This time, media have actually done some good work on Trump

Donald Trump came out of hiding last week for a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago home and the performance of the press triggered a wave of media criticism the likes of which I haven’t seen in a long time.

A livid Lawrence O’Donnell spent 20 minutes of his MSNBC talk show Thursday night slamming cable networks, including his own, for broadcasting the press conference live without immediate fact checking and for failing to give that same live coverage to Kamala Harris’ campaign event that day. He slammed the assembled reporters in Mar-a-Lago for timid questioning and lack of followups, allowing Trump to skate by with lies or incomprehensible non-answers. (On Sunday, NPR published a story that counted 162 misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies in 64 minutes.)

“It’s 2016 all over again,” O’Donnell said. “The same mistakes are being made. I have never seen an industry slower to learn from its own stupid mistakes than the American news business. And you cannot expect them in the next 89 days to figure out what they haven’t been able to figure out in nine years: How to cover a Trump for president campaign.”

Will Bunch, the excellent national opinion columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer (and a former Birmingham News colleague), noted on X that, remarkably, no one asked Trump about a Washington Post report that he may have received $10 million from the Egyptian government while he was president. No one asked about Project 2025 either.

In a Facebook post, John Mangels, another top-notch ex-colleague from The News, called the press conference “flat-out journalistic malpractice.” He also cited a Washington Post headline that labeled Trump’s answers as “meandering.” Mangels saw them as “clear evidence of cognitive deficit.” The New York Times wasn’t much better in recognizing the main takeaway. Its lead angle was that Trump tried to reclaim media attention from Harris (and it worked!).

One White House correspondent posted on X that the Trump campaign chooses the reporters who travel with him and that only certain other reporters got early alerts to the press conference in Palm Beach. That could explain at least some of the inadequate questioning. But the media criticism seems fair.

The bigger consideration is whether this episode reflects continuation of a press whitewash on behalf of Trump. Since he came on the national political scene, certainly we’ve seen too many stories that failed to fact check, used too many euphemisms, forcibly extracted meaning out of gibberish, and made him seem like a normal candidate engaged in semi-conventional politics.

But maybe journalists are getting an unfair rap. Erik Wemple thinks so.

a link to erik wemple’s column is in the post.

Wemple, the media critic for The Washington Post, published a listt of more than 200 news articles and commentaries by national print/online news organizations between November 2022 and July 2024 that addressed the agenda, actions and authoritarian dangers of Donald Trump. (Wemple didn’t include all such stories nor hundreds of cable news segments.) Wemple’s point: No, the news media are not giving Trump a pass. And yes, they are addressing the potential consequences of this election, not just the campaigning. So give the media some credit.

Or not. They can’t do the job only sometimes.

Reporters can’t get numb to Trump’s habitual antics and claims to the point that they see them as repetitive and no longer newsworthy enough to challenge or to highlight. Much of the reading and viewing public have short memories. And reporters wouldn’t want to miss a possible big story: That the Republican nominee’s incoherence may be getting worse. Now there’s a lead angle.

The obligation of journalists is to deliver their best, most aggressive accountability journalism every day, every story, every press conference, especially during an election campaign with as much riding on it as this one.

News media need a plan for dealing with Kamala Harris slander

criticism of kamala harris’ laugh is petty and irrelevant. SOME other criticisms, though, are destructive and reprehensible.

Do you know how long it took after Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race for some Donald Trump supporters to publicly slam Kamala Harris with sexist and racist criticisms? Trick question. It started before he withdrew.

And it’s not going to stop anytime soon. Ethical news media have to figure out if and how they give it attention and whether their same ol’ same ol’ practices are going to work for one of the country’s most monumental elections ever.

Opposition attacks on the actions, policies and credentials of any political figure are relevant and newsworthy, even if they’re false. Wrong statements are the unfortunate price of having the open civic conversations that we need. And I still believe in the ability of the press to “knock down” falsehoods if they do it immediately and forcefully with facts.

