Interviewer: Okay, I'll go ahead and start this. So I'm here on April 15. With Undergraduate #4. And do you consent to having this recorded?
Undergraduate #4: Yes.
Interviewer: And then having the transcript from this interview posted online?
Undergraduate #4: Yes.
Interviewer: Okay, awesome. So we can go ahead and get started with the first question, which is, what organizations are you involved with on campus?
Undergraduate #4: So I'm a member of Texas Darlins, which is a basketball spirit group for men and women's basketball. I guess it's kind of redundant. But I'm also in an organization called FLI or Fearless Leadership Institute, which is a black women's empowerment org.
Interviewer: Okay, awesome. So then, what has changed about kind of the general structure of these organizations or your role within these organizations since the implementation of SB 17?
Undergraduate #4: Okay, so Texas Darlins, like, thankfully hasn't been, like affected by SB-17, just because we're not state funded. But FLI was school funded. So that's getting heavily impacted with other organizations such as Sweatt, which is a black men's empowerment org. And so, it's really scary because those, like the two people who oversaw that division, two people I really care about, their job security is no longer there, because of SB-17. And I feel like the destruction being done to campus is counterintuitive to what SB-17 is claiming to attempt to do, which is promote equality for everyone, but it's actually prohibiting a lot of people. So yeah, FLI is heavily being affected by that. Texas Darlins, not too much.
Interviewer: Can you talk a little bit more about what the Fearless Leadership Institute does for black women on campus?
Undergraduate #4: Yeah, it serves as a home away from home. A lot of people here are from Austin, I luckily am, so my family is right up the street, but a lot of women in FLI their family isn't there. And also, being on such a big campus where it is pretty diverse, but is only 4% Black, it's really hard to find people who look like you and relate to experiences that you have; you don't have to over explain yourself on every single thing. So FLI was just it's just kind of as like a self betterment org, also very familial. They do workshops, helping people navigate relationships, not just romantic, but also friendship, professional relationships. We do things like a wellness day, where we just do little yoga exercise, things like that. I'm trying to think there's other things too. Oh, this thing called BOSS, which helps you with your professional goals, or just being assertive in who you are as a person. So it's very much just making you the best version of yourself that you can be.
Interviewer: So, personal development and professional development as well? Yes. Cool. Um, there was an additional question that I had. It was there and I forgot. Oh, okay. It's okay. Um, so are there any, like new specific challenges that you encounter with the changes that have happened?
Undergraduate #4: Um, not really, it just kind of raises the question of what's next, like, are Latino Studies and then African American Diaspora Studies next on the chopping block? Things like that. But challenges other than a bunch of orgs that not just like, black woman empowerment orgs, or minority empowerment orgs, but women's empowerment org or like LGBTQ safe spaces/empowerment orgs, they're also being affected. So I guess the biggest challenge is just seeing those things that have helped so many people over the years just be wiped away completely. That's the biggest challenge for me. And then also it rids UT of this welcoming element that it once had. Their motto is, "What starts here changes the world." And in an ideal world, you would want inclusivity, you would want everybody to feel welcome and wanted here. But with SB-17, that's kind of contradicting the entire thesis of the campus, I'd say.
Interviewer: I did remember what I was gonna ask is that, I think that FLI and then the Sweatt Institute, they're being moved out, like they were under the DDCE. Right. And they're being are they being reallocated somewhere else?
Undergraduate #4: Not to my knowledge. I don't know about that. But it sounds like it might not be just after reading Hartzell's email, because he did list a few organizations or things under the DCCE that were being relocated, but the other ones it didn't seem like it. And, people will probably find a way to still make it happen. It just will be more of a club and not necessarily a school sponsored thing, which, it sucks, for lack of a better word.
Interviewer: Funding has been a really- this isn't a question that was on the list- but funding has been a really big focus on this because it's so essential to being able like making sure that these resources for students have the capabilities to actually be a resource for the students, like to be able to put on events and things like that. And that is like a huge, huge aspect of it that's just up in the air.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah. And especially in this political structure money is everything, like money is power. So it's just a frustrating time. And it's frustrating for, as a Texas resident, you know, with my legislators not accurately representing me and a lot of other Texans' beliefs and wants, it just seems like a self-fulfilling... like a self-perpetuating system.
Interviewer: So next, I have, how do you understand SB-17 in its implementations on campus? I wrote this in a complicated way, but, if you've read the bill, or even if you haven't, what did you understand that it would cover? And if you have read it, was it easy to understand?
Undergraduate #4: Okay, um, I did glance over it a research fellow thing that I was applying for. And it's funny, because in my opinion, the first couple paragraphs or so are just a bunch of fluff. It doesn't really say anything until the end where it starts touching on DEI and things like that. And one thing I found really interesting is that it limited not only UT from having DEI practices, but also, UT can't be like- a company can't reach out to UT and say, "Hey, can we have our training here?" For diversity, equity and inclusion. Yeah, UT is not allowed to do that, which I just think is crazy. But because I guess it could be argued that any HR source, or human resources would be DEI, if that makes sense. Because HR is to ensure the welfare of the employees and everybody involved. But you can't do that without catering to people's specific needs. And I think a lot of what SB-17 lacks is a bigger scope. Because everyone, ideally, in a perfect world, yes- nobody would have to have extra resources for anything. But if you look in the context of the Texas legislature, the United States history, certain groups are disadvantaged because of past actions. And what's happening here is a lot of people don't want to acknowledge the past actions, because it might be uncomfortable, and they think that it perpetuates some kind of resentment for the people who were once in power. I personally don't look at someone who's a descendant of someone and think "oh, you suck, because your grandpa..." you're not who your ancestors are, you know. I mean, so SB-17, was created out of fear of resentment, but it's just creating more resentment, I think, really, for a lot of people. It's just counterproductive. It's harming people when it's supposed to be making everybody equal. It's just kind of like the "bootstraps" mentality that a lot of people have. They will say," Oh, you can do anything that you want to do if you work hard enough," which is true. But there are also other limiting factors. So you can work really, really hard and only get half as far as someone who worked hard, but they didn't have those limitations. So they're way ahead of you.
