The University of Chicago’s Independent Student Newspaper since 1892

Chicago Maroon

The University of Chicago’s Independent Student Newspaper since 1892

Chicago Maroon

The University of Chicago’s Independent Student Newspaper since 1892

Chicago Maroon

In Defense of Nuance: Part Two

Our administration and faculty enforce submission to DEI. This dehumanizes underrepresented minorities and defies UChicago’s core values.
Christopher Friis

Editor’s note: This piece is one part of a two-part critique on DEI efforts within academia, political spaces, and broader society. Part one can be read here on The Chicago Maroon.

Free expression is the essence of UChicago. President Harper declared this in his 1902 address marking the University’s decennial, and his successors have advanced this idea ad nauseum in the decades since. Furthermore, this fact has been enshrined in two ways: by the Kalven report, a seminal document within academia that sets forth the importance of institutional neutrality on political and social issues; and by the Chicago Principles, which constitute a framework affirming the importance of open discourse on university campuses. 

I came to campus seeking refuge in Harper’s ideals. I expected to discover the haven for free expression advertised by former dean of students John Ellison: where ideas were exchanged freely, diverse perspectives flourished, and intellectual growth was nurtured in the absence of “safe spaces.” Instead, I have found the ruins of this distinctive place: a graveyard for the vestiges of Harper’s vision, brimming with monuments to free expression but bereft of its spirit. Responsible for this destruction is our administration and faculty’s enforcement of a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) regime.


There are many competing conceptions of DEI, most of which are influenced by politics. As such, it is worth clarifying the form of DEI at issue in this critique.

What is not the focus here is the DEI of yesterday; that DEI amounted to diversity, equality, and inclusion. It was born from the legal term “affirmative action,” first used in Executive Order 10925, which states government contractors must “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly]…without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” DEI matured into adolescence with later legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Notably, at no point in its youth did DEI authorize group preferences—a prospect one of its fathers, Hubert Humphrey, warned against.

Today’s DEI, the focus of this piece, is unrecognizable from its younger self. To be realized, this bastardized DEI (hereafter “DEI”) requires radical, corrective action against racial inequity. This entails legitimizing racism on the basis of consequentialism, that is, normalizing a belief that the (ephemeral) end goal of equity warrants discrimination against non-underrepresented minorities (URMs). Quotaism instantiates this philosophy. Put another way, DEI is a mandate to discriminate in disguise; it is unlawful segregationist ideology masquerading as inclusivity. It does not demand equality but a Nietzschean inversion of power dynamics that renders imagined oppressors the oppressed. 

White Knights of URMs (WURMs) and their ilk are responsible for the perversion of DEI. These are well-meaning but hypocritical individuals who advance their emotional and material interests at the expense of others. They do so from a self-assumed moral high ground. Reasoning with WURMs is futile; they do not participate in reality. Instead, their minds are trapped in a fiction wherein URMs are hopelessly stuck in the Jim Crow era. 

To that end, WURMs engineered DEI to be a means of catharsis. Through it, they have established a value system that ascribes URMs’ deficiencies to omnipotent bogeymans, such as systemic racism. WURMs did this to psychologically enslave us. They do not want URMs to have mental agency, for us to consider ourselves as their equals—hence they were not satisfied with diversity, equality, and inclusion. Instead, they want control: to force URMs to internalize a victim mentality, position themselves as our saviors, and thereby absolve themselves of guilt they have assumed for the distant past. 

Put bluntly, DEI is selfish. It scapegoats the external world for URMs’ failings (e.g., wealthy and educated groups—namely, whites and Asians) so WURMs can satiate their savior complex.

Moreover, WURMs’ race worship has sociological consequences. For one, it renders URMs paranoid; DEI conditions URMs to imagine oppression where it does not exist, to see adversaries in potential allies by interpreting every interaction through the lens of racial conflict. Jussie Smollett and Bubba Wallace are testaments to this psychosis. Furthermore, not only does DEI distract from the causes of inequality and cheapen our accomplishments with a badge of inferiority, but it also undermines mutual respect between races. How can overrepresented groups respect URMs when we have cheated to get onto campus? Ultimately, DEI is as unfair to us as it is to those it discriminates against.

