Education professors push DEI while business and STEM faculty question its value, survey says

A new national faculty survey suggests that academic discipline is now the strongest predictor of faculty attitudes toward Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and academic freedom.

The InForm survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona and funded by the Templeton Religion Trust, collected nearly 1,000 faculty responses from across the country. The analysis, published by Inside Higher Ed, revealed sharp divides between education professors, who overwhelmingly support DEI initiatives, and business professors, who are far more skeptical.

[RELATED: Return on investment by degree field: analysis shows clear winners and losers]

On the question of whether DEI “has gone too far,” business and education faculty differed by 0.626. The gap widened to 0.730 on whether universities should continue to sponsor “identity-specific organizations and programming.” 

Additional divisions included a 0.607 difference on whether diversity programs “do more harm than good,” a 0.548 gap on whether bans on DEI programs are “justified,” and a 0.564 difference on whether banning DEI would harm students.

Education professors, whose departments emphasize theories of social justice and pedagogy, consistently rated DEI as essential to their teaching mission. By contrast, business faculty, who focus on efficiency, competitiveness, and measurable outcomes, often viewed DEI programs as secondary or counterproductive.

The disciplinary divide extended beyond business and education. Faculty in the arts and humanities aligned closely with education professors in support of DEI, while STEM faculty were more skeptical.

[RELATED: Research suggests declining return on investment from master’s degrees]

Despite sharp divisions across most measures, the survey revealed a rare point of agreement: many faculty supported broadening DEI programs to include religious, secular, and spiritual perspectives. While education professors were the strongest advocates, faculty across disciplines—including business and STEM—showed at least some support for recognizing religion as part of campus diversity efforts.

Still, significant differences persisted. For example, there was a 0.535 gap between STEM and education faculty on whether religious inclusion should be part of DEI efforts, with education professors more supportive.

Campus Reform has covered the declining financial payoff of graduate education in previous analyses—highlighting that up to 40 percent of master’s programs yield zero or negative return on investment after accounting for forgone wages and costs—and demonstrating stark disparities across undergraduate fields. Where STEM and business majors typically deliver strong earnings growth while education, humanities, and social sciences often burden graduates with debt and limited wage gains—even with further schooling

Campus Reform has reached out to the Templeton Religion Trust, the University of Arizona’s InForm research team, and DEI administrators in business and education schools for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.