Interviewer: Yeah, thank you for that. So the next question that I have on here is that the closure of the DCCE, which was formerly DDCE, which is the division of Diversity and Community Engagement, and it's currently division of Campus and Community Engagement was a major recent decision. What does the closure mean for our community? And why do you think that the division was included within the university's compliance?
Undergraduate #4: I think mainly because it had diversity in its name. It was the Division of Diversity and, and campus or community, I think it was community engagement. Yeah, I think that's one big reason. Because for some reason, I think that diversity is seen as a bad thing nowadays, or perpetuating diversity. So I think that might be a big thing for it. Also, since it had organizations that catered to one specific group, not necessarily being exclusionary but a lot more people, one specific minority, might be drawn to this group because it benefits them the most. Legislators probably thought, "That's not fair," because it's elevating this one group, why don't all students get this? But then also, not every student has that need. So it's like, if one person is thirsty, and they need water, they're gonna go somewhere with a lot of water, they're not going to go somewhere with only food, because they're not hungry, you know what I mean? So, I think that's a big reason why it was targeted. And I do applaud UT at the beginning for trying to just change the name so it would conform. But, I'm a little critical of how little pushback they had when I believe it was Senator Creighton, when he sent his lovely email, and how they're not doing much to help their employees that they're laying off; not guaranteeing them a job. Like, it'd be one thing if they had to shut down their jobs were like, "Okay, we have another position for you, for you to do this." But no, they just said, "Okay, we're shutting down your division, you can apply here if you want, but there's nothing else you can do," which I feel like, there's a lot more that could be done by UT, especially considering we're one of the wealthiest universities in the country. So if there's a will, there's a way I, I'd say. If someone really wants to make sure that something stays, they will go to the lengths to do it, no matter how hard it is, or at least put up a little bit more fight than what has been given.
Interviewer: Yeah. And that brings it back around to that funding again, because that is what was in the threat- I think I would call it a threat. Basically, if you're not in compliance, we're losing state funding, which is going to be a huge concern for the university. So I think that they were just immediately, like, "Close all the doors shut everything down!" There was maybe a little bit of a panic response, I would say.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah.
Interviewer: That's what it seemed like to me, because it was very quick.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah. And it's just really interesting, considering that our capital is so focused on UT's education, but they're not focusing on the actual education issues that we have on the K-12 area. There are a lot of school districts that don't get adequate state funding, that don't have the best training for teachers; things that actually affect children negatively. Not being taught to appreciate their differences, but things that actually are detrimental to the kids. They're not focused on them. They're just focused on the big universities, just doing what they're supposed to do and making their campus welcoming to everybody.
Interviewer: So the next question is, before any of these changes were implemented in January, how did you feel about the efforts to foster inclusivity on campus?
Undergraduate #4: I was proud of UT. Yeah, considering how far they've come. And, given the history; my parents went here during the 80s, and the political climate was completely different back then than it is now. So seeing the progress that UT had made with having such a well developed, like African American Diaspora Studies Department, Latino Studies department, other minority studies, how well executed they were, or housing, art exhibits by black artists or other ethnic artists and having it open to the public for everybody to see, to promote celebrating each other's differences. I was really happy about that. Given, not just UT, but Texas' racial history in general, seeing what was once an institution that was predominantly white, predominantly anti-minority, flip over a new leaf and start catering to its students, while also having organizations under the DDCE receiving funding from the school, that was a really good sign to me. Because that means that they're not just talking to talk, they're literally paying for it out of their pocket. So I was feeling pretty good about that. Before that I was a little frustrated with the responses of the school to some of the students getting attacked based off of if they were Muslim; some of the hate crimes related to the Israel/Palestine thing, the lack of condemning the violence was a little... but in terms of like fostering diversity and inclusion, I thought that they were doing a pretty good job so far.
Interviewer: The huge crux of my project is looking at the history and kind of understanding what we experience seem right now as like, like within the history of- I say it's exclusion, because for so long it was exclusionary here. So I'm kind of working to understand what this moment now means in the trajectory of just everything that's been in UT's history. So along those lines, were any of the UT sponsored DEI resources a part of your decision to come here to UT?
Undergraduate #4: Yeah, one of my family friends Thaïs Moore, she was the head of FLI. And her husband, Dr. Moore, he's a professor here. And so just growing up around them, and I had the opportunity to go to one of FLI's events in high school. I'd always wanted to come to UT, but going to that I was like, "Wow, like, this is really cool." This is really a way to find a tight knit community. And so I applied, and then I got CAP'ed, and I wrote my appeal. And what I wrote my appeal about was FLI, it was one of the reasons why I did want to come here. And it's just because I've never heard of any other non HBCU or PWI doing anything or having anything like this.
Interviewer: Really?
Undergraduate #4: Yeah, maybe I just didn't do enough research. But it was something that was that really stood out to me, especially as a southern state. So that was one of the reasons. Yeah, one of the many, many reasons I wanted to come to UT. So the fact that it's just kind of getting eradicated- it's sad, because a lot of other young black women and black men, they won't be able to have that exact same experience. With one of the things that made UT great, in my opinion.
Interviewer: I didn't realize that FLI was kind of a unique institute that they had here. So I guess the like little itty bitty question I have under that it's like, did it have any kind of impact on your student experience? That's kind of general, you kind of already answered that. But is there anything else that you can think about that it really helped for you?