But criticism rooted in mere demographics is a whole different category. The prospect of America’s first female president – and oh my gosh she’s of mixed race too – has triggered the worst of the Trump supporters to spew blatant racist and misogynistic vitriol in interviews and on social media. (This happened in 2020 too.)

Harris is inarticulate (Kellyanne Conway). She’s lazy (Conway again). She’s annoying (Republican National Committee). She has no children of her own (former Ron DeSantis campaign official Will Chamberlain). She slept her way to the top (Megyn Kelly, Milo Yiannopoulos and Trump himself). She’s at the top only because of DEI (Republican U.S. Reps. Tim Burchett and Chip Roy).

Such remarks are hateful, of course, and perpetuate highly destructive stereotypes about Blacks and women.

Stuff like this will spread uncontrolled on social media, but what should more responsible news media do? There’s a persuasive argument that they should report on it because such nastiness – whether it represents true belief or merely a low-road political tactic – is a measure of candidate character and ethics that the public deserves to know about. It may also suggest a candidate bereft of legitimate criticisms.

Here's the big problem with that argument: The noble calling out of hateful rhetoric gives it greater circulation, or as academics say, amplifies it. And it’s getting amplified to segments of the public that are gullible. While it may simply harden the existing views of some people, it’s alarming to think such garbage might sway even a few minds in a massively consequential presidential election that figures to be close.

The news media are “a powerful mediator between candidates and the voting public either by unwittingly supporting the racial message agenda of candidates or by confronting or refusing to communicate a racial frame of reference for a given contest,” researchers Charlton McIlwain and Stephen Caliendo wrote* in 2011.

I like confronting, which to me means exposing motive, explaining dog whistles, and clear labeling of racism/sexism in publication. But we may stand at a moment when it’s necessary for the media to consider refusing.

Stuck in my traditional ways, I think we need to know everything the Republican nominee for president says. But I’d be fine if for the next three months journalists chose to ignore the surrogates and sycophants supporting him when they engage in offensive commentary like we are seeing against Kamala Harris.

With stakes this high, customary reportage, no matter how confrontational, may fail the nation.

 *Credit to my colleague Dr. A.J. Bauer for calling my attention to this reference

Why lots of news media are beating up on Joe Biden

I honestly don’t believe nefarious reasons are at work in the avalanche of news stories and commentaries about Joe Biden’s mental fitness. It comes instead from some conventional journalistic behaviors that are currently on steroids.

The avalanche is measurable. Media Matters found that five major national publications wrote 97 articles about Biden’s age or mental ability between mid-January and mid-June. Donald Trump? 10.

The one-sided barrage is not due to orders from the corporate offices. It is not because of the readership and viewership that a Trump presidency would bring (again). And it is not because most national political reporters and opinion writers – those who aren’t right wing propagandists at least – privately support Trump. There’s no agreement anyway on whether Biden’s withdrawal would help Trump or hurt him.

Other explanations are involved, starting with the essential purpose of reporting on the actions and deliberations taking place within the Democratic Party. The Republicans’ candidate isn’t going anywhere but the Democrats’ guy might be. (We can have a discussion another day on how much the party’s panic is due to the public’s panic due to the media’s panic following the first presidential debate.)

It doesn’t end there. I see other influences from the nature of political journalism, and even if I don’t think they’re nefarious, that doesn’t mean they’re harmless:

• National political journalists hate to open themselves up to claims of bias or uneven coverage by either side of the political spectrum. They are especially sensitive to this complaint from conservatives, even when unequal coverage is justified by facts. So, after constant bashing of Trump and Republicans, we are seeing some defensive overcompensation now. It’s reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

• National political journalists (and all journalists) prefer story angles that are new. They, along with big chunks of the public, have understandably become numb to the many older, repeatedly documented defects of Trump, including mental defects. “People already know about that” is the wrong conclusion, however.

