{shortcode-e8d23c2b15991dde35220e17c4972dbb72169208}

Diversity isn’t only good when it’s chic.

Amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on DEI programming, Harvard Business School’s Racial Equity Action Plan has been mysteriously shuttered. Announced in the wake of the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement, the $25 million plan was intended to address a longstanding lack of Black representation at HBS. Now, its website has been taken down, and HBS administrators are dodging questions about a plan that was once touted as central to the school’s future.

The rise and fall of HBS’s Racial Equity Action Plan reflects a broader issue with how institutions like Harvard execute diversity policy: When diversity is in vogue, massive programs and spending are announced. Their specific effects are hidden behind a veil of secrecy — until diversity goes out of fashion and programs quietly disappear. Programs with good intentions and strong potential are doomed by fickle commitments and a lack of transparency.

When the HBS plan was announced, then-HBS Dean Nitin Nohria wrote that the initiative represented the school’s “highest aspirations” and highlighted the urgency of combatting racism. The plan included initiatives to recruit more Black students, hire more Black faculty, and include more racial representation in curriculum material.

Now, years later, mentions of the plan have vanished, and the school has changed its tone: HBS Chief Community and Culture Officer Terrill L. Drake criticized initiatives designed for a single group, echoing notions of the political right’s “All Lives Matter” movement. At Harvard, other DEI websites have been purged, offices have been consolidated, and funding reallocated. Similar trends are taking place nationwide — this year, hundreds of colleges across the country to remove or rebrand DEI programs and centers amid federal government pushback.

In short, DEI is no longer in vogue, and Harvard has bent with the wind.

When diversity programming rises and falls with the tides of public opinion and government pressure, it risks becoming nothing more than a performative gesture. To initiate lasting change, programs must focus on substance rather than scoring PR points through catchy mentions of “racial equity.” Initiatives must be both persistent and transparent.

Persistence — programs persevering through the whims of popular discourse — ensures that diversity efforts last long enough to have tangible results. DEI is attacked when it is most-needed. Several of Harvard diversity programs had noble goals, from the HBS plan at hand to the College’s Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program, which helped recruit underrepresented students. Instead of shoving them to the side or shutting them down in the face of Trump administration pushback and public pressure, it is more important than ever to be careful, forward-thinking, and prudent with implementation of these programs to ensure we make the most of them.

Moreover, as we have written before, Harvard should be more transparent with its DEI efforts. The Racial Equity Action Plan outlined how HBS would hold themselves accountable to having measurable impact. But despite promising a “regularly updated public report and an internal dashboard” to track the program’s progress, HBS has refused to reveal if or how they spent the program’s $25 million and dodged all manner of questions about the program and its existence.

Without a persistent commitment to DEI, Harvard will be left in the awkward position of spending big and gaining little. And without disclosing information about their success or failures, we can’t measure their success.

As Harvard internally separates the wheat from the chaff, it must exhibit prudence and care, applying a forward-thinking approach to ensure $25 million won’t mysteriously vanish in a few years time.

As the seas of public opinion rise and fall, Harvard shouldn’t let its best DEI initiatives drown.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.