Undergraduate #4: I recently went to this retreat or conference that FLI had back in March. That really helped change my outlook, not only on myself, but just on life as well. I found myself feeling a lot more confident, being able to stand up and advocate for myself as well. And I also made a lot more friends who look like me on campus. So that was that was really nice. And it has kind of bummed me out that other people aren't going to be able to experience that. Because I think about whenever I walk on campus, and I think "Oh, someone looks like me," it's rare. I can probably count on my hand how many times I see someone a week, who looks like me. Not that someone who looks like me is all that matters, but it's a sense of familiarity; representation almost. So, yeah, I had a great time with FLI. And I hope, by the grace of God, we can keep organizations like that going because it benefits everyone, and I can guarantee every student who has been a part of an organization in the DCCE has similar thoughts to those I do.
Interviewer: I really feel like I saw the Sweatt Institute under like, they were moving it somewhere. But I think that in doing that, they would also have to remove that it's for black men; they would have to open it to everybody. I wouldn't quote me on that. I just remember vaguely seeing it. So they're maybe they're trying to move it. I don't know. So the next question is kind of related to what you were talking about earlier. So, in your own opinion, why do you think SB-17 was enacted? And then, do you think allowing what Senator Creighton is referring to as "merit" to determine like admissions decisions and other things, will be successful in promoting fairness? That's his whole reasoning is that we're returning UT to being based on merit, and not anything else to, I guess, allow people into the university and things like that.
Undergraduate #4: One thing, so I happened to do an interview with Fox a little while ago about this whole thing. And a lot of what people were mixing up was DEI and affirmative action; they're not necessarily the same thing. So getting rid of DEI does not promote merit. Getting rid of affirmative action, that was already done by the Supreme Court. So in that case, if "merit" was what they're trying to target then, this whole thing was not the best idea, in my opinion. But um, I don't think getting rid of DEI returns merit, if anything, it already takes a lot of merit to get into UT. It's so competitive. One of my friends brought up a good point, if all it took was to be black to get into UT, the student population would not be only 4%. Out of the 60,000 students, there would not only be about 750 Black men across undergrad and graduate programs if it was just based off of race. Merit is a big portion of what it takes to get to UT. People also don't necessarily understand affirmative action, either. Affirmative action, it kind of it takes into account the context, it doesn't just automatically see "Oh, you're Black, oh, you're Asian, I'm going to take you." Like what I said, it takes into account the context, because the type of education you received is based off of your neighborhoods and where you are. So if you're in a rich neighborhood, their property taxes from that neighborhood are gonna go to the school, that means you're gonna have a great education. If you live in a poor neighborhood, the property taxes aren't going to be that great, leading to underfunded schools, lowering the the education provided there, and a lot of what accounts for the differences between rich and poor neighborhoods was segregation, and other anti-minority practices.
Interviewer: Affirmative action?
Undergraduate #4: Exactly, that's a perfect example of that. So, affirmative action, what it does, it looks at who you are, where you were raised, and takes into account why you'd be a good fit. It also provides opportunities for people who would never have an opportunity otherwise. Because one kid from a rich neighborhood might be able to afford SAT prep, get a really good SAT score, whereas someone over here, single parent household, their mom's not able to pay for SAT prep. So their SAT score isn't that good, that does not mean that they're not just as bright. It's just a matter of economic and sociological circumstances that are putting them in that situation. So affirmative action takes a look at those situations and decides, "Oh, this is a good candidate," or "Oh, no, it's not." So, once that kid from the lower income neighborhood gets to UT, a lot of people who go here are pretty wealthy. So they might be really overwhelmed, and not be able to find someone who relates to them, or how they were brought up, or similar cultural experiences, that things like that. And so SB-17, has nothing to do with merit. I personally think that just doesn't make sense to me at all. And it doesn't promote fairness, it takes away fairness, in my opinion, so I don't think Senator Creighton's line of reasoning was rather unique, and so was, Greg Abbott's line of reasoning was rather unique. And also as a constituent it's kind of frightening how much more concerned they are about personal liberties than they are the welfare for the entirety of Texans. Things like the freeze a couple years ago, a lot of Texans died, because our infrastructure was not adequate. I feel like, as an elected representative, I would want to make the focus on the welfare of the people, not individual liberties, that don't necessarily inhibit anyone else's rights, in my opinion. So I, with all that said, I think SB-17 comes with a wave of anti-woke culture that we've been seeing recently, people, once again, don't understand what the word woke means. They just think that it's playing the race card all the time. No, that's not what it is. The word woke comes from a phrase that was used in the black community meaning "Stay woke," which means "Be aware of your surroundings, be aware of everything." So when someone's "woke," they know what's going on. They are aware of all the factors that are feeding until like, what makes their life the way that it is. So the whole anti-woke movement is just so- I just don't get it. I think it just comes from a lack of understanding of what DEI and things like that truly mean. Because I can understand, if they think, "Oh, this stuff is making white people seem like they're horrible and that it's preaching that these people are evil just because of the color of their skin." If that's what they truly believe is being taught then I can understand, hypothetically, where they're coming from, but I feel in order to pass a bill you have to do a lot more research than just what's hearsay. And I have never encountered anyone who is like, "DEI is hurting me as a non-minority." That's never- I've never, ever heard that. And a lot of people haven't either, because DEI doesn't hurt non-minorities. And the thing is, like I said people think it's race-based but it's also not. It affects women too. So, me and you are both being affected by this; other women, they can be a white woman, they're still being affected by this. And so it goes a lot of beyond the scope of race, and they think this is all like critical race theory, which it's not. It's just teaching basic American history. And if you don't acknowledge American history, then it's doomed to repeat itself.
