Download PDF Fall Bridge on Engineering a Diverse Future September 25, 2024 Volume 54 Issue 3 Guest edited by Wanda Sigur and Percy Pierre, this issue of The Bridge addresses the issues around sustaining a U.S. engineering workforce that builds on and integrates the talents and ideas of our diverse nation. Many Mountains to Climb: The Enduring Imperative to Expand Access to Engineering Thursday, September 26, 2024 Author: Kesha Moore and Amalea Smirniotopoulos In the wake of the 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down the use of affirmative action in college admissions, engineering programs and employers retain a range of tools to expand opportunities for underrepresented groups to enter the field. Our nation confronts a growing array of complex scientific and technological challenges, from combatting climate change to managing the risks of artificial intelligence. Our ability to solve these problems relies on our capacity to think critically and innovate. To succeed, we cannot leave talent on the table. Diverse representation in the fields of science and technology can expand the types of scientific questions asked, foster innovations, and help mitigate the impact of human biases on scientific knowledge (Herring 2009; Holstein 2009; Hunt et al. 2015; UCMP nd.; Minkin 2023; Rock & Grant 2016). Unfortunately, while talent is everywhere, opportunity is not. Gifted Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people have historically been underrepresented in scientific, technology, and medical (STEM) fields and continue to face unfair barriers that prevent them from entering and advancing in careers like engineering. These underrepresented racial and ethnic groups lack access to preparatory courses, confront hostile learning environments, and struggle in the absence of mentorship, funding, and research opportunities. The need to eliminate barriers to opportunity becomes even more urgent as our nation becomes increasingly diverse (Frey 2020). We cannot risk losing out on the benefits of the talents and skills of another generation. Engineering programs and firms have a moral, legal, and economic imperative to ensure that the profession is equally accessible to all. Targeted pipeline programs and other practices can increase the success of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in engineering and other STEM fields. While opponents of civil rights have attacked programs aimed at redressing discrimination and increasing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA), these programs remain lawful and necessary. Engineering leaders should replicate successful pipeline programs like the NACME Scholarship Program and the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation Program, which have helped break down the barriers that underrepresented students face. Black People and Underrepresented Groups Encounter Unfair Barriers that Prevent Them from Becoming Engineers Despite the progress that we have made in expanding access to engineering and other STEM professions, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous workers continue to be underrepresented in the STEM workforce (NCSES 2023). In 2021, Latinx workers comprised 15%, Black workers 9%, and Indigenous workers less than 1% of the STEM workforce. Engineering has the least racially and ethnically diverse workforce, with underrepresented racial groups comprising less than 3% of the engineering workforce (NCSES 2023). Moreover, those few Black, Latinx, and Indigenous STEM workers earn less than their white or Asian American peers (Fry et al. 2021). This underrepresentation is the result of discriminatory barriers that make it harder for Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people to enter and thrive in these professions. Because jobs in engineering and other STEM fields rely more heavily on specialized bachelor’s and graduate-level degrees (Fry et al. 2021), they are harder for underrepresented groups to access. Even before being able to attend college and major in STEM fields, many Black and Latinx students cannot access the types of coursework needed to prepare them for STEM careers. A US Department of Education report (DOEd 2023) analyzing 2020-2021 data reveals substantial racial and ethnic disparities in access to science and math coursework across public high schools in the United States. Public high schools with high enrollments of Black and Latinx students were less likely to offer calculus (35% vs. 54%) and computer science (40% vs. 54%) than high schools with low enrollments of Black and Latinx students. Moreover, while numerous studies have documented the importance for students to find a community and develop a positive identity in order to succeed academically (Brooms & Davis 2017; Holmes et al. 2000; Strayhorn 2008), Black students face repeated microaggressions in higher education that undermine their mental health, academic performance, and ability to complete their degree in a STEM field (McGee 2020; True-Funk et al. 2021). Empirical studies of students of color with STEM majors reveal that various combinations of underrepresented racial and gender identities are associated with distinct experiences of reduced self-efficacy and