In the latest blow to “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) programming, the University of Michigan announced earlier this month that it would no longer require DEI statements as part of hiring decisions and is considering a “broader shift” away from DEI policies.
Michigan’s reversal is particularly noteworthy because the school has been a trailblazer in the DEI space, pouring a staggering $250 million into DEI initiatives and hiring some 241 employees to work in DEI offices over the past decade. Since 2016, every graduate of the university has been forced to attend DEI trainings or produce a DEI statement, and every university “unit” is required to have a DEI plan.
The practice of requiring diversity statements in admissions and hiring, a policy employed by Michigan and a majority of other colleges and universities, has become particularly controversial following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
While the Court in that case ruled that race-based affirmative action programs violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, critics have contended that requiring “diversity statements” is a loophole for administrators to still consider the race of applicants when making decisions for admission or hiring. As detailed by The Chronicle of Higher Education, job candidates are often eliminated from consideration based solely on their diversity statements.
DEI advocates have long insisted that DEI requirements promote a “sense of belonging” and make everything from university campuses to private businesses more “welcoming” for minorities. But a bombshell New York Times investigative report into Michigan’s DEI regime released this October points to precisely the opposite conclusion.
“In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members across the board reported a less positive campus climate than at the [DEI] program’s start and less of a sense of belonging,” the Times notes. “Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics—the exact kind of engagement DEI programs, in theory, are meant to foster.”
Far from promoting a sense of community on campus, Michigan’s aggressive DEI programming coincided with an explosion in race and gender-based tensions. “Everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements are now cast as crises of inclusion and harm,” the Times writes, stating that DEI has “helped fuel a culture of grievance.”
Perhaps most damningly of all, Michigan’s quarter-of-a-billion-dollar investment in DEI hasn’t even led to an uptick in Black enrollment – a major stated goal of the program. In a state where 14 percent of the population is Black, the percentage of Black students at the school has remained largely stagnant.
Following the initial Times report in October, Michigan said that it had no plans to back down from its support for DEI. Less than two months later, however, the university has done just that. Along with removing the requirement for diversity statements, Michigan reportedly plans to shift a significant portion of its DEI budget “into recruitment programs and tuition guarantees for lower-income students.”
Michigan is hardly alone in its shift away from DEI. In 2023, public university systems in Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin all stopped requiring diversity statements. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences have also discontinued the practice.
The University of North Carolina system, headquartered in Chapel Hill, will also no longer require each school to submit annual DEI reports, and the board recently voted to divert $2.3 million away from DEI programs. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill last year banning DEI programs on state college campuses. In Florida, the state government passed a law limiting public funding for DEI, resulting in the University of Florida system gutting its DEI program.
Even outside of the education space, DEI appears to be in retreat. Walmart recently announced that it will be rolling back its DEI policies. Along with not renewing a five-year commitment for a so-called “racial equity center” the world’s largest employer also will no longer give priority treatment to suppliers based on race and sex. Walmart also told The Associated Press that the company will better monitor its third-party marketplace items to make sure they don’t feature sexual and transgender products aimed at minors.
Other major American companies, including Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s, and Tractor Supply have also reversed course on their DEI policies after facing intense backlash from customers.
After years in which DEI was a seemingly untouchable force in American culture, these developments suggest conservatives may finally be turning the tide in the war on woke.
Andrew Shirley is a veteran speechwriter and AMAC Newsline columnist. His commentary can be found on X at @AA_Shirley.
As one would say in the military “About time we unf**k this!” Maybe we will start hiring qualified people based on ability, experience, knowledge, etc . . . Instead of gender (how many of those do “they” have?) and ethnicity. DEI needs to go away completely.
Walking away from merit-based hiring just blows my mind! If a Democrat had a spouse or a child in need of critical surgery, would they select the surgeon that checked all of the Dei boxes or would they select surgeon that was most qualified to perform the operation? The lives of their spouse or children hang in the balance. Their answer tells you what’s right and what’s wrong.
If anyone wonders where “Luigi” got radicalized, look at the school he went to.
Maybe common sense is making a comeback! Obama’s “fundamentally change America” policy nearly destroyed it.
Bad news for DEI. Good news for the rest of us.????
We all know that when discussing diversity in hiring, or equity or inclusion, if you asked how many conservatives have you hired as professors or administrators or have you solicited to be students, that measurement would be irrelevant. If we checked the percentage of conservatives, it would be mighty low. So much for DEI.
Victory for US
Bad news for DEI is good news for everybody else.
Presenting my not surprised face here.
Reading this article again makes me think that I sure wish I had a quarter billion dollars to just pi$$ away. That’s what U of Michigan did. Oh well, we’ll just raise tuition to cover it. The paying dummies won’t notice it.
It’s about time these colleges and universities stop screwing with our children’s minds.
I’m all for diversity, but not at the expense of losing talented people. A certain level should be implemented. I personally find that having diverse people and talent helps growth.
As far as Equity, as long as they are deserving, than so be it. But it should be quantitative and fair.
As far as Inclusion, I know I’ve had to basically make myself known. If people want to be included, speak up!
Finally , no school or university should be spending millions to jump on the ‘weirdo’ bandwagon. Put that money to good use to lower tuitions, costs and other fees.
It’s good that DEI has gone to die, and was a fairly short lived experiment. These universities spent so much money implementing this travesty, one would hope tuition could go down, or at least spent more wisely.
About time!
DEI also means – Didn’t Earn It.
The other day I was talking to someone who told me her son was working in the DEI dept of our state university. I hadn’t realized that there were depts to this movement at universities or businesses. And for almost a decade. DEI like CRT like any other cultural or moral reform cannot be legislated. In order to reach equity they allow stealing up to 999 dollars before being charged or arrested. One benefits but there also a hurt party, suffering a loss. How is that equity or unifying. What does it help by calling an overpass, trees or bridges racist. Who does that benefit. Nobody, maybe the person that says it. It might sound impressive. But if nothing happens then you only gave a voice to more division. And that is what the democrats are doing to this country. DEI doesn’t work. Let society settle this. In time people will get along all on their own. But if you order people under threat of punishment to act a certain way. You are starting a war, at least resentment.