Despite this, academia enforces DEI through several mechanisms. Ideologically-motivated hiring practices are one of them. A 2021 study found that 68 percent of a representative sample of higher education faculty job postings included the terms “diversity” or “diverse” in some fashion. A further one-fifth of advertisements required applicants to write statements supporting diversity, with evidence suggesting this practice is becoming routine. These and other ideological litmus tests repel candidates opposed to DEI dogma, thereby rendering universities DEI indoctrination mills. Given this, is it any wonder why Americans’ confidence in higher education is at historic lows?

Discriminatory admissions practices are academia’s favorite method of enforcing DEI. Data from the Association of Medical Colleges shows that Black medical school applicants are more than nine times more likely than Asians and more than seven times more likely than whites with similar GPA and MCAT scores to be admitted. Another study found that the admit rates for typical Black applicants to Harvard are, on average, over four times higher than if they had been treated as white. Furthermore, racial preferences resulted in an over 70 percent increase in the African American admit rate for in-state applicants to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. For out-of-state applicants, the increase was more than tenfold. These facts are damning evidence that DEI holds URMs to inferior standards in academia, rendering us statistically likely to be less competent than our overrepresented peers.  Claudine Gay, Harvard’s disgraced president who plagiarized her research, and other charlatans from URMs in academia who wield power despite their deficiencies, are proof. 

In sum, DEI is a destructive ideology that manipulates racial dynamics for the benefit of a select few under the guise of altruism. It renders victimhood a virtue, pits races against each other, and enforces disparate standards in academia to the detriment of overrepresented groups and URMs alike.


As Professor Dorian Abbot remarked in 2021, nearly every decision on college campuses—from admissions, to course content, to pedagogy—is made through the lens of DEI ideology. UChicago is no exception. While our administration does not claim to practice brazen forms of discrimination such as quotaism, it fosters DEI in other ways. Faculty are complicit in this cause. The result of this concerted effort is twofold: URMs on campus are dehumanized in the aforementioned ways, and the University’s commitment to free expression is eroded.

Identity-based hiring and pedagogy philosophies are two of the University’s DEI mechanisms. Consider the Office of the Provost’s DEI planning material. This propaganda handbook exists to “improve hiring and promotion practices” in departments so they can achieve their “diversity and inclusion goals.” Among its other mandates, it instructs departments to “Consider the role of race in the curriculum and the experience of Black people in the classroom” and “Consider the diversity of [their] leadership team[s]. If [they are] not diverse, then consider [their] recruitment and hiring practices.” It is demonstrably true that these directives entail unlawfully discriminating against overrepresented groups: recently, the social science research institute NORC at the University settled with more than 100 Asian job applicants after the U.S. Department of Labor found it engaged in hiring discrimination against them in favor of hiring more Hispanic applicants. Moreover, the University’s Inclusive Pedagogy website presents a methodology for faculty to tailor their teaching to comply with DEI. For instance, beneath a breakdown of UChicago’s racial and ethnic demographics, it instructs faculty to “be proactive” by choosing course content created by people of “different backgrounds” to make URMs feel special. 

The most egregious instances of DEI on campus are institutionalized. Two examples of this are the Office of the Provost’s Diversity and Inclusion division and the Center for Identity + Inclusion. These serve as the University’s ministries of DEI propaganda, mechanisms for it to enforce DEI ideology on campus through patronizing, token gestures like inclusion workshops and segregated congregations for Black students. The WURMs of these bureaus collude with “diversity liaisons” from departments across the university to advance DEI. They also conspire with other institutions via the Faculty Advancement Network to advance radical reforms in the name of DEI, namely by “reimagin[ing] the norms, structures, policies, and programs that shape university cultures and the academic workforce.” 

Finally, the Admissions Office can be considered a bastion of DEI on campus1. It is no secret that the University factors race into its admissions decisions in line with other private institutions, a practice confirmed by its 2021–2022 Common Data Set submission. The University does not disclose test score statistics for the race of its admits. However, if the *Maroon’s* Class of 2020 survey is any indication, it is likely the University has maintained disparate test score standards for applicants based on race for years. This is unsurprising given the NORC debacle. 