I think that's what a lot of this is, because restricting people, not just with SB-17, but other anti-DEI legislation from other states, like Alabama had passed a law that stopped people from teaching that the state or the United States was inherently racist, or systemically racist. But Alabama just had written an entirely new state constitution, because their constitution was, in fact, racist and had so many Jim Crow laws and things like that in there. So with that law, that means you can't talk about Alabama's old constitution, you can't talk about the United States Constitution, which has things like the Fugitive Slave Clause, the Three Fifths Compromise, things like that. So if you can't teach or talk about about documents that prove that the United States was founded on racism, you can't talk about American history at all. And then in doing so, that doesn't account for why so many black Americans are in the position that they are today, the position that makes those stereotypes that they have seem true, if that makes sense. So I think it's just an attempt to keep America's heroic image of "We're doing this for everybody. We never did anything wrong. We're so fantastic and great!" But the thing is, we could look to Germany as to how they navigated that situation, because, yes, Germany committed atrocious crimes and acts against Jewish people. And they acknowledge that and they even have it in the Constitution: never again will we ever have something like this ever. And so they acknowledge it. And then, everyone still looks at Germany with respect, no one thinks Germany's awful or inherently evil, it's just they had a terrible time in history. They're acknowledging it, they're doing things to protect against, or protect the country from a future instance like that. I feel like the United States could take note of that, and learn. Because acknowledging it- To me, it's more embarrassing to be loud and wrong than to just be like, "Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I take accountability."
Interviewer: I agree with that.
Undergraduate #4: Sorry, that was like a tangent.
Interviewer: Totally fine. I want as much of everything that you think as possible, because the point of this is to document how students are feeling right now. So as much as you want to give, I'm totally fine with whatever you want to say. So this kind of actually flows into this next question, which is: What does DEI mean to you, and do you think that it's important?
Undergraduate #4: Yes, I think it's very important. DEI means to me, just making everybody feel welcome and happy in the space that they occupy for four years. Just making sure that they feel seen and heard and understood, that's a big thing. Because it's kind of like when you're in an argument, and nobody understands what you're saying. And then you get really frustrated and angry and emotions are heightened. But when you have people who understand you; make you feel seen, you feel able to be vulnerable around them. It's like another form of love in a way. You feel safe, you feel comfortable. And so to me, DEI is the most important thing. Also with having diversity, it's a good way to make new ideas and to make good ideas. If you stayed with people who all think the same exact way that you do, it's one big echo chamber. You're not going to learn anything, you're not going to grow in any way. But with different perspectives, you're able to create new ideas that better the environment for everybody involved. So DEI, it's very, very, very important to me. And I think it's important for all college students, not just UT students, but every student to see and have representation or have resources for their unique experiences in life.
Interviewer: So then lastly, what I have on here is do you think this event is important to UT's history? Which is the whole point of my project, so I hope that you do think it's important, but if you have any thoughts on that.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah, I think it is really important to UT's history. It's going to be a big turning point. I think just as before, in years prior when they were doing more- I don't want to say like heavy lifting- but like bigger issues were at hand. With very active racial discrimination amongst students, in the social culture of the university, not just institutionally. Yeah, I think it is very important. And I think what DEI did, is it allowed UT to acknowledge its history and change for the better. Because you can always better yourself by reflecting and looking at past actions. So the fact that this is happening, it's kind of just like, why are we regressing? After we did all this hard work to make the university actually a great place, not just empty promise. So I think what happens next is going to be crucial. It's kind of scary, like how uncertain everything is right now. I feel like what's a loss also, with the handling of SB-17, it might deter people from applying in the first place, and faculty wanting to come work at a place that prohibits diversity, and things like that. So I think that either way, UT would have been hit economically, because it's either you don't receive state funding, or you're not getting tuition. Right. You're not bringing faculty in that bring in more tuition. So it's like, you got to pick and choose. So yeah, I think I think it is really important for, not just for the sake of your project, but just in general.
Interviewer: That's definitely a sentiment that I've heard, though, of like it deterring people, just not in an interview, but just like in classes and things. I've heard people talking about how faculty probably don't want to be here anymore, and it probably will eventually deter, students from applying, which I think is interesting. And it is hard to kind of do this kind of thing right now to look at what's happening, because there's so much uncertainty. But I do think it's also important to document the process of it just because especially in the digital age, things can be changed so fast, which is a big part of my project, as well as that I'm trying to grab things from websites before they're changed, especially like the DCCE. I'm grabbing as much as I can from that, because it's probably going to be gone soon. Do you have any other comments or anything you can think of that you want to talk about with this?
Undergraduate #4: Oh, yeah, I think just trying to formulate my stuff to make sense. It kind of reminds me of Dan Patrick's plan to get rid of tenure for universities at one point. Because that would also lower the education standards of Texans and Texas in general, I guess. Like its K-12 education- it's not that highly ranked nationally.
Interviewer: I think we're like, 48 or something. Yeah. It's something pretty low.
Undergraduate #4: It's embarrassing, it's bad. So, if y'all want Texas to be a great state, if you want it to be good, you have to put in the work to make it good. And in doing that, you have to cater to everybody, not just the minority. The majority of Texas is a minority population. There's a big Latino population and black population. So, institutions should reflect the wants and needs of its people. If you're not doing that, and you're just upholding the wants and needs that were held prior, you're regressing the state you're not progressing. I personally just think our resources need to be reallocated to focusing on bigger state issues besides what's going on in college campuses. And if students are happy, I don't know why that's such an issue. So, I don't even know. I just think, personally, SB-17 was a waste of legislative space, resources and time, because it's doing absolutely nothing that it's trying to do at all. And it's just funny how it's supposed to be coming from a good place where it's like, "Oh, we're just promoting equality for everyone." No, you're not. Because if you were, you wouldn't be anti-DEI. So yeah, I think our legislators need to focus on some other stuff, personally.
Interviewer: So do you have anything else?
Undergraduate #4: Thanks for reaching out!
