As universities continue to push programs and staffing that focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), some are beginning to notice the price tags of these programs. Information from Professor Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has shown that the University of Michigan has allotted 126 positions at a cost of $15.6 million and Ohio State University has allotted 131 positions at a cost of $13.4 million for the 2021-2022 academic year for diversity, equity, and inclusion staff.

GIBM further disaggregated the data to learn that male representation in these programs is staggeringly low. At the University of Michigan, males only account for 25% of DEI staff, while at Ohio State University, males only account for 32% of DEI Staff. There are even fewer males who are in the top 10 salary earners when broken down by percentage of employees by gender and total number of employees. At the Univ. of Michigan, women account for 6.3% and men account for 1.6% of top 10 salary earners; while at OSU, women account for 6.9% of top 10 salary earners and men account for 0.75%.

The Academic Apparatus

The academic apparatus continues its antithetical approach to masculinity, and the results are seen at all levels of education, from K-8, to secondary, and to post-secondary education. And much of it is exercised in curriculums and DEI objectives that do little to improve essential skills.

There is no denying the American education system, at all levels, is shortchanging our nation's sons.

Universities and high schools should offer considerably more course work on the Psychology of Men and Gender that would be useful for educators, students, parents, and other professionals and laypeople interested in learning more about the outcomes of males in various measures other than toxic masculinity, patriarchy, and privilege. Recognizing positive attributes of masculinity, starting with boys, is essential for healthy development, pedagogy, and life success. However, there is a greater probability of finding an article about the ills of masculinity at Michigan State University than an article regarding the advantages of male attributes such as independence, strength, toughness, and the importance of aggressive nurturance.

At a time when biological sex is being questioned, there is little tolerance for biological viewpoints rooted in biological realities. The notion that boys and girls learn differently is not controversial and, if anything, academic realities and science make it clear. Gender programs tend to violate equal protection at the federal and state levels. California, Washington, and other states are violating the equal protection clause with programs that support women and girls but do not support boys and men, even though data shows boys and men are the group most impacted in outcomes of despair. Supporting our daughters does not mean forgetting our sons. It’s one of the reason Mark Perry, Ph.D. has filed hundreds of Title IX complaints with great success for violating the equal protection of males on college campuses. Unfortunately, it often takes lawsuits instead of common sense and following equal application of the law to ensure boys and men receive equal rights.

The academic apparatus is part of a larger public policy push to offer help to some more than others, as Michigan and Ohio have women’s and girls’ commissions but do not offer commissions for boys and men. (The same is true in states across the country). Much of this is fueled by a prescriptive narrative found in college programs, in the media, and in public policy. The same holds true at the federal level with a White House Gender Policy Council that specifically excludes boys and men. The systemic arch of inequity begins in K-12 education and stretches over post-secondary institutions and into public policy. Fewer males graduate from high school, fewer males attend college, and fewer government policies address the inequities of boys and men from education to health care.

Closing the Male Gender-Gap and Expanding the Common Good

College diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are an expansion of an academic apparatus largely ignoring males. Whether it’s Title IX, equal protections, and college funding, universities and policy makers should look to expand their male representation on campus and offer courses in male studies that recognize inherently healthy male attributes from boyhood and through adulthood.

College and K-12 schools should focus on male representation and male outcomes. Higher education, media, and policy makers need to publicly acknowledge positive aspects of masculinity that contribute to the social good. In doing so, we can energize a nation of boys and men to see the ways their male attributes are essential for a healthy society that encourages our boys and girls to recognize differences and promote the common good.