Ultimately, there are countless methods through which the University enforces DEI. While they may seem trivial in isolation, their sum effect has grave implications. Each of the University’s DEI tools is related by their function: to enact ideological conformity. To that end, DEI is incompatible with UChicago’s tenets because it is didactic; to be realized, DEI demands psychological submission to its ideals, and teaching students what to think rather than how. This is antithetical to the University’s purported commitments to neutrality and free expression. 

The Freedom of Expression Committee Report (FECR) plainly states that “it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” And yet, the aforementioned mechanisms to regulate thought on campus clearly do this. By framing diversity and inclusivity as moral imperatives, conditioning faculty to impose them, and erecting departments to reify them, the University has created an environment that demands conformity to DEI. While this climate welcomes aesthetic diversity, it is hostile toward intellectual diversity.

Moreover, in addition to desecrating the FECR, the University’s enforcement of DEI also contradicts the Kalven report. This document demands that “the university [be] the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” The University has defied this principle by enforcing DEI. Administrators and faculty routinely act as self-anointed “critics” on behalf of the University by endorsing or otherwise furthering DEI, thereby chilling diverse thought. This is instantiated by the endorsement of hundreds of UChicago educators for anti-Israel protestors who recently occupied campus and the die-in many of them recently staged. The ideological bias of University educators is further demonstrated by the English Department’s endorsement of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and its decision to only accept applications “interested in working in and with Black Studies” during the 2020–21 Ph.D. graduate admissions cycle. Advocating such beliefs in one’s personal life is one thing. Doing so when acting as representatives of the University violates institutional neutrality by aligning the University with an ideological agenda. As a result, students cannot feel confident that they can explore, debate, and develop their ideas without fear of institutional retribution.

The University’s ideological bias is yet further revealed by the double standards it maintains regarding free expression. Consider the administration’s response to the siege of campus by anti-Israel protesters; in a show of the administration’s partisanship, Alivisatos permitted the encampment to remain for over a week despite conceding it violated University policy. Furthermore, last year, faculty and administrators fiercely defended pro-DEI radical Professor Rebecca Journey and her anti-white rhetoric by invoking the Chicago Principles. Meanwhile, many of them decry critics of DEI on or invited to campus like Bret Stephens—in some instances, like in the case of Richard Spencer, denying them opportunities to speak

Our administration’s explicit endorsements of DEI also prove how it acts as a “critic” of thought. Consider Provost Katherine Baicker’s December 18 email to the University community regarding results from last May’s Campus Climate Survey, in which she writes, “[The administration’s] longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion is crucial to promoting a culture of free expression by fostering an environment where different perspectives are valued and respected.” This statement has two implications. First, much like the University’s DEI bureaus, it proves that the University is distracted—that its priorities have shifted from upholding this place’s distinctive culture to openly defying it in pursuit of, in Baicker’s own words, “diversity and inclusion.” Second, and more concerningly, it reveals how our administration distorts the University’s core values to advance DEI. 

The administration attempts to reconcile its ideological bias with the Kalven and Chicago principles by asserting that DEI promotes “a culture of free expression.” This claim is both unfounded and self-contradictory. Free expression necessitates an environment where diverse perspectives are welcomed and debated on equal footing, not where a singular ideology is “valued and respected” over others. 

This is all to suggest that the University is no longer a “home and sponsor” of critics as the Kalven report mandates. Instead, it has become a critic that only sponsors WURMs. Though the administration may not mandate statements endorsing DEI like other institutions, it repeatedly signals its support for ideological homogeneity. This has proven effective in attracting like-minded faculty. As the encampments have shown, such bias from UChicago’s leadership has also enabled identity-obsessed outrage to supplant critical and independent thought among students and faculty alike. No longer a place of learning, our university has been turned into a daycare, replete with safe spaces (in both the literal and figurative sense) to coddle the minds of self-proclaimed victims. 