Interviewer: Of course.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah. I like talking about This stuff it's like my little niche interest you know.
Undergraduate #4: Yes.
Interviewer: And then having the transcript from this interview posted online?
Undergraduate #4: Yes.
Interviewer: Okay, awesome. So we can go ahead and get started with the first question, which is, what organizations are you involved with on campus?
Undergraduate #4: So I'm a member of Texas Darlins, which is a basketball spirit group for men and women's basketball. I guess it's kind of redundant. But I'm also in an organization called FLI or Fearless Leadership Institute, which is a black women's empowerment org.
Interviewer: Okay, awesome. So then, what has changed about kind of the general structure of these organizations or your role within these organizations since the implementation of SB 17?
Undergraduate #4: Okay, so Texas Darlins, like, thankfully hasn't been, like affected by SB-17, just because we're not state funded. But FLI was school funded. So that's getting heavily impacted with other organizations such as Sweatt, which is a black men's empowerment org. And so, it's really scary because those, like the two people who oversaw that division, two people I really care about, their job security is no longer there, because of SB-17. And I feel like the destruction being done to campus is counterintuitive to what SB-17 is claiming to attempt to do, which is promote equality for everyone, but it's actually prohibiting a lot of people. So yeah, FLI is heavily being affected by that. Texas Darlins, not too much.
Interviewer: Can you talk a little bit more about what the Fearless Leadership Institute does for black women on campus?
Undergraduate #4: Yeah, it serves as a home away from home. A lot of people here are from Austin, I luckily am, so my family is right up the street, but a lot of women in FLI their family isn't there. And also, being on such a big campus where it is pretty diverse, but is only 4% Black, it's really hard to find people who look like you and relate to experiences that you have; you don't have to over explain yourself on every single thing. So FLI was just it's just kind of as like a self betterment org, also very familial. They do workshops, helping people navigate relationships, not just romantic, but also friendship, professional relationships. We do things like a wellness day, where we just do little yoga exercise, things like that. I'm trying to think there's other things too. Oh, this thing called BOSS, which helps you with your professional goals, or just being assertive in who you are as a person. So it's very much just making you the best version of yourself that you can be.
Interviewer: So, personal development and professional development as well? Yes. Cool. Um, there was an additional question that I had. It was there and I forgot. Oh, okay. It's okay. Um, so are there any, like new specific challenges that you encounter with the changes that have happened?
Undergraduate #4: Um, not really, it just kind of raises the question of what's next, like, are Latino Studies and then African American Diaspora Studies next on the chopping block? Things like that. But challenges other than a bunch of orgs that not just like, black woman empowerment orgs, or minority empowerment orgs, but women's empowerment org or like LGBTQ safe spaces/empowerment orgs, they're also being affected. So I guess the biggest challenge is just seeing those things that have helped so many people over the years just be wiped away completely. That's the biggest challenge for me. And then also it rids UT of this welcoming element that it once had. Their motto is, "What starts here changes the world." And in an ideal world, you would want inclusivity, you would want everybody to feel welcome and wanted here. But with SB-17, that's kind of contradicting the entire thesis of the campus, I'd say.
Interviewer: I did remember what I was gonna ask is that, I think that FLI and then the Sweatt Institute, they're being moved out, like they were under the DDCE. Right. And they're being are they being reallocated somewhere else?
Undergraduate #4: Not to my knowledge. I don't know about that. But it sounds like it might not be just after reading Hartzell's email, because he did list a few organizations or things under the DCCE that were being relocated, but the other ones it didn't seem like it. And, people will probably find a way to still make it happen. It just will be more of a club and not necessarily a school sponsored thing, which, it sucks, for lack of a better word.
Interviewer: Funding has been a really- this isn't a question that was on the list- but funding has been a really big focus on this because it's so essential to being able like making sure that these resources for students have the capabilities to actually be a resource for the students, like to be able to put on events and things like that. And that is like a huge, huge aspect of it that's just up in the air.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah. And especially in this political structure money is everything, like money is power. So it's just a frustrating time. And it's frustrating for, as a Texas resident, you know, with my legislators not accurately representing me and a lot of other Texans' beliefs and wants, it just seems like a self-fulfilling... like a self-perpetuating system.
Interviewer: So next, I have, how do you understand SB-17 in its implementations on campus? I wrote this in a complicated way, but, if you've read the bill, or even if you haven't, what did you understand that it would cover? And if you have read it, was it easy to understand?
Undergraduate #4: Okay, um, I did glance over it a research fellow thing that I was applying for. And it's funny, because in my opinion, the first couple paragraphs or so are just a bunch of fluff. It doesn't really say anything until the end where it starts touching on DEI and things like that. And one thing I found really interesting is that it limited not only UT from having DEI practices, but also, UT can't be like- a company can't reach out to UT and say, "Hey, can we have our training here?" For diversity, equity and inclusion. Yeah, UT is not allowed to do that, which I just think is crazy. But because I guess it could be argued that any HR source, or human resources would be DEI, if that makes sense. Because HR is to ensure the welfare of the employees and everybody involved. But you can't do that without catering to people's specific needs. And I think a lot of what SB-17 lacks is a bigger scope. Because everyone, ideally, in a perfect world, yes- nobody would have to have extra resources for anything. But if you look in the context of the Texas legislature, the United States history, certain groups are disadvantaged because of past actions. And what's happening here is a lot of people don't want to acknowledge the past actions, because it might be uncomfortable, and they think that it perpetuates some kind of resentment for the people who were once in power. I personally don't look at someone who's a descendant of someone and think "oh, you suck, because your grandpa..." you're not who your ancestors are, you know. I mean, so SB-17, was created out of fear of resentment, but it's just creating more resentment, I think, really, for a lot of people. It's just counterproductive. It's harming people when it's supposed to be making everybody equal. It's just kind of like the "bootstraps" mentality that a lot of people have. They will say," Oh, you can do anything that you want to do if you work hard enough," which is true. But there are also other limiting factors. So you can work really, really hard and only get half as far as someone who worked hard, but they didn't have those limitations. So they're way ahead of you.