• Speaking of new angles, if a recently emerged storyline was initially hidden by the government or a campaign, reporters get annoyed. That annoyance may show in volume of coverage. Media critics have differed on whether the press got fooled on the Biden acuity story.

• National political reporters understand the importance of substance – policies, campaign platforms, track records – but they love to write about political process. I think many of them would welcome months of unprecedented stories about chaos and resolution within a major political party if Biden steps aside.

• As with process, they love to write about candidate style. Many political reporters and talking heads get hung up on image and mannerisms because they believe those are fundamental to electability. And that may be so. But they are much less relevant to effective governing.

The big question surrounding Biden now is whether the slow walking, the soft talking and the stumbles in spontaneous speech and thought reflect a cognitive decline that would interfere with non-spontaneous decision making. Evidence for both “yes” and “no” continues to emerge, including Friday night’s interview with ABC in which I thought Biden did OK but network analysts jumped all over him immediately afterward. I think some news reports have overlooked excellent articles (even by their own organization) cautioning that outward signs are not a good measurement of cognitive capability.

Regardless, the laser focus continues, even as it seems horrifyingly one-sided. But most national political journalists seem to find the mix of legitimate concern, political process and candidate style too irresistible to put a limit on it.

CNN debate format was an enormous blunder

PHOTO CREDIT: AUSTIN STEELE/CNN

The flaws in how CNN conducted the first presidential debate Thursday night were foreseeable and then magnified by actual events.

As a result, everyone is talking about the donkey in the room and barely about the elephant.

A brief review of the good and the awful of CNN’s format:

• No studio audience: Smart move.

• Muted microphones when the other guy spoke: Smart move.

• Order of topics: Abysmal judgment. The questions about the main concerns particular to each candidate needed to come first, not last. Order conveys importance. It is not bias to recognize that Donald Trump’s past and planned efforts to establish authoritarian rule are an abnormally important issue.

• No real-time fact checking: A completely irresponsible decision. This wasn’t a heat-of-battle failure by the moderators, either. It was a derelict plan adopted beforehand. This would be a mistake no matter who the candidates were. To do this with Trump is mind boggling.

Moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash did well at repeating questions when a candidate’s first answer was evasive. But that’s not fact checking. Leaving it to candidates to accurately correct each other is fantasyland. The audience needs the credibility of a detached journalist. CNN eventually did provide detailed fact checking -- after the debate. Too late.

In a poll published Saturday by Data For Progress, 53% of 800 likely voters who watched or read about the debate said the moderators did not do enough to fact check the candidates.

The troubling consequence of CNN’s format is that Trump’s deranged statements and torrent of lies – three times as many falsehoods as Joe Biden – floated uninterrupted into the public consciousness. Recognizing that he wasn’t going to get called out, Trump got more deranged and the lies more torrential as the debate went on.

To compound the problem, most media conversations after the fact focused not on Trump but on Biden’s oral coherence. (For both of them, mental competence is a legitimate issue to evaluate; you just have to decide if you think 90 very bad minutes of spontaneous thinking and speaking sufficiently measures Biden’s mental competence.)

TV networks shouldn’t produce debates that have no method for real-time accountability. Networks need off-stage fact checkers who feed information to moderators, plus designated minutes for moderators to confront candidates about their falsehoods. Even if it means one candidate gets more questions than the other. Even if it means a longer debate.

Another proposal is one I advocated a year ago and that drew more than normal disagreement from readers: Record debates live but show them hours later. This allows for addition of on-screen graphics that address any misstatements not adequately remedied during recording.

I’m aware some number of viewers liked the minimalist moderation Thursday night. Don’t care. CNN is not excused.

Missing piece of Trump case coverage: The jurors

No one has published any interviews so far with members of the Manhattan jury that found Donald Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying records last week, but I’m certain multiple media outlets are trying.

Juror names and addresses were shielded from the media and the public but I think it’s inevitable that enterprising reporters will eventually find a juror or two who is willing to talk. That’s usually what has happened with high-profile court cases in the past.