The professors who recently published an op-ed advocating DEI in the *Maroon* further demonstrate how UChicago’s core values are bastardized by WURMs on campus. Fortunately, their simplistic reasoning presents obvious flaws:

  1. The professors argue that DEI promotes rigorous inquiry because it corrects for historical biases, thereby ensuring academia can attract “top talent.” This assertion is unfounded. DEI efforts do not inherently attract “top talent” because they prioritize aesthetics over skill; for example, they ignore objective metrics of academic preparedness, such as SAT scores, in the name of equity. Best among a demographic is not best among all. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that diversity for the sake of it does not yield material benefits.
  2. The professors dismiss colorblind/merit-based policies as “pure fiction” because they cannot provide a “full picture of the true potential of a candidate.” At a minimum, colorblind/merit-based policies humanize people by recognizing that “true potential” is decided by more than race. The same cannot be said for the DEI policies that the professors advocate, which presume that one’s ability to self-actualize is captured by their skin color. Such thinking aligns with race realist ideology that posits race, an innate characteristic, determines potential. (If the professors identify with race realism—if they believe there is an inherent genetic basis for between-group variations in intelligence—then they ought to provide evidence in support of it.)
  3. The professors dismiss criticism that DEI policies are “ideological, political, discriminatory, [or] patronizing” by asserting such policies “are uncontroversial and effective tools that represent standard practices that are widely implemented in academia and industry.” These are not factual assessments. The idea that DEI is not discriminatory is unfounded, given evidence is abundant that it discriminates against whites and Asians—particularly in university admissions. Furthermore, the claim that DEI policies are “uncontroversial” because they are “widely implemented” is false. Many in academia object to DEI but suppress their views for fear of persecution. Consider former Georgetown professor Sandra Seller, who was fired for remarking that her Black students performed objectively worse academically than their non-Black peers. 
  4. The professors assert the results of scientific inquiry “should not depend on the person pursuing the science.” This statement contradicts their rationale for supporting DEI. Why do they fixate on the race of “the person pursuing the science” throughout their piece if that is supposedly irrelevant?

Strip away the sophistry and flowery prose, and it is clear that arguments defending DEI at UChicago and elsewhere in academia are meritless. Even if one disagrees with DEI being political in nature, the lengths our faculty and administration go to enforce it cultivates homogenous thought. This is antithetical to the University’s core values.


Ironically, the Universities of Wisconsin System (UW) upholds the Chicago and Kalven principles better than UChicago. Recently, it froze hiring for diversity positions, dropped an affirmative action faculty hiring initiative at UW-Madison, and created a position at the flagship campus focused on conservative thought as a counterbalance for the DEI sentiments on its campuses. MIT has recently followed in UW’s footsteps by banning diversity statements. If UChicago is to live up to Harper’s vision, it must do likewise. 

Administrators and faculty must stop enforcing DEI under the pretext that the ephemeral objectives of equity justify desecrating the University’s core values. Our administration must pursue what Professor Abbott calls Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE): “evidence-based and non-ideological” projects, whereby students and faculty are treated as individuals and evaluated on qualifications alone. This entails re-instating a mandatory standardized test score policy for applicants, a practice that recent research has shown yields substantial predictive power for academic success in college. It also requires leveling criminal charges against administrators and faculty who continue to defy the law through race-conscious practices.

The University has already implemented MFE in part via merit scholarships. I argue that similar initiatives geared toward underprivileged applicants (e.g., the Odyssey Scholars program) are equally as important and logically consistent with MFE—providing they do not consider race or gender. Should Alivisatos refuse to fully commit the University to MFE, then he must be ousted by UChicago’s Board of Trustees. Otherwise, the Board will have failed in its responsibility of enabling the University to “fulfill its mission for current and future generations.” The University’s mission is first and foremost to uphold its values contained in the Kalven report and the FECR. Alivisatos has defied both in permitting DEI to tyrannize free inquiry and expression on our campus. He must be held accountable. 

The supremacy of MFE is an inevitability; it will prevail at UChicago and elsewhere in academia with or without WURMs’ surrender. In outlawing affirmative action, the Roberts Court has enabled MFE to flourish by initiating the second-greatest emancipation in America’s history—one that it will see through over the next several decades it remains in power. WURMs can either submit to MFE now or have their legacies be irrevocably sullied by their complicity in perpetuating a racist regime as MFE ascends.

Moreover, the pursuit of MFE is neither ideological nor political. Rather, it is a dispassionate remedy to emancipate academia’s marketplace of ideas and humanize everyone in its ranks. For all their differences, proponents and opponents of DEI share a common ground: a desire for fairness. Ultimately, at stake in the fight against DEI is both Harper’s vision and solutions for URMs to achieve true equality in society at large.