self-esteem, otherness, social isolation, and fear of conforming to stereotypes (Bottia et al. 2021; True-Funk et al. 2021). In a survey of 1,688 STEM majors at a large public university, researchers found that students of color experience racial microaggressions at academic, peer, and campus levels (Lee et al. 2020). As figure 1 shows, among STEM majors, Black students experienced the highest frequency of racial microaggressions in the sample (Lee et al. 2020). Experiences with racism drive disparities in the completion of STEM degrees. Beasley and Fischer’s (2012) longitudinal analysis revealed that experiences of racism are associated with increases in attrition among underrepresented students majoring in STEM and health sciences. Even students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups with high grades report questioning their ability and value in STEM as a result of their experiences with racism (McGee and Bentley 2016). Social isolation similarly impacts the well-being and retention of these students (Lane 2017; Thacker et al. 2022; White and Fulton 2015). Underrepresented students report significantly higher levels of social isolation and psychological distress resulting from being in such small numbers in their courses and programs (White and Fulton 2015). The lack of faculty diversity compounds the racial isolation of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students. While faculty diversity is positively correlated with completion rates for students from underrepresented populations (Stout et al. 2018), many engineering and other STEM departments do not have diverse faculty. In 2019, only 10.1% of STEM faculty at four-year institutions are from underrepresented racial backgrounds (Bennet et al. 2020). Engineering programs and firms should not be deterred from investing in programs that ensure that all talented individuals can thrive in the field. The success of minority serving institutions (MSIs) in producing racially and ethnically diverse STEM graduates makes visible the steps that can be taken to reduce unfair barriers that prevent a more diverse pool of talented students from entering the STEM profession. Because they have a more welcoming climate and more diverse faculty, MSIs make an outsized contribution to the number of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous scientists (NASEM 2019). Thirty-one percent of Black students who earned a STEM PhD between 2010 and 2020 attended a historically Black college and university (HBCU) at some point in their education (Valez and Heuer 2023). Approximately 41% of Latinx students earning a STEM PhD between 2010 and 2020 attended a Hispanic-serving institution at some point in their education (Valez and Heuer 2023). A national survey of tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) found that over 20% of alumni of TCUs are working in STEM fields, and 53% of TCU graduates identified strong mentorship at the institution, as compared to 28% of alumni nationally (Boyer 1997). Enduring institutional barriers continue to artificially limit the participation of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people in STEM fields. The institutional difficulties in retaining and graduating talented Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students create additional challenges for engineering and STEM employers looking to diversify their workforce. This phenomenon is often called the “leaky pipeline” (Sarraju and Rodriguez 2023). While the percentage of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people earning STEM undergraduate and graduate degrees has increased in recent years, these groups remain underrepresented among STEM graduates. Although Black individuals comprise 14% of Americans ages 18-34, they are only 9% of bachelor’s, 11% of master’s, and 7% of PhD degrees earned in STEM fields (NCSES 2023). Latinx individuals comprise 22% of the 18–34-year-old population, but only 17% of bachelor’s, 13% of master’s, and 9% of doctoral degrees earned in STEM fields (NCSES 2023). Indigenous people represent 0.9% of the US population ages 18-34, with less than half (0.4%) earning undergraduate or graduate degrees in STEM fields (NCSES 2023). Pipeline Programs Can Help Break Down Barriers for Black Engineers The barriers to the successful recruitment, retention, graduation, and employment of underrepresented racial groups in STEM professions can be mitigated by intentional, robust interventions throughout the pipeline. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine identify a range of STEM intervention programs (SIPs), including internships, summer bridge programs, student professional groups, peer tutoring, “living and learning environments,” and comprehensive interventions (NASEM 2016). The success of SIPs lies in their ability to not only enhance the knowledge and technical skills of underrepresented students, but also to make STEM environments more welcoming and inclusive, especially for women and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. SIPs that promote positive social interaction and belonging among underrepresented students through cohort admissions, peer interactions, and intentional mentoring have been shown to improve participant outcomes (Matthews et al. 2021). While mentorship and research experience are the most common types of SIPs offered in higher education, the most successful programs provide comprehensive support by implementing multiple interventions (Palid et al. 2023; Tsui 2007). Tsui’s (2007) review of literature identifies 10 distinct categories of intervention: summer bridge, mentoring, research experience, tutoring, career counseling and awareness, learning centers, workshops and seminars, academic advising, financial support, and curriculum and instructional reform. In a more recent analysis, Palid and colleagues (2023) identified six key features of SIPs (supplemental learning, mentorship, skill building, financial aid, socializing, and bridge programs), and all were associated with positive outcomes for participants. Both Tsui (2007) and Palid and colleagues (2023) argue that comprehensive SIPs provide the most successful outcomes for program participants because such programs engage the multiple institutional failures driving underrepresentation in STEM fields. Intentional and sustained efforts can remove the barriers faced by aspiring scientists from underrepresented minority communities. Numerous programs attempt to expand the STEM educational pipeline for underrepresented racial groups before college, including the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) Scholarship Program. The NACME Scholarship Program is an intensive high school-through-university program. The program’s mission is to assist promising Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students in overcoming barriers they may face when seeking to pursue STEM in higher education, but the opportunity is open to all students who meet its citizenship, GPA, major, and enrollment requirements. In a 2008 evaluation of the NACME Scholars program, NACME’s partner universities graduated nearly one-third of all URM students receiving a BA in engineering in the 2007-2008 academic year (NACME 2008). Theis cohort of NACME Scholars maintained a 3.3 GPA on a 4.0 scale and 73% of them identified their NACME scholarship as a “very important” source of their academic funding (NACME 2008). One successful pipeline program addressing barriers to bachelor’s and graduate STEM degrees is the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program. The LSAMP Program is an alliance program created by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in which NSF partners with higher education institutions to diversify the STEM workforce by fostering the success of historically and currently underrepresented Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and Pacific Islander students in STEM fields (NSF 2024). LSAMP combines a student academic and social integration framework with empirical studies of effective student retention interventions to design a comprehensive program aimed at guiding and supporting underrepresented students successfully through socialization with professional scientists (Clewell et al. 2006). LSAMP activities include interventions targeted at the student, faculty, and institutional/department levels, such as: summer bridge programs, scholarship/stipends, peer study groups, skills building seminars, learning centers, academic advising, summer academic enrichment, tutoring, research experience, mentorships, conferences, internships, career awareness, GRE test prep, graduate school admission support, graduate summer bridge, faculty workshops on teaching, diversity sensitivity training for faculty, faculty research program, new course development resources, curriculum material sharing, distance learning courses, and changes in institutional/departmental policies. In an evaluation by the Urban Institute (Clewell et al. 2006) comparing LSAMP program participants to a national sample of non-participating underrepresented students and non-underrepresented students, findings revealed significant success in improving the academic success, retention, and graduation rates of program participants at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. At the undergraduate level, LSAMP participants earned on average higher GPAs than comparable non-participating students (Clewell et al. 2006). As figure 2 shows, LSAMP participants were also more likely to take additional coursework after their bachelor’s degree than non-participating underrepresented racial groups, and more likely to pursue and complete a graduate degree in STEM than their non-participating underrepresented and non-underrepresented peers (Clewell et al. 2006). Although the percentage of LSAMP participants working in STEM-related jobs was lower than non-underrepresented and comparable to national underrepresented rates, LSAMP participants were less likely than both comparison groups to report that their job was not related to their education (Clewell et al. 2006). Many of the non-STEM jobs among LSAMP participants were in related fields of health sciences and education; there is no meaningful difference in employment rates in STEM and medicine for LSAMP participants and non-underrepresented groups (Clewell et al. 2006). In addition, the percentage of LSAMP participants who completed a PhD (9%) was comparable to the rate of