Interviewer: Yeah, thank you for that. So the next question that I have on here is that the closure of the DCCE, which was formerly DDCE, which is the division of Diversity and Community Engagement, and it's currently division of Campus and Community Engagement was a major recent decision. What does the closure mean for our community? And why do you think that the division was included within the university's compliance?
Undergraduate #4: I think mainly because it had diversity in its name. It was the Division of Diversity and, and campus or community, I think it was community engagement. Yeah, I think that's one big reason. Because for some reason, I think that diversity is seen as a bad thing nowadays, or perpetuating diversity. So I think that might be a big thing for it. Also, since it had organizations that catered to one specific group, not necessarily being exclusionary but a lot more people, one specific minority, might be drawn to this group because it benefits them the most. Legislators probably thought, "That's not fair," because it's elevating this one group, why don't all students get this? But then also, not every student has that need. So it's like, if one person is thirsty, and they need water, they're gonna go somewhere with a lot of water, they're not going to go somewhere with only food, because they're not hungry, you know what I mean? So, I think that's a big reason why it was targeted. And I do applaud UT at the beginning for trying to just change the name so it would conform. But, I'm a little critical of how little pushback they had when I believe it was Senator Creighton, when he sent his lovely email, and how they're not doing much to help their employees that they're laying off; not guaranteeing them a job. Like, it'd be one thing if they had to shut down their jobs were like, "Okay, we have another position for you, for you to do this." But no, they just said, "Okay, we're shutting down your division, you can apply here if you want, but there's nothing else you can do," which I feel like, there's a lot more that could be done by UT, especially considering we're one of the wealthiest universities in the country. So if there's a will, there's a way I, I'd say. If someone really wants to make sure that something stays, they will go to the lengths to do it, no matter how hard it is, or at least put up a little bit more fight than what has been given.
Interviewer: Yeah. And that brings it back around to that funding again, because that is what was in the threat- I think I would call it a threat. Basically, if you're not in compliance, we're losing state funding, which is going to be a huge concern for the university. So I think that they were just immediately, like, "Close all the doors shut everything down!" There was maybe a little bit of a panic response, I would say.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah.
Interviewer: That's what it seemed like to me, because it was very quick.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah. And it's just really interesting, considering that our capital is so focused on UT's education, but they're not focusing on the actual education issues that we have on the K-12 area. There are a lot of school districts that don't get adequate state funding, that don't have the best training for teachers; things that actually affect children negatively. Not being taught to appreciate their differences, but things that actually are detrimental to the kids. They're not focused on them. They're just focused on the big universities, just doing what they're supposed to do and making their campus welcoming to everybody.
Interviewer: So the next question is, before any of these changes were implemented in January, how did you feel about the efforts to foster inclusivity on campus?
Undergraduate #4: I was proud of UT. Yeah, considering how far they've come. And, given the history; my parents went here during the 80s, and the political climate was completely different back then than it is now. So seeing the progress that UT had made with having such a well developed, like African American Diaspora Studies Department, Latino Studies department, other minority studies, how well executed they were, or housing, art exhibits by black artists or other ethnic artists and having it open to the public for everybody to see, to promote celebrating each other's differences. I was really happy about that. Given, not just UT, but Texas' racial history in general, seeing what was once an institution that was predominantly white, predominantly anti-minority, flip over a new leaf and start catering to its students, while also having organizations under the DDCE receiving funding from the school, that was a really good sign to me. Because that means that they're not just talking to talk, they're literally paying for it out of their pocket. So I was feeling pretty good about that. Before that I was a little frustrated with the responses of the school to some of the students getting attacked based off of if they were Muslim; some of the hate crimes related to the Israel/Palestine thing, the lack of condemning the violence was a little... but in terms of like fostering diversity and inclusion, I thought that they were doing a pretty good job so far.
Interviewer: The huge crux of my project is looking at the history and kind of understanding what we experience seem right now as like, like within the history of- I say it's exclusion, because for so long it was exclusionary here. So I'm kind of working to understand what this moment now means in the trajectory of just everything that's been in UT's history. So along those lines, were any of the UT sponsored DEI resources a part of your decision to come here to UT?
Undergraduate #4: Yeah, one of my family friends Thaïs Moore, she was the head of FLI. And her husband, Dr. Moore, he's a professor here. And so just growing up around them, and I had the opportunity to go to one of FLI's events in high school. I'd always wanted to come to UT, but going to that I was like, "Wow, like, this is really cool." This is really a way to find a tight knit community. And so I applied, and then I got CAP'ed, and I wrote my appeal. And what I wrote my appeal about was FLI, it was one of the reasons why I did want to come here. And it's just because I've never heard of any other non HBCU or PWI doing anything or having anything like this.
Interviewer: Really?
Undergraduate #4: Yeah, maybe I just didn't do enough research. But it was something that was that really stood out to me, especially as a southern state. So that was one of the reasons. Yeah, one of the many, many reasons I wanted to come to UT. So the fact that it's just kind of getting eradicated- it's sad, because a lot of other young black women and black men, they won't be able to have that exact same experience. With one of the things that made UT great, in my opinion.
Interviewer: I didn't realize that FLI was kind of a unique institute that they had here. So I guess the like little itty bitty question I have under that it's like, did it have any kind of impact on your student experience? That's kind of general, you kind of already answered that. But is there anything else that you can think about that it really helped for you?