A juror might be willing to allow publication of their name, but it should be a slam-dunk decision by any media organization to allow anonymity if that’s a condition of getting the interview. That’s because – sadly but unsurprisingly – some people outraged by the verdict have posted threats of harm against the jury on fringe social media sites. Example: “We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal.” Posts have also included names and personal information of individuals believed by posters to have served on the jury.

It's reasonable to think the media horde should just back off of the 12 individuals who had their lives disrupted by this civic obligation and who showed impressive courage to render this verdict in such a high-profile and divisive case. But the news value justifies the reportorial effort. And candidly, if Trump had been found not guilty of everything, then I’d really want to know why, so I can’t very well argue to leave the jury alone in the present circumstance.

Keep in mind that “reportorial effort” doesn’t mean harassment and browbeating of jurors, though they might consider it that. It simply means making contact to see if and when they want to talk, and respecting whatever that decision is.

Surely, no ethical media organization would reveal a juror’s identity against their will, even if it unfortunately happens on social media. I don’t think even Fox News would do that.

Student journalists shine in campus protest coverage

one of two gaza war rallies at the university of alabama on wednesday. (photo: riley thompson of the crimson white)

A student reporter at the Columbia Journalism School who is covering the campus protests there tweeted Wednesday that she was so overwhelmed that she had to quit … giving interviews to professional media.

On this story playing out around the nation, it’s the campus media that are leading the way.

There are reasons for that. Several universities in the midst of pro-Palestinian rallies and police countermeasures closed the grounds to everyone except students and faculty. Student journalists are also more likely to know the activists, who in turn are more likely to talk to fellow students than to the professional media whose coverage of Israel’s war in Gaza they haven’t liked. It also helps that staffs of campus media probably are more demographically similar to the protesters than the professional media are.

This has led to outstanding work by many student media outlets, both print/online and radio. (The Crimson White gave prominent coverage to Wednesday’s peaceful double rallies at the UA Student Center Plaza.)

Producing these vital stories hasn’t been easy. At Columbia University, police told student reporters they would be arrested if they left the journalism building to report on the arrests being made in a nearby building occupied by protesters. (This was a comically ironic moment as next week Columbia will announce the Pulitzer Prizes. I look forward to the new category “Breaking News Reporting From A Distance That’s Acceptable To Us.”)

At New York University, police pepper sprayed a student newspaper photographer. At UCLA, the student paper tweeted early this morning that police forcefully clearing an encampment had threatened to arrest reporters. On Tuesday night, pro-Israel counter protesters sprayed and assaulted multiple reporters for The Daily Bruin, sending one to an ER.

On Wednesday, five national media associations wrote an open letter to college administrators: “Right now, the nation is turning to student journalists – people who know and live in these communities – for accurate and timely information. They are raising hard questions, verifying reports and supporting each other. What they are doing is essential to our democracy and embodies the values institutions like yours aim to instill in each and every student.

“We are horrified and dismayed to see student journalists and their advisers physically attacked, intimidated by police, and unfairly restricted in their access to their own buildings. Each of them is exercising the lessons imparted to them in their classes and student media operations. This maltreatment cannot continue.”

Do you solemnly swear to smile for the camera?

PHOTO CREDIT: THE FUND FOR MODERN COURTS (NEW YORK)

Very misleading subtitle on MSNBC a few days ago: “World watches Trump hush money trial.”

No, the world isn’t. Because TV news cameras aren’t allowed in the courtroom. And they should be.

Whatever you think of the merits of the Manhattan case against Donald Trump, this is a historic trial – the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president. And while the public relies on reporters’ accounts and a few still photos, Trump uses televised statements in the hallway to distort the courtroom events taking place. I’d also like to witness his reported napping, since age and energy have become a 2024 campaign issue.

The extraordinary circumstances of this case aside, there are good reasons to allow TV cameras in most courtrooms.

