(Re)Framing Campus DEI: How Language and Ideology Shape Support Among Faculty, Staff, and Students

In the landscape of American higher education, a quiet but intense struggle has emerged over how to describe the work of making campuses fairer. For decades, universities have used specific terms like "diversity, equity, and inclusion" to describe their efforts to support students and staff from all backgrounds. However, as political debates have heated up, these words have become flashpoints, with some critics arguing they are divisive or un-American. This has forced university leaders to ask a difficult question: if they change the words they use to describe the same goals, will people be more willing to support them? To answer this, researchers rely on a concept known as framing. In simple terms, framing is the idea that the specific label or angle used to describe an issue can change how people feel about it, much like how a photograph can look different depending on the angle from which it is taken. Yet, another powerful force is at play: the deep-seated beliefs people hold about how society should be organized. Some individuals believe that race should not matter in the modern world, while others believe that social hierarchies are natural and should be maintained. The central question for scientists is whether changing the words on a page can overcome these deep-seated beliefs, or if those beliefs act as a filter that no amount of rewording can bypass.

A team of researchers from the University of Maryland and the University of Southern California set out to test this dynamic in a controlled experiment. They recruited 770 people who were currently working or studying at colleges across the United States, including faculty, staff, and students. The researchers wanted to see if the language used to describe a university initiative would change how much these people supported it. To do this, they created a short, realistic story about a university program designed to help everyone succeed. The story was exactly the same for every participant, describing a plan to remove barriers and make the campus more welcoming. The only thing that changed was the label attached to the program. One group read that the initiative was about "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion." A second group read that it was about "Belonging." A third group read that it was about "Equal Opportunity." After reading their assigned version of the story, each participant rated how much they supported the initiative on a scale from zero to one hundred.

The results showed that the words did matter, but not in the way one might hope for a complete solution. Participants who read the version labeled "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" reported significantly lower support than those who read the other two versions. Those who read about "Belonging" gave the highest average scores, followed closely by those who read about "Equal Opportunity." The difference was clear: the direct, explicit language of equity drew more resistance than the softer, more universal terms. However, the researchers found that the words were only part of the story. They also measured the participants' underlying beliefs using established surveys. They looked for "race-evasive ideology," which is the belief that race does not and should not matter in society, and "social dominance orientation," which is the preference for social groups to be arranged in a hierarchy where some are superior to others.

When the researchers analyzed the data, they found that these deep beliefs were actually stronger predictors of support than the words used in the story. People who strongly believed that race should be ignored or that social hierarchies are natural were much less likely to support the initiative, regardless of which label was used. The study revealed a crucial interaction: the negative effect of these beliefs was most intense when the initiative was labeled "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion." In other words, using the explicit term triggered the strongest resistance from people holding these specific worldviews. When the initiative was labeled "Belonging" or "Equal Opportunity," the resistance from these same individuals was still present but somewhat weaker. This suggests that while changing the language can slightly soften the blow for those who are resistant, it does not erase their fundamental opposition. The words act as a trigger, but the belief system is the engine driving the reaction.

The study also examined whether the role of the person mattered, checking if faculty and staff reacted differently than students. The researchers found no significant difference between these groups; a student and a professor with the same underlying beliefs reacted in the same way. Furthermore, the location of the university mattered less than expected. Even for people living in states that had passed laws restricting diversity programs, their support for the initiative did not drop simply because of their location. Instead, their personal ideological commitments remained the most consistent factor in determining their support. The researchers concluded that while universities might be able to use terms like "belonging" to navigate political pressure and keep their programs running, this strategy has limits. The resistance to equity work is rooted in deep ideological convictions that are not easily fixed by a change in vocabulary. The findings suggest that for universities to make lasting progress, they must address these underlying beliefs and structural conditions, rather than relying solely on the hope that a new name will change minds. The language used can shape the conversation, but it cannot override the values that people already hold.