Undergraduate #4: I recently went to this retreat or conference that FLI had back in March. That really helped change my outlook, not only on myself, but just on life as well. I found myself feeling a lot more confident, being able to stand up and advocate for myself as well. And I also made a lot more friends who look like me on campus. So that was that was really nice. And it has kind of bummed me out that other people aren't going to be able to experience that. Because I think about whenever I walk on campus, and I think "Oh, someone looks like me," it's rare. I can probably count on my hand how many times I see someone a week, who looks like me. Not that someone who looks like me is all that matters, but it's a sense of familiarity; representation almost. So, yeah, I had a great time with FLI. And I hope, by the grace of God, we can keep organizations like that going because it benefits everyone, and I can guarantee every student who has been a part of an organization in the DCCE has similar thoughts to those I do.
Interviewer: I really feel like I saw the Sweatt Institute under like, they were moving it somewhere. But I think that in doing that, they would also have to remove that it's for black men; they would have to open it to everybody. I wouldn't quote me on that. I just remember vaguely seeing it. So they're maybe they're trying to move it. I don't know. So the next question is kind of related to what you were talking about earlier. So, in your own opinion, why do you think SB-17 was enacted? And then, do you think allowing what Senator Creighton is referring to as "merit" to determine like admissions decisions and other things, will be successful in promoting fairness? That's his whole reasoning is that we're returning UT to being based on merit, and not anything else to, I guess, allow people into the university and things like that.
Undergraduate #4: One thing, so I happened to do an interview with Fox a little while ago about this whole thing. And a lot of what people were mixing up was DEI and affirmative action; they're not necessarily the same thing. So getting rid of DEI does not promote merit. Getting rid of affirmative action, that was already done by the Supreme Court. So in that case, if "merit" was what they're trying to target then, this whole thing was not the best idea, in my opinion. But um, I don't think getting rid of DEI returns merit, if anything, it already takes a lot of merit to get into UT. It's so competitive. One of my friends brought up a good point, if all it took was to be black to get into UT, the student population would not be only 4%. Out of the 60,000 students, there would not only be about 750 Black men across undergrad and graduate programs if it was just based off of race. Merit is a big portion of what it takes to get to UT. People also don't necessarily understand affirmative action, either. Affirmative action, it kind of it takes into account the context, it doesn't just automatically see "Oh, you're Black, oh, you're Asian, I'm going to take you." Like what I said, it takes into account the context, because the type of education you received is based off of your neighborhoods and where you are. So if you're in a rich neighborhood, their property taxes from that neighborhood are gonna go to the school, that means you're gonna have a great education. If you live in a poor neighborhood, the property taxes aren't going to be that great, leading to underfunded schools, lowering the the education provided there, and a lot of what accounts for the differences between rich and poor neighborhoods was segregation, and other anti-minority practices.
Interviewer: Affirmative action?
Undergraduate #4: Exactly, that's a perfect example of that. So, affirmative action, what it does, it looks at who you are, where you were raised, and takes into account why you'd be a good fit. It also provides opportunities for people who would never have an opportunity otherwise. Because one kid from a rich neighborhood might be able to afford SAT prep, get a really good SAT score, whereas someone over here, single parent household, their mom's not able to pay for SAT prep. So their SAT score isn't that good, that does not mean that they're not just as bright. It's just a matter of economic and sociological circumstances that are putting them in that situation. So affirmative action takes a look at those situations and decides, "Oh, this is a good candidate," or "Oh, no, it's not." So, once that kid from the lower income neighborhood gets to UT, a lot of people who go here are pretty wealthy. So they might be really overwhelmed, and not be able to find someone who relates to them, or how they were brought up, or similar cultural experiences, that things like that. And so SB-17, has nothing to do with merit. I personally think that just doesn't make sense to me at all. And it doesn't promote fairness, it takes away fairness, in my opinion, so I don't think Senator Creighton's line of reasoning was rather unique, and so was, Greg Abbott's line of reasoning was rather unique. And also as a constituent it's kind of frightening how much more concerned they are about personal liberties than they are the welfare for the entirety of Texans. Things like the freeze a couple years ago, a lot of Texans died, because our infrastructure was not adequate. I feel like, as an elected representative, I would want to make the focus on the welfare of the people, not individual liberties, that don't necessarily inhibit anyone else's rights, in my opinion. So I, with all that said, I think SB-17 comes with a wave of anti-woke culture that we've been seeing recently, people, once again, don't understand what the word woke means. They just think that it's playing the race card all the time. No, that's not what it is. The word woke comes from a phrase that was used in the black community meaning "Stay woke," which means "Be aware of your surroundings, be aware of everything." So when someone's "woke," they know what's going on. They are aware of all the factors that are feeding until like, what makes their life the way that it is. So the whole anti-woke movement is just so- I just don't get it. I think it just comes from a lack of understanding of what DEI and things like that truly mean. Because I can understand, if they think, "Oh, this stuff is making white people seem like they're horrible and that it's preaching that these people are evil just because of the color of their skin." If that's what they truly believe is being taught then I can understand, hypothetically, where they're coming from, but I feel in order to pass a bill you have to do a lot more research than just what's hearsay. And I have never encountered anyone who is like, "DEI is hurting me as a non-minority." That's never- I've never, ever heard that. And a lot of people haven't either, because DEI doesn't hurt non-minorities. And the thing is, like I said people think it's race-based but it's also not. It affects women too. So, me and you are both being affected by this; other women, they can be a white woman, they're still being affected by this. And so it goes a lot of beyond the scope of race, and they think this is all like critical race theory, which it's not. It's just teaching basic American history. And if you don't acknowledge American history, then it's doomed to repeat itself.