Author Footnotes:

  1. The Chinese refer to these people as baizuo.
  2. WURMs cite last June’s Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling restricting race-based admissions in academia as proof that DEI has been eradicated from academia. Do not be fooled by this shameless attempt to trivialize DEI’s racist nature. While June’s SCOTUS decision restricted race-based admissions, they were not eliminated; universities continue to consider race in other ways to smuggle us onto their campuses, such as via application essays. Academia’s racist DEI regime is alive and well, albeit increasingly clandestine.
  3. Consider her planned course entitled “The Problem of Whiteness,” which the University approved and scheduled before public outcry led to it being postponed
  4. In 2015, the mean score on the math section of the SAT for all test-takers was 511 out of 800. The average scores for Black (428) and Latino (457) students were significantly below those of white (534) and Asian (598) students.
  5. One argument against colorblind programs that consider economic standing is that they can be exploited to manufacture aesthetic diversity in the same way as affirmative action. The question of whether that happens in practice warrants its own article.
View Comments (25)
Donate to Chicago Maroon
Our Goal

Your donation makes the work of student journalists of University of Chicago possible and allows us to continue serving the UChicago and Hyde Park community.

More to Discover
Donate to Chicago Maroon
Our Goal

Comments (25)

All Chicago Maroon Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • A

    ANGRY ASIAN / Jun 19, 2024 at 4:02 am

    As a woman, and a woman of color, I find this piece deeply offensive. I call on the Maroon to take it down immediately.


    FINALLY, good writing. None of that wishy-washy, airheaded, bourgeoise, insipid, purple prose drivel to pander to second-rate pruning white academics that the paper churns out most of the year. More of this. Less pseudo-intellectual fodder.

    “Put bluntly, DEI is selfish. It scapegoats the external world for URMs’ failings (e.g., wealthy and educated groups—namely, whites and Asians) so WURMs can satiate their savior complex.”

    EXACTLY. No one has a monopoly on talent. Optics and skill are mutually exclusive interests. Pick one. If one wants success, one must earn it. No handouts. No whining.

    Discrepancies aren’t indicative of “systemic” uhpresshun but of bad culture. I come from a single parent household. My mother has worked two jobs my entire life. Yet I’m supposed to sacrifice and put up with segregationist BS because some pissant white men want to atone for their past and let mediocrities who don’t even value academics flood in because of their pigment? Yeah, I don’t think so.

    F DEI.
    I am not your wedge.
    Earn your accomplishments like the rest of us.

    DEI is anti-Asian, and so is anyone who supports it.

  • C

    Current student / Jun 16, 2024 at 6:33 am

    “ How can overrepresented groups respect URMs when we have cheated to get onto campus?”
    we WANT to trust them but our encounters with them prevent that. Anecdotally, Too many spout incoherent bile during seminars/office hours. Are thoughtless/sloppy with group work. Glorify slacking off. Etc. etc. they treat their academics as a game. It just seems they aren’t equipped for how demanding this place is, at least the one’s I’ve encountered. I bet if you performed some statistical analysis of their academic performance this’d be confirmed. i’m sure most professors here have realized this by now but are too cowardly to speak up. That professor being fired at Georgetown is a perfect example as to why

    Ofc I don’t mean to generalize. Many are hardworking, capable…you know, the bare minimum of admits. But there are exceptions to every rule–those are the exceptions. And the thing with stereotypes is that there’s truth to all of them even if we don’t like it.

    Not sure how I feel about the race realist implications in this piece/in the comments (“deficiencies” was a…curious choice?). i’m honestly not educated enough on heritability/intelligence studies to pass judgement…it may be their underporframnce is an innate consequence rather than a cultural one. I wish there was more discussion abt that (part 3 maybe??).

    I wonder if there are any professors on campus who research the intersection of race, intelligence, and Economics rather than just race and Economics. Like economic outcomes being a function of one’s race?

  • U

    UC Parent of one / Jun 15, 2024 at 8:54 am

    I resonate with the anger of the author and many of the commenters, and I’m pleased the Maroon has allowed such a deeply insightful (if provocative) piece to be published. One doesn’t often read perspectives from minorities who are critical of DEI.

