In recent years, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs have come under increasing scrutiny and attack. Yet the empirical evidence is clear: when thoughtfully designed and integrated, DEI initiatives play a pivotal role in improving campus climate, advancing student success, and closing equity gaps in higher education. Nowhere is this more evident than in the targeted work of Merze Tate College and WMUx at Western Michigan University, where we achieved record-setting first-year retention and graduation rates through intentional DEI and data aligned strategies grounded in faculty development and student-centered support—especially for first-generation college students.

Across the United States, higher education institutions are grappling with persistent opportunity gaps that disproportionately affect students of color, first-generation college students, and low-income students. DEI efforts seek to transform educational systems that historically have excluded or marginalized these students (Bensimon, 2007). Such efforts must be central to strategic planning, budgeting, and faculty professional development if colleges are truly committed to access and success for all.

Skeptics often frame DEI initiatives as peripheral or political or as “reverse racism.” However, the reality is that diversity, equity, and inclusion are fundamental to academic excellence. Students from diverse backgrounds bring valuable perspectives that enrich classroom dialogue, advance innovation, and better prepare all students for global citizenship (Gurin et al., 2002). Furthermore, institutional climates that prioritize inclusion foster psychological safety, which directly supports learning, persistence, and graduation (Strayhorn, 2012).

Our success at WMU was not accidental. It was rooted in a deep understanding of how inequities manifest inside and outside the classroom and a commitment to systemic, sustained change. In this blog, I will discuss why DEI initiatives matter, how faculty development is a critical lever for change, and how institutions of higher education can serve as models for equity-driven success.

---

The Case for DEI in Student Success

Decades of research demonstrate that DEI programming improves institutional climate and enhances student persistence. Hurtado et al. (1998) were among the first to systematically link campus racial climate with student success outcomes. They found that hostile or indifferent climates created barriers to engagement and persistence for students of color, while inclusive environments fostered belonging and motivation to persist.

Similarly, Harper and Hurtado (2007) argue that campuses must move beyond passive diversity and actively work to cultivate environments where minoritized students thrive. Institutional leaders must address structural racism, implicit bias, and curricular exclusion to create conditions conducive to success for all students. Without such intentionality, demographic diversity alone will not translate into equity in outcomes.

Research also indicates that DEI efforts have positive ripple effects beyond traditionally underserved populations. A more inclusive curriculum, for instance, enhances learning for all students by exposing them to multiple perspectives and fostering critical thinking (Gurin et al., 2002; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). Thus, DEI initiatives are not zero-sum; they benefit the entire academic community.

Tinto’s (1993) theory of student integration posits that academic and social integration are key to persistence. Students who do not feel seen, heard, or valued in academic spaces are more likely to disengage and leave college prematurely. DEI programs that affirm student identities and foster inclusive pedagogical practices help bridge this gap and promote stronger academic integration (Museus & Quaye, 2009).

Moreover, Perna and Thomas (2008) highlight that institutional context matters significantly for student success. Institutions that center equity in their mission and operations consistently outperform their peers in closing completion gaps. DEI must be baked into the fabric of the institution, not relegated to isolated offices or optional programming.

Inclusive excellence frameworks, as articulated by Williams, Berger, and McClendon (2005), call for embedding equity and inclusion into every aspect of institutional functioning—governance, curriculum, hiring, and assessment. This comprehensive approach ensures that diversity and student success are mutually reinforcing goals.

Critically, ignoring DEI in higher education settings not only risks perpetuating inequities but also undermines academic rigor and excellence. As American society becomes increasingly diverse, institutions that fail to adapt will become increasingly irrelevant to the students they aim to serve.

---

The Role of Faculty Development

One of the most powerful yet often underutilized strategies for advancing diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and undergraduate student success is sustained, intentional faculty development focused specifically on student engagement and belonging. Faculty members are the architects of learning environments; their practices, attitudes, and pedagogical choices critically shape whether students feel valued, supported, and capable of achieving success (Rendón, 1994; hooks, 1994; Felten et al., 2016).

Unfortunately, many faculty arrive in academic roles without formal preparation in inclusive pedagogy, cultural competency, or trauma-informed teaching strategies. Traditional doctoral training often privileges deep disciplinary content expertise over teaching effectiveness, leaving faculty underprepared for the increasingly diverse and complex needs of contemporary undergraduates (Turner, González, & Wood, 2008; Austin, 2002). Without continuous professional development, faculty may unintentionally reproduce classroom environments that alienate first-generation, low-income, racially minoritized, LGBTQ+, or disabled students.

Research has consistently shown that inclusive pedagogy and faculty-student engagement are among the most influential factors in student persistence and degree completion. Schreiner (2010) and Bok (2006) demonstrated that meaningful faculty interactions serve as a key high-impact practice, significantly improving students’ commitment to their educational journey. However, numerous studies find that historically marginalized students—particularly first-generation and underrepresented students of color—often report feelings of invisibility or cultural dissonance in traditional classroom settings (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Stephens et al., 2012; Strayhorn, 2012).