I think that's what a lot of this is, because restricting people, not just with SB-17, but other anti-DEI legislation from other states, like Alabama had passed a law that stopped people from teaching that the state or the United States was inherently racist, or systemically racist. But Alabama just had written an entirely new state constitution, because their constitution was, in fact, racist and had so many Jim Crow laws and things like that in there. So with that law, that means you can't talk about Alabama's old constitution, you can't talk about the United States Constitution, which has things like the Fugitive Slave Clause, the Three Fifths Compromise, things like that. So if you can't teach or talk about about documents that prove that the United States was founded on racism, you can't talk about American history at all. And then in doing so, that doesn't account for why so many black Americans are in the position that they are today, the position that makes those stereotypes that they have seem true, if that makes sense. So I think it's just an attempt to keep America's heroic image of "We're doing this for everybody. We never did anything wrong. We're so fantastic and great!" But the thing is, we could look to Germany as to how they navigated that situation, because, yes, Germany committed atrocious crimes and acts against Jewish people. And they acknowledge that and they even have it in the Constitution: never again will we ever have something like this ever. And so they acknowledge it. And then, everyone still looks at Germany with respect, no one thinks Germany's awful or inherently evil, it's just they had a terrible time in history. They're acknowledging it, they're doing things to protect against, or protect the country from a future instance like that. I feel like the United States could take note of that, and learn. Because acknowledging it- To me, it's more embarrassing to be loud and wrong than to just be like, "Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I take accountability."
Interviewer: I agree with that.
Undergraduate #4: Sorry, that was like a tangent.
Interviewer: Totally fine. I want as much of everything that you think as possible, because the point of this is to document how students are feeling right now. So as much as you want to give, I'm totally fine with whatever you want to say. So this kind of actually flows into this next question, which is: What does DEI mean to you, and do you think that it's important?
Undergraduate #4: Yes, I think it's very important. DEI means to me, just making everybody feel welcome and happy in the space that they occupy for four years. Just making sure that they feel seen and heard and understood, that's a big thing. Because it's kind of like when you're in an argument, and nobody understands what you're saying. And then you get really frustrated and angry and emotions are heightened. But when you have people who understand you; make you feel seen, you feel able to be vulnerable around them. It's like another form of love in a way. You feel safe, you feel comfortable. And so to me, DEI is the most important thing. Also with having diversity, it's a good way to make new ideas and to make good ideas. If you stayed with people who all think the same exact way that you do, it's one big echo chamber. You're not going to learn anything, you're not going to grow in any way. But with different perspectives, you're able to create new ideas that better the environment for everybody involved. So DEI, it's very, very, very important to me. And I think it's important for all college students, not just UT students, but every student to see and have representation or have resources for their unique experiences in life.
Interviewer: So then lastly, what I have on here is do you think this event is important to UT's history? Which is the whole point of my project, so I hope that you do think it's important, but if you have any thoughts on that.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah, I think it is really important to UT's history. It's going to be a big turning point. I think just as before, in years prior when they were doing more- I don't want to say like heavy lifting- but like bigger issues were at hand. With very active racial discrimination amongst students, in the social culture of the university, not just institutionally. Yeah, I think it is very important. And I think what DEI did, is it allowed UT to acknowledge its history and change for the better. Because you can always better yourself by reflecting and looking at past actions. So the fact that this is happening, it's kind of just like, why are we regressing? After we did all this hard work to make the university actually a great place, not just empty promise. So I think what happens next is going to be crucial. It's kind of scary, like how uncertain everything is right now. I feel like what's a loss also, with the handling of SB-17, it might deter people from applying in the first place, and faculty wanting to come work at a place that prohibits diversity, and things like that. So I think that either way, UT would have been hit economically, because it's either you don't receive state funding, or you're not getting tuition. Right. You're not bringing faculty in that bring in more tuition. So it's like, you got to pick and choose. So yeah, I think I think it is really important for, not just for the sake of your project, but just in general.
Interviewer: That's definitely a sentiment that I've heard, though, of like it deterring people, just not in an interview, but just like in classes and things. I've heard people talking about how faculty probably don't want to be here anymore, and it probably will eventually deter, students from applying, which I think is interesting. And it is hard to kind of do this kind of thing right now to look at what's happening, because there's so much uncertainty. But I do think it's also important to document the process of it just because especially in the digital age, things can be changed so fast, which is a big part of my project, as well as that I'm trying to grab things from websites before they're changed, especially like the DCCE. I'm grabbing as much as I can from that, because it's probably going to be gone soon. Do you have any other comments or anything you can think of that you want to talk about with this?
Undergraduate #4: Oh, yeah, I think just trying to formulate my stuff to make sense. It kind of reminds me of Dan Patrick's plan to get rid of tenure for universities at one point. Because that would also lower the education standards of Texans and Texas in general, I guess. Like its K-12 education- it's not that highly ranked nationally.
Interviewer: I think we're like, 48 or something. Yeah. It's something pretty low.
Undergraduate #4: It's embarrassing, it's bad. So, if y'all want Texas to be a great state, if you want it to be good, you have to put in the work to make it good. And in doing that, you have to cater to everybody, not just the minority. The majority of Texas is a minority population. There's a big Latino population and black population. So, institutions should reflect the wants and needs of its people. If you're not doing that, and you're just upholding the wants and needs that were held prior, you're regressing the state you're not progressing. I personally just think our resources need to be reallocated to focusing on bigger state issues besides what's going on in college campuses. And if students are happy, I don't know why that's such an issue. So, I don't even know. I just think, personally, SB-17 was a waste of legislative space, resources and time, because it's doing absolutely nothing that it's trying to do at all. And it's just funny how it's supposed to be coming from a good place where it's like, "Oh, we're just promoting equality for everyone." No, you're not. Because if you were, you wouldn't be anti-DEI. So yeah, I think our legislators need to focus on some other stuff, personally.
Interviewer: So do you have anything else?
Undergraduate #4: Thanks for reaching out!
Interviewer: Of course.
Undergraduate #4: Yeah. I like talking about This stuff it's like my little niche interest you know.