non-underrepresented students and nine times greater than the national rate of underrepresented students’ PhD completion (1%) (Clewell et al. 2006). The LSAMP program also shows positive benefits for the participating institutions (Clewell et al. 2006). These institutions were better at retaining STEM students, expanding the diversity and inclusiveness of institutional culture, and creating better policies and practices to support students (Clewell et al. 2006). Programs such as the NACME Scholarship Program and LSAMP demonstrate that STEM programs can successfully attract and graduate a more diverse STEM workforce. It is imperative that such programs continue and that other educational institutions build upon their success by adopting the practices shown to be effective. Programs Aimed at Increasing Opportunities for Black People and Other People of Color to Enter the Engineering Profession Are Lawful Engineering programs and firms can and should continue to invest in policies and practices that open up opportunities for Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people to join the profession. Programs that build robust pipelines, equalize opportunities, and address racial discrimination are generally lawful and can help higher education institutions and employers comply with their civil rights obligations. Importantly, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (SFFA), 600 US 181 (2023), only governs the use of race as a tip in higher education admissions; it does not pertain to other programs aimed at increasing educational or employment opportunities or creating inclusive and welcoming environments. Engineering programs and firms should not be deterred from investing in programs that ensure that all talented individuals can thrive in the field. Programs that break down barriers that prevent Black people from entering the engineering profession are consistent with federal civil rights laws. As the Eighth Circuit observed, “An inclusive recruitment effort enables employers to generate the largest pool of qualified applicants and helps to ensure that minorities and women are not discriminatorily excluded from employment. This not only allows employers to obtain the best possible employees, but it is an excellent way to avoid lawsuits.” Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1038—39 (8th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Torgerson v. Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011). As described in more detail in our reports (LDF 2023; LDF 2024), existing laws bar higher education institutions and employers from discriminating based on race. These laws include the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which prohibits intentional discrimination based on race by state and local governments; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in the programs or activities of federal funding recipients, including colleges and universities, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from making decisions based on race or other characteristics when hiring and firing, making promotions and demotions, determining compensation and access to benefits, and setting the terms and conditions of employment, except in limited circumstances to redress past discrimination, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., 29 CFR § 1608.1(c); and Section 1981, which was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and prohibits private sector discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity when making and enforcing contracts, including employment contracts, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Significantly, Title VI and Title VII prohibit both disparate treatment (i.e., explicitly treating employees differently based on a protected characteristic) and disparate impact (i.e., policies or practices that appear neutral but result in an unjustifiable discriminatory effect), though disparate impact violations under Title VI are only enforceable by government actors and not by private actors. As such, covered institutions may not adopt policies or practices that disproportionately exclude people based on race unless that policy serves a legitimate purpose and there are no less discriminatory alternatives available. As recent guidance from the US Department of Education (2023) explains, “[A]ctivities intended to further objectives such as diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion are not generally or categorically prohibited under Title VI,” including DEIA training; instruction in or training on the impact of racism; cultural competency or other nondiscrimination trainings; or efforts to assess or improve school climate. Similarly, as discussed in more detail in LDF’s 2024 report, several courts have found that many programs focused on increasing employment opportunities are consistent with Title VII because they typically do not involve using race or other protected characteristics as a criterion in employment decisions (LDF 2024). For example, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated that an employer may “adopt strategies to expand the applicant pool of qualified [Black] applicants, such as recruiting at schools with high Black enrollment,” without