This past summer, the University of Texas’ recruiting effort became embroiled in controversy after potential recruits and their families were greeted with a spectacle of luxury cars, hip-hop music, and spirit members, showcasing the glitz and glam of the Texas Football athletic facility.
The recruiting tactic has been criticized for being tone-deaf and insensitive to the realities of underrepresented communities at the university.
The extravagant welcome stands in stark contrast to the recent dismissal of close to 80 individuals working in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) roles, despite many having been reassigned from their DEI roles months prior or not working in a DEI role officially. The University of Texas systems chancellor stated that 21 DEI offices and 311 employees across the state were released due to the ban on DEI efforts mandated by Senate Bill 17 (SB-17).
The layoffs at UT Austin disproportionately affected members of marginalized and underrepresented communities, raising questions about the consistency of these actions across other state universities.
The shuttering of DEI offices and programs on May 31st marked a significant shift for the university, which has a student population that is only 4.5% Black. The elimination of these initiatives has left a void in support for marginalized, first-gen, and underserved students, impacting the university’s ability to foster an inclusive environment.
Meanwhile, the Longhorns primarily hosted Black student-athletes, many of whom are making critical decisions about their futures.
UT’s Racist Past
The university’s history of racism, discrimination, and bias is longstanding.
Four years ago, student-athletes demanded changes to make the environment more comfortable and inclusive for Black athletes and the Black Austin community. Despite some concessions, such as renaming buildings, issues persist, with monuments to racist leaders still standing and the controversial fight song continuing to be sung at football games.
But SB 17’s passage has impacted these changes through far-reaching and intentional consequences.
Cultural commencement ceremonies have been defunded and scholarships targeted to support minority and underserved populations are also being frozen or amended. The consequences of such drastic actions are profound and devastating for students of color.
In higher education, Black students, already historically underrepresented, are now being stripped of the financial and emotional support that was breaking down the barriers that were installed to prevent them from achieving their full potential in the first place.
That appears to be the goal of SB17 author, Senator Brandon Creighton.
“Compliance with the bill itself is very important,” said Creighton. “No more loyalty political oaths mandatory for professors that are applying to the University, before they’re even interviewed; no more mandatory pronoun training, if someone doesn’t believe that that’s going to bring people together more than it is going to divide them…”
For an institution that clearly lacks diversity, where only 5% of the faculty are Black and 10% are Latinx/Hispanic, shouldn’t oaths to foster and promote equity and inclusion be exactly what one would want? For students to be able to see faculty and staff that relate, support, and advance their interests?
Students have long been very vocal about the issues that have plagued their campus, including a large collective of Longhorn student-athletes.
UT athlete activism can be dated back for decades, with the more notable student-athlete protests back in April 1990 where students marched through campus to combat issues of racism. Today, student-athletes are very aware that their athletic department is made up of many black athletes; nearly 50% of black athletes account for the football team alone.
It’s time for students to become active once more and push for dramatic change. Unfortunately, many fear their pleas will go unheard or that there will be repercussions for their actions.
Black athletes at the University of Texas at Austin and other institutions affected by Senate Bill 17 have the power to address the concerns and impacts of the DEI ban. By uniting, they can employ various strategies to advocate for their rights and push for change. This could include boycotting athletic events, engaging with the media, and collaborating with alumni, community groups, and peers at other universities.
But when the university employs flashy recruiting techniques that attempt to appeal to the recruits’ cultural identities while deflecting attention from deeper social issues, that task becomes more challenging.
This technique blinds recruits to the realities of campus life, including racial tensions and the lack of genuine inclusivity. Without adequate support systems in place, these athletes may struggle socially, emotionally, and academically, affecting their mental health and overall sense of belonging.
Cultural Appropriation and Tokenism
What happens to these young men when they arrive on campus and see the programs, initiatives, and staff that once were there to offer guidance and services that aided in their physical, social, emotional, and academic wellness are no longer?
What is to be done when the University of Texas can no longer placate the Black community, or when Black student-athletes finally decide to boycott institutions in states that promote anti-Blackness and adopt DEI bans?
Using material extravagance and superficial representations of culture is a form of cultural appropriation and tokenism.
This approach to the recruiting of young, impressionable Black athletes can be harmful and have long-term implications, including impacting their loyalty and performance once they realize that the athletic department’s tactics are more about image than substance.
It comes across as an attempt to hustle young Black recruits by preying on stereotypes and presenting a mirage that inaccurately reflects the campus climate or the experiences of Black students and athletes.
At the very least, the recruitment experience could be seen as a superficial and stereotypical representation of Black culture. It does not genuinely reflect the values and interests of the recruits or the broader Black community. This flashy display distracts from the underlying social and political issues that affect the university community, including the controversial school song with racist origins, the anti-DEI movement, and the whitewashing of African American studies.
Being presented with a seemingly inclusive and welcoming environment through material extravagance is appealing. But, once on campus, these students often find that the university’s commitment to diversity and inclusion is not as strong as initially suggested.
This tokenistic strategy attempts to camouflage the realities of systemic racism and social issues Black men will inevitably face in life. Using a few high-profile Black athletes to give the appearance of diversity without addressing the broader issues of underrepresentation and marginalization.
While the university may be trying to create a welcoming environment for potential recruits, the approach has unintended consequences and may not effectively address the deeper needs and concerns of Black students and athletes at the university. If these recruits are attracted to the university based on these flashy tactics, they now have unrealistic expectations about their overall college experience.
Athletes may encounter challenges in balancing their academic responsibilities with their athletic commitments. Without the adequate support systems in place that were provided by the Division of Campus Community and Engagement, they may struggle socially, emotionally, and academically, which can have long-lasting effects on their futures beyond college.
UT Austin is not preparing their Black athletes, or any of the marginalized communities, for the social aspects of college life, and that will ultimately affect their mental health and sense of belonging.
If the university’s focus continues primarily on athletic performance rather than holistic development, athletes will miss out on adequate guidance potentially limiting their long-term opportunities.