    Alivisatos, Baicker, and the other woke shills at the University need to stop pretending that DEI is some noble cause and call it what it really is: a systematic effort to undermine the standards that have driven progress and innovation for generations. Without a dramatic course correction, we’re all going to pay the price for this misguided social experiment for decades to come.

    I have a daughter who was fortunate enough to be admitted to the university despite its racism against the white race. My other two weren’t so fortunate. Perfect on paper. Perfect extracurriculars. Valedictorians in their respective years. Countless awards, national and a few international. And yet they were waitlisted. Meanwhile, middling URMs in our district (I found out their test scores and accolades; they were only in the top 10%, while my kids were in the top 1%) were admitted with scholarships. The Harvard and UCLA scandals validate my suspicion that academia hates white people.

    Academia is crumbling under the weight of this forced diversity, driven by an agenda that rewards anything but genuine achievement. The only salvation lies in a complete overhaul of academia’s political landscape, where rational minds can restore sanity, reject the DEI dogma, and liberate us from this dystopian nightmare of enforced equality. Without such a seismic shift, we are doomed to spiral further into a vortex of mediocrity and social decay, driven by the relentless march of an ideology that prioritizes identity over competence and division over unity.

    Alivisatos needs to be that change. What is he waiting for? M.I.T. puts UC’s commitment to the Kelvan values to shame.

  • G

    Grad student / Jun 15, 2024 at 4:32 am

    Correct, as implied, DEI is an admission that progressives consider minorities genetically inferior. If there isn’t a genetic basis to between group variation in intelligence, why do the phenotypic IQ scores align so closely with polygenic scores derived purely from comparing allele frequencies between populations?

  • G

    Grad student / Jun 15, 2024 at 4:27 am

    Rational immigration quotas must be imposed which assess the merit of migrants both financially and socially, the analyses required are incredibly complex and can be eased by applying group based data to the individual from pre-existing knowledge regarding country of origin, ethnicity, educational attainment etc from which we can actually evaluate individual merit. Aggregating immigration as a unidimensional variable without considering its other implications is also foolish, there are numerous factors to consider when granting residency, and country of origin/ethnicity plays a major role in fiscal impact, and this doesn’t even touch the social implications. As for the domestics, unfortunately there is little that can be done without a Republican-controlled executive and legislature, as citizenship precludes the mass deportation of welfare recipients, hence DEI regimes will persist so long as SCOTUS continues its permissive approach to mediocrity and tokenism, providing of course its victims (that is, overrepresented groups) do not riot for their rights and continue to submit to the wokerati

  • Y

    youknowmyemail / Jun 14, 2024 at 4:16 am

    angry woke bleeding heart feminist she-professors deserve to be institutionalized for 80 years.

  • L

    leah / Jun 14, 2024 at 4:13 am

    midwits and idiots control the dialogue, and this is particularly pronounced among leftists, who worship the mediocre (DEI URM tokenites). this may sound pejorative, but this is a tendency I have witnessed as diagnosed by an outsider. intelligent leftists who read the theory know the right answers to the question, but most people simply parrot trendy dialogue they’ve heard on Youtube and Twitter. this is why “coconut island” analogies make up over half the capitalist critiques on campus. intelligent leftists who read the theory know the right answers to the question, but most people simply parrot trendy dialogue they’ve heard on Youtube and Twitter. this is why woke sosc professors adore “coconut island” analogies

  • M

    marcus w / Jun 11, 2024 at 7:48 pm

    How are they doing in America?
    High crime, poverty, low achievement.

    How are they doing in Europe?
    High crime, poverty, low achievement.

    How are they doing in South America?
    High crime, poverty, low achievement.

    How are they doing in Africa?
    High crime, poverty, low achievement.

    At what point do we start to recognize a common theme?

    • K

      kamala harris / Jun 14, 2024 at 4:26 am

      has anyone asked themselves why we uncritically accept the notion that diversity is valuable? canada is in crisis due to lax immigration laws. the right is reigning over europe as more become disillusioned with shelling out to migrants. the US has been in steady decline ever since the the concept of equity appeared in the public conscience. we never hear about such turmoil in homogenous societies like Asia or honestly many parts of Africa. multiculturalism isn’t the answer; it’s the problem.

  • M

    Marcus White / Jun 10, 2024 at 4:29 am

    I agree with everything written here.

