On Thursday, the University of Michigan announced that it will “no longer solicit diversity statements as part of faculty hiring, promotion and tenure” — a welcome move that is an early indication that administrators are already hearing the footsteps of Donald Trump.
Universities have been among the most vocal proponents of the divisive DEI ideology, evident in their passionate defenses of racially discriminatory admissions policies and expansive offices filled with bureaucrats who conduct “sensitivity trainings.” Trump has pledged some unforgiving interventions, including reforming the accreditation system and “taxing, fining, and suing” universities. Now, even before the new administration has been sworn in, some of the institutions that celebrated DEI have withdrawn their support — at least a tiny bit.
At Michigan, which embraced DEI ideology as much as any other school, the university did not previously have an institution-wide policy on DEI statements in hiring, which allowed units of the university to solicit such statements. The provost’s decision to move away from them follows a recommendation set forth by an eight-member faculty group in October, which suggested that such statements limit free expression and diversity of thought on campus; the working group wrote that “critics of diversity statements perceive them as expressions of personal identity traits, support of specific ideology or opinions on socially-relevant issues, and . . . a ‘litmus test’ of whether a faculty member’s views are politically acceptable.”
We agree: Requiring a DEI-themed statement for hiring, promotion, tenure, or admission is nothing short of compelled progressive speech that can be weaponized against those who are deemed insufficiently left-leaning. Hopefully, the lack of such forced ideological declarations will allow a greater range of opinions to flourish on campus. But though we’re glad to see the University of Michigan pursue the right policy, there’s plenty more work to be done.
When the institution announced its new stance on diversity statements, it still clung to progressivism: “Diversity, equity and inclusion are three of our core values at the university,” the provost said, adding that “our collective efforts in this area have produced important strides in opening opportunities for all people.” Even though DEI statements might have been axed for faculty positions, the university itself has clearly established strong institutional support for the woke agenda.
Thankfully, the University of Michigan has taken a small step in the right direction when other institutions have doubled down; shortly after the election, the president of Wesleyan University condemned some of Trump’s promised policies and stated that the school will not voluntarily assist in any federal deportation efforts. But we shouldn’t celebrate the University of Michigan too soon: Sometimes, the higher education institutions simply rebrand their progressive policies to practice them more subtly and escape public scrutiny. For example, Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences said this summer that it would no longer require diversity statements for hiring, but at least some of its tenure-track positions ask for a “service statement” that “describes efforts to strengthen academic communities,” which surely has the same ideological function of requiring a DEI endorsement.
But there are universities that have more admirably fought against the progressive agenda and undertaken much greater efforts — like the University of Florida, which “closed the Office of the Chief Diversity Officer, eliminated DEI positions and administrative appointments, and halted DEI-focused contracts with outside vendors.” Similarly, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has slashed funding for DEI and made great strides in promoting academic freedom. So, while we welcome the University of Michigan’s modest improvement, we urge all universities to pursue much more sweeping efforts, beginning with dismantling the DEI offices entirely.