Stanford U Dissolving Office for Inclusion, Belonging and Intergroup Communication
“The reorganization decision was made to preserve and strengthen core elements of student life while anchoring and integrating them within a broader portfolio focused on student wellbeing and engagement”
The school is also letting go of the director of this office, among others.
Stanford is closing its Office for Inclusion, Belonging and Intergroup Communication and laying off the director.
It’s also eliminating 363 staff positions this fall.
Let the winds of freedom blow! pic.twitter.com/XqiqmIyS5e
— Steve McGuire (@sfmcguire79) August 5, 2025
From the Stanford Daily:
‘Don’t know what we will do’: University dissolves Office for Inclusion, Belonging and Intergroup Communication
The University dissolved its Office for Inclusion, Belonging and Intergroup Communication (IBIC) on July 11, laying off its director, Ester Sihite, and one part-time employee. Some of the office’s programs and one staff member were absorbed into the Office of Student Engagement (OSE).
The approximately 35 student employees of the office were notified of the news in an email from Assistant Vice Provost for Inclusion, Community and Integrative Learning Samuel Santos on June 12. Santos explained in the email that “ongoing fiscal challenges” were a factor in making the decision.
“The reorganization decision was made to preserve and strengthen core elements of student life while anchoring and integrating them within a broader portfolio focused on student wellbeing and engagement,” Santos wrote in an email to The Daily.
The IBIC office, which was established in 2016 as the Diversity and First-Gen Office, led workshops and consultations across the University about identity, belonging and difference. The office also hosted programs such as the Peer Facilitation Program and sponsored the academic courses PSYCH 103F: “Intergroup Communication Facilitation” and LEAD 152: “Dialogue Lab: Exploring and Cultivating Our Capacity to Engage Across Difference.”
The mission of the office was to build capacity for dialogue across differences and help community members feel belonging, according to Sihite, who has been director since 2022. From 2022 to 2024, the IBIC office led over 60 workshops and projects, and engaged over 1,300 participants, according to an IBIC pamphlet.
Sihite told The Daily that she learned the IBIC office would be dissolved and she would be laid off in a June 11 meeting with University administration. She added that the reasoning behind the decision was not conveyed clearly to her. The way the decision was communicated was one of the most “distressing” aspects of the news for Sihite.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“The reorganization decision was made to preserve and strengthen core elements of student life while anchoring and integrating them within a broader portfolio focused on student wellbeing and engagement”
There is a shining example of using many words to say nothing. True MBA-speak.
Kammy…?
Kammy…?
Kammy…?
We elected Trump precisely because he doesn’t talk like these bocas de papas.
I believe that the scientific term is “Jabberwocky”.
This is the way to do it! When schools just change the name but keep all the people, those people will keep right on doing what they’ve always done, except with a different name.
Actually getting rid of the people causing the harm is the best way to start stopping the harm.
“[Director Ester] Sihite told The Daily that she learned the IBIC office would be dissolved and she would be laid off in a June 11 meeting with University administration. She added that the reasoning behind the decision was not conveyed clearly to her. The way the decision was communicated was one of the most “distressing” aspects of the news for Sihite.” I have had to lay off people, all of whom I personally liked. There is no easy way to convey the decision but the bottom line is that everyone in the organization needs to add value. This IBIC did not seem to be adding value. I have never seen any study that concluded that the concept of DEI added value to the organization – yes it may have temporarily provided an advantage to some individuals. It was more of a sop to ameliorate some sense of misplaced guilt felt by those who had already succeeded all for an untold and unjustified cost to many people – both monetary and lost opportunities.
Smells like a Democrat, doesn’t it? “I’m bummed that I have to lay off people that I like very much just because they weren’t contributing anything.”