Currently, federal courts do not allow them. Except in the few states where cameras are prohibited by law – and New York is one of them -- state courts usually leave the decision to local presiding judges or individual trial judges. Restrictions are intended to limit distractions, protect the comfort of participants, and prevent showboating by lawyers and witnesses. For decades, proponents’ best evidence has been the O.J. Simpson trial. But more significantly, many criminal defense attorneys believe cameras work against the fair trial rights of their clients.

That’s all reasonable, but the public benefits of courtroom cameras outweigh the concerns, especially since the concerns aren’t inevitable and could be mitigated if necessary.

Open courts are a foundational principle, and to extend that principle only to the limited number of seats in a room seems artificial. Broader exposure would help to educate the public about the process and presumably increase trust in it.

And if the process isn’t working as it should in particular cases, transparency provides the chance for accountability, a chance to call out and fix the failures and injustices. I suspect that’s why some judges and lawyers oppose cameras. It’s an additional, probably uncomfortable, level of public scrutiny. But with the high stakes of any trial, judges and lawyers should understand the necessity.

It can work. Put a stationary camera facing the judge and witnesses and another one facing the attorneys and defendant. A single feed for all media. Cameras seemed not to cause any big problems during the high-profile trials of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in 2021 and South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh in 2023, for examples. (The former occurred during the pandemic. For a different opinion on the latter and on courtroom cameras in general, read this.)

If the camera skeptics continue to prevail, live audio, as the U.S. Supreme Court does, would be better than nothing. But nothing may be all the public gets from three of the four pending Trump criminal cases, with the Georgia election interference case as the exception.

The news media want more, for the news value and for the ratings. To defend against claims of partisanship and favored treatment, the U.S. judicial system should want more, too.

Did a reporter really ask that question?

BALTIMORE MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT, FAR RIGHT, RESPONDED TO A CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION AT THIS MARCH 26 EARLY-MORNING PRESS CONFERENCE, FIVE HOURS AFTER THE FRANCIS SCOTT KEY BRIDGE COLLAPSED

It’s about five hours after a cargo ship hit the Key Bridge in Baltimore, collapsing it and sending six construction workers on the bridge into the water. The city’s mayor is holding a press conference when a reporter asks him: “How long is it going to take to rebuild the bridge?”

Calmly and immediately, the mayor responds: “We shouldn’t even be having that discussion right now. The discussion right now should be about the people, the souls, the lives that we’re trying to save. There will be a time to discuss about a bridge and how we get our bridge back up but right now there are people in the water that we have to get out.”

On social media, the mayor got mostly applause. The reporter got mostly ripped apart. One X poster wrote: “Shoutout to our mayor Brandon Scott for focusing on the people and showcasing empathy, because the nerve of that reporter to ask about the bridge repair. Like, sir read the (expletive) room.”

I understand why many people saw the reporter’s question as disrespectful to the victims. But I don’t have a problem with it. How about you?

It may have been an impossible question to answer so soon after the event, and perhaps a mayor isn’t the right person to ask. And knowing the press conference is a live broadcast, an acknowledgment of the loss of life from the reporter would have shown a sense of understanding.

But that question had to be asked. It’s a fundamental part of the story, with long-term implications for thousands of people. Pursuing all aspects of a major breaking news story does not mean indifference to the human tragedy. Nor does it prove backward news priorities. (And I’d say that regardless of the demographics of the victims.)

If that moment -- five hours in -- was too soon to ask about the bridge, I’m hard-pressed to pick the moment when it becomes OK. When everyone is known to have died? That was already certain. When each body is recovered from the river? That might never happen.

Clearly, though, much of the public thought that moment was completely wrong. It’s a reminder that journalists and the public often have different values. And one more example, even if not justified, of why so many people hold the news media in such low regard.

