Broadly, that plan was developed with the idea that different spaces on campus have different needs and challenges. So each department or unit on campus has been tasked with coming up with and implementing ideas that work specifically for them. “Solutions for microclimates” is how Sellers phrased it. Some departments have incorporated diversity training into the onboarding process for faculty—but others haven’t. Some student activists think that this framework lets too many people off the hook—like those who don’t prioritize diversity—and allows them to avoid engaging. But Sellers argues that requiring people who aren’t interested in participating—or who are openly hostile to the idea—“wouldn’t be particularly effective” and might negatively affect training for everyone else. Whatever is done, he said, will be too much for some and not enough for others.

And in some ways, he argued, broadening the range of voices on campus has gotten more difficult since 2006, when Michigan voted to ban the use of race in admissions. That’s also around the time that the K-12 school system in Detroit went into steep decline. In response, the university has stepped up outreach to middle- and high-school students and their families across the state, and it has created a scholarship program for high-achieving low-income students, Sellers noted. The school is also one of the co-founders of the new American Talent Initiative, which was launched late last year to increase the number of low-income students at elite universities.

Mark Schlissel, the president of the University of Michigan, hailed those efforts over coffee on an unseasonably warm morning in Washington, D.C., recently. And while he acknowledged that there has been some pushback from students about how the diversity plan is structured, he said he “strongly believes” the microclimates structure will “distribute ownership.”

The challenges the university faces in increasing diversity are similar to struggles at other elite colleges. And, Schlissel said, they’re tied to what he sees as a public disinvestment in a common good. “You learn more from people who bring different life experiences to the table,” he said. But unless people buy into that idea, they’re not going to want to fund it. That goes for international students, too. Schlissel is concerned that the Trump administration’s new immigration order will signal to students abroad that they are not welcome, which he thinks could hurt not only research, but the mutual understanding and engagement that ultimately strengthen public safety. “If we give that up, other countries will embrace that to our detriment,” he said.

As the university president, Schlissel is fielding pushback from all sides—from some faculty and donors who think he’s moving too fast to overhaul one of the nation’s top research universities; from a faculty member and former faculty member who recently filed a lawsuit alleging that they’ve been the victims of racial discrimination and harassment (A university spokesman said in a statement, “We will vigorously defend the university against the lawsuit.”); from conservative students who thought he came across as anti-Trump at a post-election vigil (something he vehemently denied during our conversation); and from students who are members of groups like SACNAS and Students 4 Justice who want more socioeconomic and racial diversity but who have very different visions about how the school should approach the task.