The protests of righteous indignation that sprang up in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd in May of 2020 by Minneapolis, Minnesota Police Officer Derek Chauvin prompted the resurgence of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in corporations, institutions, and organizations across the country.
There was an increased proliferation of Chief Diversity Officers, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments, and the like. These were certainly much needed developments and a sign of progress as it pertains to increasing parity and opportunity for traditionally underrepresented and marginalized groups.
The act of appointing a few selected individuals and/or establishing a department with diversity or equity in the name, however, is not sufficient in and of itself. Cosmetic changes that scratch the surface are not an adequate substitute for the deep and substantive changes that need to be made for diversity, equity, and inclusion to become a reality in institutional policy and practice.
The hardest and most needed changes will require courage. It will require some degree of risk. It will require upsetting the status quo. It will require fearless advocacy on behalf of students even if it means that it may cause some level of institutional discomfort. Unprecedented change requires unprecedented action at the time when windows of opportunity are made available.
Too many diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts have been big on analysis and little on action. Big on titles and little on courage. Big on salaries and little on sacrifice. An example of the resistance to change among many highly placed administrators occurred recently as several student-athletes who were participating in the NCAA Division I Basketball Tournament advocated for the establishment of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights through the #NotNCAAProperty hashtag and activism on social media.
The current rules regarding NIL for Division I athletes according to the NCAA website are: “In general, to maintain NCAA eligibility, Division I student-athletes may not promote or endorse a commercial product or service, even if they are not paid to participate in the activity. Athletes may use their image to continue participating in nonathletically related promotional activities if they were initiated before college enrollment.”
It is clearly a contradiction and an injustice that players cannot profit from their public rights by doing things such as endorsing products when every other stakeholder is allowed to do it and the NCAA tournament alone is slated to bring in an estimated $900 million dollars.
