The university I attend, the University of Northern Iowa, began to address racial issues that have been long-suppressed this year. In policy debates, reforms are often opposed with the sophomoric, “Why?” The question does not always lack merit, so I want to spend some time addressing one such response. The university would like to hire someone to fill a new position of chief diversity officer. Why?

There are legitimate concerns with rising administrative costs in higher education, and the coddling of students and the declining resilience of college students. These things are not all caused solely by hiring for one new position, but I grant them that a chief diversity officer would require office space and other associated costs.

One could argue that administrative costs suffer a death by a thousand cuts, with this new position adding to the burden. These may be valid counter-arguments, reasons why there should not be such a position, but the objections don’t raise the affirmative argument, which I would like to add to the debate.

Take the position of general counsel – or chief legal officer – which often reports to the chief financial officer in a business. I’m not sure why this occurs so often, though I speculate that as companies grow organically, creating a legal department and appointing a C-level legal officer occurs long after other positions. This organizational structure seems benign, but there is a problem: it could land a new CEO in jail.

Ben Horowitz, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz, wrote in his blog, “Why I Did Not Go To Jail,” a story of how an enterprising CFO’s plan to increase employee compensation with stock options almost led to him serving time. The stock option plan seemed benign, had been approved in other companies, and in these companies, the CFO made the call. A different structure in his company played a pivotal role

To guard against employees purposely or accidentally breaking the law in pursuit of their goals, I took two broad measures. First, when we started the company, Marc and I agreed that the company’s General Counsel would always report directly to me. This is different than in many technology companies where the General Counsel reports to the Chief Financial Officer. That way, there would be no way for another executive to subvert the law in pursuit of the number.

…

[CFO] Michelle ultimately served 3½ months in jail for her part in the other company’s stock option practice—the same practice that we nearly implemented at Opsware. Since we had the same head of finance, we almost certainly would have been investigated. I obviously don’t know what happened at the other company, but I do know that Michelle had no intention of breaking any laws and no idea that she’d broken any laws. The whole thing was a case of the old saying: “When the paddy wagon pulls up to the house of ill repute, it doesn’t matter what you are doing. Everybody goes to jail.” Once the SEC decided that most technology company stock option procedures were not as desired, the jail sentences were handed out arbitrarily.

In retrospect, the only thing that kept me out of jail was some good luck and an outstanding General Counsel, and the right organizational design.

A fundamental issue in organizational design is who-reports-to-who. When the general counsel is placed under the financial office, legal concerns more easily run subordinate to financial concerns.

When a university advertises itself to students, it’s easy to check the box of mentioning diversity and inclusion. It’s easy to create a committee, as our university has several, including a Diversity Advisory Committee and a Diversity Council. As I’ve written, though, “Committees Are Slow, Action Isn’t.”

These committees may be created with the best of intentions, but they’re inefficient. They don’t ensure the institution is appropriately addressing concerns from students, but they do provide cover in creating the appearance of action. The administrators on these committees hold offices which, due to their org chart, have an innate hierarchy of concerns.

Like the position technology companies have put themselves in by having the general counsel report to the financial officer, universities may fail to address endemic racism and suffer problems as my university has. That is where a chief diversity officer comes in: they are the person whose position on the org chart makes it a primary concern.

It’s fair to say that in the wake of protests across the country, addressing the concerns of minority students plays a significant role in campus climate and education. Whether this position is the best way to resolve these concerns, I can hardly say. What’s indisputable is that addressing minority student concerns is vital for maintaining an institution’s standing.

A business with no legal representation will doubtless run afoul of the law, despite good intentions. A school with no one advocating for diversity will doubtless fail to meet the needs of minority students, likewise.

If no one has the job of advocating for diversity, it won’t be done, and if it is not a C-level position, ensuring minority students are treated fairly ends up subordinate to the all-important numbers of enrollment and retention – or in private schools, the more base measure of profit.