Photo fraud happens in journalism too

in this 2003 photo from the iraq war, the photographer combined PARTS of two photos so that the civilian FACED THE SOLDIER AS THE SOLDIER GESTURED. WHEN THIS WAS DISCOVERED AFTER PUBLICATION, THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS FIRED FOR VIOLATING POLICY AGAINST PHOTO MANIPULATION.

I’m taking a stand on the hottest media story going right now: I prefer “KateGate” over “WaterKate.”

Multiple international news organizations told their affiliates last Sunday to kill a Kensington Palace photo of Kate Middleton, the princess of Wales, with her children on British Mother’s Day because of telltale signs that the photo had been digitally altered.  Almost all instances of photo alterations go against newsroom policy, but what I think really spooked the news agencies was the possibility that Kate, who at that point hadn’t been seen in public since a surgery two months ago, was added to the photo by use of Adobe Photoshop.

This, of course, ignited rather than quelled speculation about Kate’s life at the moment, causing followers of the royal family to draw the obvious conclusion that Kate was still physically recovering, or the victim of domestic violence, or divorcing her husband, or dead. (A more recent, bystander video seems to eliminate at least a couple of these possibilities.)

The photo manipulation in this case came from the originating public relations source, but over the years some staff photographers and freelance photographers have been caught doing it. The forms vary, such as staging a scene or coaching a subject for photos that are later presented to the audience as spontaneous and authentic (as opposed to obviously posed photos). It also includes adding or subtracting objects after a photo is shot. News organizations have written guidelines that almost universally prohibit such actions as unethical distortions of truth.

Some infamous cases from history:

from june 1994: Time’s darkened cover of ACCUSED KILLER o.j. simpson, contrasted with newsweek’s unaltered version. the original photo for both was simpson’s police mugshot.

• Civil War photographers such as Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner moved dead bodies around for greater visual impact.

• In the Pulitzer Prize winning photo of a slain student at Kent State University in 1970, an editor airbrushed out a background fence post that seemed to protrude from the head of an anguished student in the foreground.

• For a cover photo in 1994, Time magazine darkened the police mugshot of accused murderer O.J. Simpson, bringing an avalanche of public criticism that the magazine wanted Simpson to look more menacing and in the process committed a racist act. Time eventually apologized but initially defended the computer enhancement by saying it wanted to portray a mood reflective of the headline, “An American Tragedy.” The cover, indeed, was labeled in small letters as a “photo illustration.”

• A Los Angeles Times photographer offered a photo from the Iraq War in 2003 that was actually a combination of two photos snapped seconds apart. The photo, which was widely published, showed a British soldier ordering a civilian with a baby to take cover from Iraqi fire. The photographer, who was fired, said he transported a different pose of the civilian from another shot to create a more dramatic composition.

• A freelance photographer hired by The Associated Press took a photo of a fighter taking cover during the Syria war in 2013. Before transmitting to the AP, the photographer cloned a piece of natural background in the photo and placed it over another photojournalist’s video camera that was visible in a corner of the shot. The freelancer said he thought the camera was distracting. He had helped the AP win a Pulitzer for its Syria coverage the previous year, but the news agency nonetheless cut ties with him.

• The New York Daily News erased a woman’s gory wound in a front-page photo from the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. Editors decided it was too graphic (disturbing image warning if you click). This angered their own staff photographers, who wondered why the paper didn’t simply pick a different photo.

For a better sense of the boundaries, I consulted former colleague Tamika Moore, a longtime photojournalist and now a managing producer for Red Clay Media, who said only “minor editing techniques” such as cropping or removing dust are acceptable. She pointed to the code of ethics of the National Press Photographers Association, which says to “respect the integrity of the photographic moment.”

“Most of the time, when photojournalists who have manipulated their photos outside of that integrity come under fire, it’s for mediocre photos that are not made more compelling by the manipulation,” Moore wrote in an email. “It’s simply not worth having your integrity compromised or to not be taken seriously for something so minor.”

Some aspects of journalism have looser standards. It’s generally understood that photos provided by institutions for PR purposes will have undergone some “retouching” (sounds so much more innocent than “manipulation,” doesn’t it?).

