‘Universities need to be better prepared to handle anti-religious hate’

The debate over diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes is fiercely polarised across the US, especially on college campuses. Yet, a crucial dimension is often overlooked: the powerful role of religious differences in shaping attitudes. This error of omission has profound consequences. Seemingly every week a campus is gripped by issues concerning religion, ranging from flagrant acts of antisemitism to free speech concerns regarding the Bible. Simply hoping that religion won’t come up at the proverbial dinner table is no longer an option for college campuses. 

Change must come, but where to start?

While public discourse focuses on partisan divides, new data reveals that faculty members’ stances on DEI (also called EDI in the UK) are deeply intertwined with their faith, values and religious identity. This connection highlights a fundamental conflict over the purpose and principles of higher education and institutional responsibility. It also offers insights towards pathways forward. 

The religious divide on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives

Attacks on DEI programmes are persistent, but their intensity and justification vary significantly across religious groups. Religious identity is a primary factor driving deep-seated differences in values and priorities regarding campus initiatives, according to data collected through the Including Faculty on Religious, Spiritual, & Secular Mattering (InForm) survey. The survey polled nearly 1,000 US faculty members across multiple disciplines on university life, including topics such as free speech, religion and DEI. Data was weighted by region and institutional control (that is, public or private). 

Foundational differences and identity-specific needs

The InForm data reveals distinct patterns in how different religious groups perceive DEI, ranging from broad rejection to identity-specific concerns.

Conservative evangelical Christians, for instance, are significantly more likely to believe efforts to ban campus diversity programmes are justified, that the promotion of DEI has gone too far, and that these programmes generally cause more harm than good. This suggests a viewpoint where DEI is seen as an overreach of institutional power, potentially a threat to religious liberty or an ineffective approach to genuine unity.

In contrast, Muslim and Jewish faculty highlight identity-based needs. Muslim faculty strongly agree that programmes should address Islamophobia, while also showing a general preference for universal student support over identity-specific programming. Similarly, Jewish faculty are most strongly aligned with the view that DEI programmes must address antisemitism. 

• Spotlight guide: Dealing with division: the polarised university
• ‘Departmental orthodoxies silence dissent and chill scholarly enquiry’
• Campus talks: what to do when the principles of free speech are tested

For these groups, the value of DEI – most notably its pillar of inclusivity – is most keenly felt in its ability to protect against specific, historically pervasive forms of targeted hatred. 

These insights raise critical questions for universities and academics: how can institutions navigate a landscape where some religious communities see DEI as an essential safeguard for their protection, while others view it with profound suspicion or as an overreach? The InForm data provides a rich foundation for exploring these tensions and the intersection of religious pluralism, values and institutional commitment. 

How to integrate religious identity into diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives 

Based on an analysis of the survey data, here are five recommendations for higher education institutions.

1. Establish a ‘religious pluralism and freedom’ pillar in DEI programmes

DEI initiatives must move beyond treating religion as a mere footnote. Institutions should consider formally incorporating a distinct pillar – or explicitly including religion within existing frameworks – that addresses pluralism, anti-religious bias and academic freedom. This pillar could focus on:

• Religious-literacy training: Training for all faculty and staff (not just DEI officers) to improve understanding of diverse worldviews and the concerns of groups such as Muslims (Islamophobia), Jews (antisemitism) and conservative Christians (religious liberty concerns).
• Dedicated resources: Ensure equal access to accommodation, inclusive calendar policies and interfaith spaces.

2. Refocus DEI to distinguish between protection and promotion

The data shows that some groups view DEI as a necessary protective measure, while others view it as an overreach of institutional values. University leadership should:

• Prioritise anti-hate measures: Clearly articulate the role of DEI in protecting marginalised groups from targeted discrimination and hate based on identity, including religious identity.
• Value-neutral curriculum: Reframe staff training and curricula to focus on dialogue and respect rather than institutional endorsement of specific political ideologies, which is a key source of suspicion among conservative faculty.

3. Engage sceptical faculty through value alignment, not mandates

To bridge the divide with faculty who are sceptical or reject DEI (particularly conservative evangelicals), institutions should avoid top-down mandates and instead focus on shared institutional values:

• “Listening” forums: Host facilitated dialogues where faculty across the religious and political spectrums can voice concerns about DEI’s implementation without fear of reprisal.
• Connect to core mission: Frame conversations about equity and community building in terms of universal human dignity and community formation, principles that often align with religious social teachings, rather than relying on language rooted in critical theory.

4. Implement identity-specific and universal support programming

The findings show a preference for general support alongside the need for specific anti-prejudice efforts. A balanced strategy is key:

• Specific anti-hate programmes: Continue and strengthen programmes and policies targeting prejudices such as Islamophobia and antisemitism, acknowledging the historical and contemporary threats faced by these groups.
• Universal student support: Increase investment in student welfare, mental health and academic support services that are accessible to all students regardless of identity.

5. Conduct nuanced institutional-climate surveys

To move beyond national generalisations, institutions should conduct their own climate assessments that measure the intersection of religious identity and DEI perceptions:

• Detailed demographics: Include granular religious categories (for example, conservative evangelical, liberal mainline Protestant, Orthodox/Conservative/Reform Jewish, Shia/Sunni Muslim) and cross-tabulate with political affiliation to capture the nuances revealed by the data.
• Specific attitude measures: Ask faculty about their views on the justification for anti-DEI efforts, the belief that DEI has gone too far, and the perception of DEI’s harm versus good to gauge the depth and nature of scepticism.

Why now?

As John P. Kotter’s leading change model asserts, the first step towards this work is establishing a sense of urgency. In closing, we ask: why now? Based on our data, the answer is simple: because future crises concerning religion will undoubtedly occur on college campuses. We don’t know what they will be. We don’t know who they will affect. We don’t know when they will happen. But we guarantee that colleges and universities – individually and collectively – will need to be much better prepared to handle anti-religious hate (and religious, spiritual and secular expression among students and faculty) in the coming years. 

Moreover, for efforts that revolve around core-mission-driven principles of diversity, equity, inclusion and/or justice to persist, institutions of higher education must continually refine their approaches to more fully live out their rhetoric. Only then will they be able to sustain their valuable efforts to support students rather than have these necessary programmes swept away amid a rising tide of scrutiny. 

Matthew J. Mayhew is the William Ray and Marie Adamson Flesher professor of educational administration at the Ohio State University. Benjamin S. Selznick is associate professor in the School of Strategic Leadership Studies in the College of Business at James Madison University. Musbah Shaheen is assistant professor of higher education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. 

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.