making hiring decisions based on race (EEOC 2006). As a result, many pipeline programs are consistent with the scientific community’s goal of developing the best talent and civil rights regulations that require fairness and equal opportunity. Importantly, many DEIA programs actually help institutions comply with these antidiscrimination laws by breaking down unfair barriers that impede student success and block equal employment opportunities. DEIA initiatives thus help higher educational institutions comply with federal anti-discrimination laws by addressing harassing conduct, remedying prior racial discrimination, and fostering “a more positive and inclusive school climate” (DOEd 2023). The Supreme Court’s SFFA decision did not change the imperative for higher education institutions and employers to break down barriers to opportunity. In June 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled that the University of North Carolina’s admissions policies violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. 600 U.S. 181 (2023). The Court noted that an act that would violate the Equal Protection Clause also violates Title VI, which covers Harvard as a federally funded institution. SFFA, 600 U.S. at 198 n.2 (quoting Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276, n.23 [2003]). The Court reasoned that those universities’ consideration of an individual student’s race failed to pass constitutional muster under the legal standard known as “strict scrutiny,” as it was not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. Id. at 213. However, the Court ruled that nothing in its opinion should be construed to prohibit universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life, whether through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. Id. at 230. Moreover, the Court recognized that race can be a factor in actions where the goal is “remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute.” Id. at 207. Finally, the decision did not limit the ability of public or private actors to increase diversity through policies and practices that do not include race as a criterion when making decisions.[1] In order to advance scientific inquiry and address the pressing challenges we confront as a nation, we must do more to ensure that engineering and other STEM professions are open to talented Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people. Since the SFFA decision, both courts and federal officials have reaffirmed the legality of programs that increase DEIA. As US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Charlotte A. Burrows confirmed, “It remains lawful . . . to ensure that workers of all backgrounds are afforded equal opportunity in the workplace” (Burrows 2023). Other commissioners have similarly reaffirmed that these programs are legal (Samuel and Shirazi 2023; Setty 2023). Many of the challenges, both pre- and post-SFFA, to policies designed to promote equal opportunity have not survived judicial scrutiny at the early stages of the litigation because the plaintiffs could not show that they were harmed by the policies at issue and therefore lacked standing to sue. Do No Harm v. Pfizer Inc., 96 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2024) (challenging a fellowship program designed to increase the pipeline for underrepresented students); Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 94 F.4th 1242 (10th Cir. 2024) (challenging an anti-bias training program); Lowery v. Tex. A&M Univ., 4:22-cv-03091, 2023 WL 6445788 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2023) (challenging alleged discrimination in hiring). We expect many future cases to face similar obstacles. Moreover, opponents of civil rights must affirmatively litigate to change existing law, and it will likely take years for successful challenges to progress through the courts to alter the law—if they prevail at all. Engineering programs and employers thus retain a range of tools to expand opportunities for underrepresented groups to enter the field. First, they can adopt programs that do not consider race but address known barriers that unfairly disadvantage Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students and workers, such as offering implicit bias trainings, increased access to financial aid, and preparatory courses for all students who did not have access to prerequisites in their high schools. This category also includes scholarships, affinity groups, and mentorship programs that address the needs of particular racial groups but are open to all (DOJ & DOEd 2023). Second, they can adopt programs targeted at particular racial groups but where race is not used to determine access to limited opportunities, such as targeted recruiting programs designed to increase the number of underrepresented individuals in the applicant pool (EEOC 2006). Finally, they can adopt programs where race is used as a criterion in making critical decisions, such as access to scholarships and fellowships where the pool of funding is limited, in certain circumstances to remedy specific acts of past discrimination. These programs must be carefully constructed and supported by facts and data, as they may receive additional scrutiny. While the