It’s also understood that photos get manipulated frequently for beauty and fashion magazines and webpages. That may be changing, though, as more publishers become aware of the psychological harm done to consumers, especially young ones, who stress over their inability to match the (phony) physical perfection they see in such publications. Moore said some celebrities, such as Zendaya, Lupita Nyong’o and Kate Winslett, have protested or forbidden digital alterations to photos of them because the practice “perpetuates unrealistic standards of beauty.”

It would be great if journalists never again engage in photo manipulation. But lots of other people are. Advancements in photo editing software and artificial intelligence in general make it ever easier to alter photos for a political or PR purpose. Yes, news organizations should worry about internal cases of manipulation, but the bigger challenge is to remain constantly on guard against the blatant and subtle infractions of others.

“I’m old-school, but the standard is (do) nothing outside of things that you wouldn’t normally do in a darkroom.”

— Photojournalist Tamika Moore

DEI paranoia comes to Alabama

SOME UA STUDENTS AND FACULTY PROTEST PENDING ANTI-DEI LEGISLATION ON UA’S CAMPUS ON FEB. 27. (PHOTO BY CANDACE JOHNSON, COURTESY OF WVUA-TV)

Update (March 21): This bill is now law, effective Oct. 1, 2024. The UA System said it will begin assessing what actions it must take to comply but remains committed to providing “welcoming and supportive environments that foster open thought, academic freedom and free expression.”

The supporters of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts on college campuses are mostly students, teachers and others who are actually on college campuses. The opponents are mostly politicians.

That ought to tell you everything you need to know about the relative merits of the arguments.

DEI in its various forms is under attack. Twenty-three states have considered anti-DEI legislation in the past approximate year, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. Five states – Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas and South Dakota – have adopted such legislation, and more plan to do so. They are copying a road map laid out by two national right-wing think tanks.

Today, a committee of the Alabama House of Representatives will hold a hearing on a bill that passed the Senate last week and that would outlaw DEI programs and administrative offices at public universities in the state. (It also restricts teaching of “divisive concepts.” I shared my disdain for that in a blog post in March of last year.)

DEI shows itself in different formalized ways in higher education: designated administrative offices, awareness programs, gathering spots, faculty training, diversity pledges by job candidates and mandatory inclusion on syllabi, among others. At UA, the Division of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion offers events, speakers and other educational resources. It operates the Intercultural Diversity Center and the Safe Zone Resource Center for members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

DEI initiatives are not what its critics claim they are. The Florida governor thinks the acronym stands for “Discrimination, Exclusion and Indoctrination.” In other words, DEI is forcing conservative white students to be quiet about the conservative part and ashamed about the white part. And it’s supposedly granting some unexplained kind of privilege to everyone else.

DEI in reality means seeking a campus that reflects the enriching demographic diversity of the rest of the world and fostering enough tolerance and understanding that everyone can get along and focus on education. It means offering support for students who feel out of place and mentally stressed. And not just Black students. DEI programs serve Asian and Hispanic students, women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, religious groups, military veterans and others.

The best argument against formalized DEI efforts is that they add (marginally) to the surge in administrative costs in higher education in recent decades. But some costs are worth it, and I’m not sure that informal commitments to DEI among grassroots individuals such as professors could succeed as well without official structures and locations to support the concept.

Anti-DEI laws, which have already shut down some offices and programs in states where they have passed and even preemptively in states where they’re pending, will have consequences. They’ll affect student and faculty recruitment and retention, which in turn will diminish classroom education. I’ve witnessed the value of diverse demographics, life experiences and viewpoints in the classroom. Every course I have is made better by it.

I’ve also witnessed the stress faced by many students – whether members of a diversity community or not – in coping with the academic and social challenges of college life. There’s more of that out there than you might think. Taking away any source of support would be a foolish disservice. Especially to address a problem that some politicians have simply made up.