As diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in higher education face unprecedented scrutiny, practitioners are being called to evolve. We need tools that transcend rhetoric and frameworks that are durable, analytical, and deeply rooted in the institutional mission. At recent gatherings, including a University of California campus climate convening and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) annual conference, several groundbreaking approaches emerged that offer a blueprint for this exact moment. Together, they challenge us to rethink how we measure community, solve systemic problems, and engage our campus communities.
Quantifying our commitment: The UC Davis "community equation"
At the campus climate convening, Dr. Renetta G. Tull, Vice Chancellor for Inclusive Excellence at UC Davis, presented an innovative framework titled the Community Equation.
Far from a dry academic exercise, this formula provides an objective, mathematical lens to understand the nature of our work. Here, C represents the total campus community for UC Davis, C1 represents distinct identity groups and segments (such as Rising Scholars, Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), athletes, Registered Student Organizations (RSOs), the Academic Senate, patients, etc.), and (alpha) measures the allocation of resources and attention given to each group.
This equation makes it impossible to hide behind vague notions of "belonging." It forces us to be explicitly clear about which communities exist on our campuses, how we are serving them, which ones are resourced, and which ones require more support. It is a mathematical testament to why we exist: to serve all campus communities, not just a privileged or marginalized few. By shifting the conversation to resource allocation (alpha), the equation reflects the reality of systemic barriers. It acknowledges that our service to the whole community is shaped by acknowledging that equal support does not mean equitable outcomes. In practice, some groups require a higher concentration of attention and donor, federal, or state-supported resources to achieve equitable access to opportunity,degree attainment, and workplace productivity.
For those of us in the University of California system, this sparks an essential question: How would this equation apply to UC Berkeley? If we mapped Berkeley’s unique segments (C1) and honestly calculated the resource allocation (alpha) for each, what systemic gaps would be laid bare?
Stripping the reaction: Elements of a good framework
To operationalize models like the Community Equation, we must also change how we problem-solve. A key learning from NADOHE emerged from the session, "A8 - First Principles for the AI Era: Reclaiming Foundational Learning and Academic Freedom," presented by Dr. Adam Foley, Director of Diversity Education, Assessment & Outreach at the University of Delaware.
Dr. Foley highlighted how institutions often rush to solutions before understanding the root cause of an issue. When a crisis or inequity arises, the typical institutional reflex is deeply reactive. True equity work requires a "questioning protocol" that deliberately interrupts this panic. According to their framework, a durable questioning protocol must adhere to five core elements:
- Start with fundamental questions (not solutions): Avoid band-aid fixes; interrogate the origin of the issue.
- Be simple enough to remember: If the campus community cannot recall the framework under pressure, they will not use it.
- Interrupt reactive thinking: It must force a pause, shifting stakeholders from defensiveness to analysis.
- Center equity and mission: The institution’s core purpose, values, and mission must anchor every decision.
- Be adaptable across contexts: A great framework works as beautifully in academic affairs as it does in student housing.
By treating equity as a rigorous questioning protocol rather than a checklist of pre-determined answers, we build institutional resilience that can withstand external pressures.
Beyond checkboxes: Moving to faculty microclimates
The third transformative learning from NADOHE tackled one of the most persistent challenges in higher education: generating genuine faculty buy-in for equity and inclusion work. This concept was explored in the session, "Change and Thrive: Turning Everyday Culture Drips into Currents of Change," co-presented by Dr. Chanel F. Whittaker, Professor and Associate Dean of Institutional Excellence and Engagement at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, and Dr. Domonic Rollins, President of Rollins Consulting Group.
The presenters emphasized moving with intention and creating momentum through prolonged change versus single acts, introducing the impactful concept of "culture drips." Too often, faculty engagement stalls when conversations rely solely on demographic checkboxes. As the presenters noted, if race, gender, and nationality are always factors, we don’t have to keep looking for them; they will inevitably show up in the data.
Instead of organizing engagement strictly around identity groups, the session championed a shift toward understanding faculty microclimates. Drawing from research by Slowik et al. that explores the academic ecosystem, they shared that faculty experiences are better categorized by their functional and emotional reality within the institution:
- Vested: Thriving and integrated.
- Team Players: Engaged at personal cost.
- Free Spirit: Independent and self-driven.
- Disenfranchised: Possessing a clear institutional role, but low voice.
- Fringe: Marginalized and struggling.
When we look at faculty through the lens of these microclimates, we unlock a more sophisticated vocabulary for intervention. We can better understand why a faculty member is disengaged and deploy targeted support to move individuals from the "fringe" or "disenfranchised" categories into a "vested" state.
The path forward
Dr. Tull’s Community Equation, Dr. Foley’s disciplined questioning protocols, and the faculty microclimate mapping presented by Dr. Whittaker and Dr. Rollins invite us to ask deeper questions about how we think, respond to, support, and engage our campus communities. What other microclimates exist for our staff and students? Where are we asking the important and critical questions before rushing to solutions? Our Division has long embraced root-cause thinking, and these frameworks challenge us to go even further. What would our own equation look like, and how might it inspire people to re-engage, engage differently, or see themselves more fully in this work?
The future of equity work in higher education is already here, and it will remain, regardless of shifts in the national landscape or changes in language and terminology. The question is not whether this work continues, but how we sustain it with integrity, rigor, courage, and measurable impact. These tools help move us away from defensiveness and toward thoughtful, objective, mission-driven strategies grounded in evidence, inquiry, and community.
We invite our entire campus community to lean into these ideas, test their application, and help us build a university where every equation balances more fully in favor of equity, belonging, and shared success.
What’s the Word? is a monthly column that introduces emerging language, concepts, and frameworks shaping equity and inclusion work. Each edition offers brief context, shared definitions, and practical insight to help our community build a common vocabulary and deepen understanding.
