Disputes over diversity equity and inclusion depend on how you define fairness

From a social process perspective, however, reorienting university operations in this manner is likely to be considered unfair if it requires the institution to give preferential treatment to factors other than merit, or to privilege an anti-racist intellectual approach that advocates for preferential treatment, over other intellectual approaches.

Indeed, a social process definition of fairness seems evident in the writings of many DEI critics. For example, Paul Rossi, a former Grace Church high school teacher who in a 2021 letter criticized his school's implementation of anti-racism programming, wrote: "All of this [anti-racism programming] is done in the name of 'equity,' but it is the opposite of fair." Similarly, Dorian Abbot, an associate professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, offered this: "Let's fight bias in science by working hard to reduce bias, not by introducing it. … Let's treat each applicant for conferences, fellowships, and faculty positions as an individual worthy of dignity and respect. Let's treat all applicants fairly by judging them only on the basis of their ability and promise as scientists." Both writers appear to favor a social process definition of fairness based on an evenly applied, merit-based process rather than a social justice definition based on the achievement of evenly distributed outcomes across groups.

Within higher education, these different definitions of fairness can produce some confusing directives for administrators, faculty, staff, and students. For example, should a graduate admissions committee modify its evaluation standards in order to admit more minority students by, for example, discontinuing the use of standardized entrance exams? If a committee member defines fairness in terms of outcomes, the answer is likely to be yes. As long as all applicants meet the minimum standard for admission, preferential treatment should be given to minority candidates to ensure their proportional representation in the incoming cohort, even if it means passing over a more qualified majority candidate based on standardized test scores. But if a committee member defines fairness in terms of an evenly applied process in which the strongest candidates are sought, then abandoning the use of standardized tests to alleviate disparities among groups is likely to be seen as unfair, particularly if it means passing over candidates with higher test scores, regardless of their group characteristics. There may be people in the same department - and on the same admissions committee - who disagree on these definitions of fairness.

Such competing definitions of fairness currently lurk among us unacknowledged, occasionally resulting in acrimonious public disagreements among administrators, faculty, staff, and students who, ironically enough, tend to agree that racism should not be tolerated. More generally, the focus of most DEI initiatives on a social justice definition of fairness may frustrate and alienate community members and stakeholders who favor a social process definition. And if our analysis is correct, even if everyone were suddenly to become committed to having honest, open conversations about racism and racial inequality, such conversations would remain counterproductive as long as people continued to use the same words to mean fundamentally different things.

One solution is to avoid using such fraught terms and replace them with more-specific language. For example, it may be useful when discussing DEI issues to employ - and to encourage others to employ - the terms process fairness and outcome fairness as a way of distinguishing between the two competing definitions. While awkward at first, this convention may help reduce confusion and foster greater understanding, if not always agreement. There may be better alternatives out there, but coming up with terms that more accurately reflect the underlying difference between the social justice and social process definitions of fairness is an important step toward having productive conversations.

It is also important to note that people may try to strike a balance between the social justice and social process perspectives. They believe that some amount of outcome equalization is needed to help underrepresented minorities overcome cumulative disadvantages. But they are uncomfortable taking equalization too far because, beyond a certain point, doing so starts to feel unfair. While we appreciate the practical value of adopting this approach, it is important to recognize that doing so does not resolve the underlying definitional issues regarding fairness that tend to cause DEI advocates and critics to misunderstand one another.

It is unfortunate when efforts to solve social problems founder due to lack of resources, but it is tragic when such efforts founder due to failed communication. We hope this piece helps in some small way to prevent such tragedies.