Addressing these barriers requires systemic and sustained faculty development efforts, not isolated one-off workshops. Programs that center ongoing communities of practice, peer mentoring, and DEI learning cohorts have shown greater success in transforming faculty beliefs, behaviors, and course designs over time (Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011; Finley & McNair, 2013). Faculty must be invited into reflective spaces where they can critically examine implicit biases, challenge deficit framings of students, and develop more equitable instructional practices (Tuitt, 2003; Salazar, Norton, & Tuitt, 2009).

Crucially, culturally responsive teaching frameworks (Gay, 2010; Paris & Alim, 2017) offer concrete pedagogical strategies that faculty can adopt to create affirming classrooms. These approaches encourage faculty to view students’ cultural knowledge, histories, and experiences as assets to learning rather than deficits to be remedied. Faculty trained in culturally sustaining pedagogy design curricula that validate multiple worldviews, promote critical consciousness, and foster inclusive classroom dialogues that honor diversity.

Moreover, faculty development should prepare instructors to recognize and mitigate psychological phenomena that disproportionately impact marginalized students. Stereotype threat—the fear of confirming negative group stereotypes—has been shown to impair academic performance, particularly for students of color and women in STEM fields (Steele, 2010). Similarly, microaggressions—subtle, often unintentional slights—accumulate over time, eroding students’ sense of belonging and well-being (Sue et al., 2007). Faculty who are trained to disrupt these dynamics foster environments where all students can thrive.

Institutions committed to systemic change must also align faculty evaluation, tenure, and promotion processes with inclusive excellence goals. As Kezar and Eckel (2002) argue, organizational culture must evolve alongside individual practice to sustain change. Reward structures that value inclusive teaching, DEI mentorship, and community engagement signal that equity work is not “extra” but central to educational excellence (Laursen & Austin, 2014; Salazar et al., 2009).

At Merze Tate College and in WMUx, we operationalized these insights we sought to embed DEI competencies into faculty and student life. Our results were telling: we achieved record-setting first-year retention and four-year graduation rates—not by lowering academic standards, but by raising our commitment to inclusive excellence. Faculty development and student interactions were not an afterthought; it was a primary driver of student success.

Emerging research continues to affirm the profound impact of intentional faculty development on student outcomes. Studies by Eddy and Garza Mitchell (2017) emphasize that when faculty adopt equity-minded pedagogical practices, institutions experience significant reductions in achievement gaps. Similarly, Tinto (2017) argues that institutions must invest in building faculty capacity for engagement and belonging if they are serious about improving persistence rates, particularly for first-gen and underrepresented students.

Ultimately, the evidence is clear: advancing DEI through sustained, research-informed faculty development is not ancillary to academic success—it is foundational. As institutions face intensifying political attacks on DEI efforts, investing in the professional learning and growth of faculty remains one of the most powerful levers for creating just, inclusive, and high-performing educational environments.

Without committed, equity-centered faculty, our aspirations for inclusive student success will remain unmet. But with intentional development, reflective practice, and structural support, faculty can be the frontline leaders of a transformative, democratic vision of higher education.

---

References

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.

Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469.

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press.

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Eddy, P. L., & Garza Mitchell, R. L. (2017). Faculty as learners: Developing thinking, creating change. Innovative Higher Education, 42(5–6), 417–430.

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Pell Institute.

Felten, P., Bagg, J., Bumbry, M., Hill, P., Hornsby, K., & Weller, S. (2013). A call for expanding student engagement in assessment. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2).

Felten, P., Gardner, J., Schroeder, C., Lambert, L. M., & Barefoot, B. (2016). The undergraduate experience: Focusing institutions on what matters most. Jossey-Bass.

Finley, A., & McNair, T. B. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high-impact practices. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

González, K. P., & Ayala-Alcantar, C. (2008). Theoretical considerations of resilience and persistence for Latina/o college students. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 33–45). SUNY Press.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366.

Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7–24.

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter.Jossey-Bass.

Laursen, S. L., & Austin, A. E. (2014). Strategic intervention for institutional change: Advancing women faculty in STEM. John Wiley & Sons.

Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C., Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. 3). Jossey-Bass.

Means, D. R., & Pyne, K. B. (2017). Finding my way: Perceptions of institutional support and belonging in low-income, first-generation, first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 58(6), 907–924.

Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective.American Council on Education.

Museus, S. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and ethnic minority college student persistence. Review of Higher Education, 33(1), 67–94.

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world.Teachers College Press.

Perna, L. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2008). Theoretical perspectives on student success: Understanding the contributions of the disciplines. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(1), 1–87.

Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.

Salazar, M. d. C., Norton, A. S., & Tuitt, F. (2009). Weaving promising practices for inclusive excellence into the higher education classroom. To Improve the Academy, 27(1), 208–226.

Schreiner, L. A. (2010). Thriving in community. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 139–156). Routledge.

Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. W. W. Norton & Company.

Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2012). Closing the social-class achievement gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 23(9), 836–842.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2017). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 254–269.

Tuitt, F. (2003). Afterword: Realizing a more inclusive pedagogy. In M. C. Change, B. Smith, & J. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), Diversifying the faculty: A guidebook for search committees (pp. 131–140). Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139–168.

Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.