law governing many of these programs has not changed after SFFA, organizations must ensure that all policies comply with existing constitutional and statutory antidiscrimination requirements. The preceding discussion focuses on federal law. Some states or localities have civil rights laws that are more robust than their federal counterparts—for example, protecting additional groups from discrimination (Cal. Gov. Code §§12900–12996). Unfortunately, other states have passed laws that prohibit actions that are lawful elsewhere. For example, Florida recently passed a law that prohibits all employers from requiring DEIA trainings or other activities that espouse particular views (Fla. Stat. § 760.10) and prohibits universities from spending funds on programs advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion (Fla. Stat. § 1004.06). Some of these laws have been successfully challenged under the US Constitution or other legal theories (Honeyfund.Com Inc, et al. v. Governor, State of Florida, et al., No. 22-13135 (11th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024)). These state laws also do not obviate the obligation under federal civil rights laws to ensure equal educational and employment opportunities through other lawful means. Institutions should consult all relevant state and local laws with the assistance of counsel but should not back down from their legal and moral duty to break down barriers to opportunity, especially for those individuals who come from marginalized and underrepresented communities. Conclusion In order to advance scientific inquiry and address the pressing challenges we confront as a nation, we must do more to ensure that engineering and other STEM professions are open to talented Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people. Engineering schools and employers must continue to invest in proven tools to break down barriers that bar these students and workers, such as pipeline programs. These programs are and remain lawful pathways to attain what we have never fully achieved: a multiracial democracy in which power is shared, dignity is sacred, and thriving is the standard. References Beasley MA, Fischer MJ. 2012. Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Social Psychology of Education 15:427–48. Bennet JC, Lattuca L, Redd K, York T. 2020. Strengthening pathways to faculty careers in STEM: Recommendations for systemic change to support underrepresented groups. Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. Bottia MC, Mickelson RA, Jamil C., Moniz K, Barry L. 2021. Factors Associated with College STEM Participation of Racially Minoritized Students: A Synthesis of Research. Review of Educational Research 91(4):614–48. Boyer P. 1997. First survey of tribal college students reveals attitudes. Tribal College Journal 11(2):36–41. Brooms DR, Davis AR. 2017. Staying focused on the goal: Peer bonding and faculty mentors supporting Black males’ persistence in college. Journal of Black Studies 48(3):305–26. Burrows CA.2023. Statement from EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows on Supreme Court Ruling on College Affirmative Action Programs. Online at www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/statement-eeoc-chair-charlotte- burrows -supreme-court-ruling-college-affirmative-action. Clewell BC, de Cohen CC, Tsui L, Deterding N. 2006. Revitalizing the Nation’s Talent Pool in STEM. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. DOEd [US Department of Education]. 2023. Fact Sheet: Diversity & Inclusion Activities Under Title VI. Office of Civil Rights, Jan 31. DOJ & DOEd [US Department of Justice & US Department of Education]. 2023. Questions and Answers Regarding the Supreme Court’s Decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College and University of North Carolina, Aug 14. EEOC [US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]. 2006. Section 15 Race and Color Discrimination. Online at www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-15-race-and-color- discrim ination. Frey WH. 2020. The nation is diversifying even faster than predicted, according to new census data. Brookings Institute, July 1. Fry R, Kennedy B, Funk K. 2021. STEM Jobs See Uneven Progress in Increasing Gender, Racial and Ethnic Diversity. Washington, DC: PEW Research Center. Herring C. 2009. Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review 74(2):208–224. Holmes SL, Ebbers L, Robinson DC, Mugenda A. 2000. Validating African American students at predominantly white institutions. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 2(1):41–58. Holstein WJ. 2009. Diversity is even more important in hard times. New York Times, Feb 13. Hunt DV, Layton D, Prince S. 2015. Why diversity matters. Washington, DC: McKinsey & Co. Lane TB. 2017. Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students. CBE-Life Sciences Education 15(3):1–13. Lee MJ, Collins JD, Harwood SA, Mendenhall R, Huntt MB. 2020. “If you aren’t White, Asian or Indian, you aren’t an engineer”: Racial microaggressions in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education 7: article no. 48. Matthews AK, Allen-Meares P, Watson K, Crooks N., Smith A., Hart A., Estrella M., Kim S. 2021. The use of strategies from the social sciences to inform pipeline development programs for under-represented minority faculty and students in the health sciences. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. 2021;5(1):e73. McGee EO. 2020. Interrogating structural racism in STEM higher education. Educational Researcher 49(9):633–44. McGee E, Bentley L. 2016. The equity ethic: Black and Latinx college students reengineering their STEM careers toward justice. American Journal of Education 124(1):1–36. Minkin R. 2023. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace. May 17. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. LDF [Legal Defense Fund]. 2023. Affirmative Action in Higher Education: The Racial Justice Landscape After the SFFA Cases. New York: NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. Online at www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023_09_29-Report. pdf. LDF. 2024. The Economic Imperative to Ensure Equal Opportunity: Guidance for Employers, Businesses, and Funders. New York: NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. Online at www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-02-01-Aff-Axn- Economic-Guidance-2.pdf. NACME [National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc]. 2008. Synergies Annual Report. New York, NY. NASEM [National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]. 2016. Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students’ Diverse Pathways. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. 2019. Minority Serving Institutions: America’s Underutilized Resource for Strengthening the STEM Workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NCSES [National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics]. 2023. Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023. Special Report NSF 23-315. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. NSF [US National Science Foundation]. 2024. NSF 24-563: Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP): Solicitation. Palid O, Cashdollar S, Deangelo S, Bates C, Bates M. 2023. Inclusion in practice: A systemic review of diversity-focused STEM programming in the United States. International Journal of STEM Education 10: article no. 2. Rock D, Grant, H. 2016. Why diverse teams are smarter. Harvard Business Review, Nov 4. Samuels J, Shirazi Z. 2023. The high court didn’t kill DEI at work. Employers shouldn’t waver. Bloomberg Law, July 11. Online at news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-high-court-didnt- kill-dei-at-work-employers-shouldnt-waver. Sarraju A, Ngo S, Rodriguez F. 2023. The leaky pipeline of diverse race and ethnicity representation in academic science and technology training in the United States, 2003-2019. PlOS ONE 18(4):e0284945. Online at 10.1371/journal.pone.0284945 Setty, R. 2023. New EEOC democrat says workplace diversity has panel backing. Bloomberg Law, Nov 7. Online at news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/new-eeoc-democrat- says-workplace-diversity-has-panel-backing. Stout R, Archie C, Cross D, Carman C. 2018. The relationship between faculty diversity and graduation rates in higher education. Intercultural Education 29(3):399–417. Strayhorn TL .2008. The role of supportive relationships in facilitating African American males’ success in college. NASPA Journal 45(1):26–48. Thacker I, Seyranian V, Madva A, Duong N, Beardsley P. 2022. Social connectedness in physical isolation: Online teaching practices that support underrepresented undergraduate students’ feelings of belonging and engagement in STEM. Education Sciences 12(2):1–22. True-Funk A, Poleacovschi C, Jones-Johnson G, Feinstein S, Smith K, Luster-Teasley S. 2021. Intersectional engineers: Diversity of gender and race microaggressions and their effects in engineering education. Journal of Management in Engineering 37(3). Tsui L .2007. Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review of the literature. The Journal of Negro Education 76(4):555–81. UCMP [University of California Museum of Paleontology]. Nd. Understanding Science 101: The Social Side of Science: A Human and Community Endeavor, accessed July 23, 2024. Valez ED, Heuer R. 2023. Exploring the Educational Experiences of Black and Hispanic PhDs in STEM. Washington, DC: RTI International Research Institute. White BJ, Fulton JS. 2015. Common experiences of African American nursing students: An integrative review. Nursing Education Perspectives 36(3):167–75. [1] In SFFA, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh made explicit in his concurrence that “governments and universities still ‘can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.’” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., 600 U.S. at 317. Justice Clarence Thomas also acknowledged the use of race-neutral policies in his concurrence, stating that “[r]ace-neutral policies may thus achieve the same benefits of racial harmony and equality.” Id. at 284. About the Author:Kesha Moore is manager of research, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.’s Thurgood Marshall Institute. Amalea Smirniotopoulos is senior policy counsel and co-manager of the Equal Protection Initiative, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.