusing on check boxes instead of people and individuals, when you start labeling groups of people as “victims” and “oppressors.” It's a toxic practice all around. Unfortunately, in too many places, the critical social justice perspective that's being used to guide DEI programs encourages (whether openly or subversively) splitting people into their race and gender identity check boxes instead of what they each individually contribute to a learning environment.
I also observed De Anza contribute to the erasure of black women in a very personal way. One example was when, after terminating me in June of 2023, they immediately deleted all my contributions from the college websites. In that, they also blotted out the progress of the Heritage Month workgroup I co-facilitated with faculty, staff, community members, and students. We were starting to make progress in our work, but were ultimately stopped by ideological bullies who did everything they could to erase me and my work. So toxic forms of DEI don't just discriminate against white and “white-adjacent” folks, but may also express anti-black racism. When critical social justice DEI programs are on campus, too often we find groupthink centered in exclusionary, hostile work and learning environments.
ON: Many local universities just don't seem to value viewpoint diversity anymore. Would you attribute this shift to the students, the faculty, or both?
TL: During my tenure at De Anza College, what I saw from the students and student government team was a strong appetite for viewpoint diversity. When these students learned about race and gender ideologies (which my job involved facilitating), they were excited to learn that there's more than one way of seeing these topics—and that how they view race and gender actually influences their engagement with the community.
Among faculty and senior leadership, this wasn't the case. These individuals were happy to continue using public education sites as centers and tools for indoctrination to a singular viewpoint. With that, they were hostile toward any other way of approaching DEI topics.
Part of the master mission of California Community Colleges is to help students exercise and develop critical thinking skills. In pushing leadership's personal toxic ideology and not making space for intellectual differences, we've strayed from that mission. It's simply not true that there's only one way to see and be in the world, but that's what some folks are telling students.
ON: At this point, do we drop DEI entirely from public education or find a way to reform it?
TL: There are definitely districts and colleges that are working toward authentic inclusion and should continue receiving public funding. With that, I'm thankful that many members of the public are starting to scrutinize these DEI offices' budgets and decisions and demand that if there isn't truly authentic inclusion—meaning every member of the community feels like they belong—then public funds should be rescinded.
ON: Lately, Bay Area tech companies are downsizing and even dropping their DEI positions and initiatives. Is this symptomatic of a larger trend—could education be next?
TL: I've heard a lot of people call to end DEI. They're finding that it's just not working for their business. Unfortunately, many institutions—both corporate and educational—have deeply embedded DEI into their governance and leadership structures. So it's not as easy as turning a light switch off.
Hopefully, instead of eliminating DEI in the tech sector, people will start approaching it in more diverse ways. We should end the stranglehold that critical social justice has over our institutions, while offering an alternative like the classical social justice perspective. Instead of forcing equality of outcomes between individuals (which isn't tenable), we can focus on equality of opportunity for everyone. This is an important goal, and we haven't yet hit the goal posts. There's so much more work to do to realize equal opportunity for all.
Related:
Fired local DEI director: DEI doesn't just tolerate antisemitism—it encourages it
Foothills-De Anza CC analysis: The local Left demands complete conformity
SJSU prof on local college's Equity director firing: Even “nuanced” ideological diff's punished
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.