    I know of people who refuse to be seen by Latino or Black physicians on account of the fact they’re likely to be DEI hires. The footnote linking to the UCLA medical school scandal validates their mistrust. I personally would be uncomfortable being treated by one of them. That is not because I’m “racist,” but because I live in the world of facts and statistics. And the reality is that all Latinos and Blacks are DEI beneficiaries whether they agreed to be or not; hence, it is impossible for them to be as skilled as their white and Asian colleagues. I’d wager most people feel this way, but are too scared to admit it. Even the most ardent white-knight would struggle with the idea of entrusting their life to a DEI heart surgeon. My personal encounters with those people when I was a student and also in my work life have only validated my reservations about them. No one can hold them responsible these days. We can’t say a word about the “irresponsibility and destruction of the single-parent black family, high black incarceration rate and the perennial dependence on food stamps for more than 150 years since the Civil War, no encouragement of black youth to complete high school and beyond, high crime rate, teenage pregnancy, broken families etc.”—as one astute commenter remarked under another article—without being called “racist” or “bigoted.” No accountability. No responsibility. On the one hand, I pity them. On the other hand, I suspect many of them take advantage of DEI just for the sake of harming the white race as retribution. These days it’s racist to advocate white rights. White pride is racist but somehow black and Latino pride isn’t. Why should I feel ashamed for who I am? Why is the university instilling students with a belief that anti-white prejudice is something to be celebrated?

    I enjoyed your discussion about DEI and the Kalven/Chicago values. I agree that the administration has bastardized both to accommodate DEI ideology. I also agree that criminal charges are needed and that Alivisatos is failing the university’s mores. It’s interesting that the administration does not disclose test score demographics. Why? What is it afraid of?

    Fun fact: Did you know that only 1.6% of US citizens owned slaves in 1860, when slavery was at its peak?

  • S

    Strongly Minded Jew / Jun 9, 2024 at 6:45 pm

    “Claudine Gay, Harvard’s disgraced president who plagiarized her research, and other charlatans from URMs in academia who wield power despite their deficiencies…”

    This point deserved further discussion. The leader of the most elite institution in the world was found to have been a fraud. Most everyone in Harvard’s ranks defended her when her deficiencies were exposed. This raises serious concerns about the integrity of higher education in our country, or lack thereof. What does it say about the priorities of our educational leaders when maintaining an image or fulfilling diversity quotas takes precedence over genuine merit and integrity? How does this affect the credibility of academic research and the trust the public places in scholarly work? If the gatekeepers of knowledge and education can excuse or defend unethical behavior, what assurance do we have that the information disseminated from these institutions is reliable and unbiased? Oh, and the reason Gay wasn’t ousted like her antisemitic buddy at UPenn? She wasn’t expendable enough. Being Black AND a woman made her practically invincible.

    The fact is that DEI is not only racist, but it’s also antisemitic. Why is it that guardians of antisemitism in academia like Gay aren’t held accountable for the rampant antisemitism on their campuses?

    • M

      MW / Jun 10, 2024 at 4:33 am

      Leftoids don’t actually care about Palestine they just hate Israel because they view the Jews as white and the country of Israel as a western aligned American colony in land with pigmented people, and they hate the western civilization and white people so they’ll naturally hate any nation that’s western/western aligned

  • J

    JJ / Jun 9, 2024 at 3:16 pm

    If a white person…
    Moves out? -> white flight -> RACISM
    Moves in? -> gentrification -> RACISM
    Doesn’t see color? -> ignoring racism -> RACISM
    DOesn’t partake in culture? -> Non-inclusive -> RACISM
    Engages in culture? -> cultural appropriation -> RACISM
    Diversity is a codeword for…well…you get it
    “Inclusion” is the exclusion of white
    “Equity” means stealing from whites
    Ask yourself: who are the real racists?
    Boers. Rhodesia. That is our fate. It is NOT a conspiracy. Wisen up.

  • J

    Joe / Jun 9, 2024 at 2:54 pm

    Code words
    DEI – Diversity, Excuses, and Ineptitude (or…if you prefer, DIDN’T EARN IT!!)
    WOKE – Willingly Oblivious to Known Evidence
    INCLUSION – Instantly Nullifies Collective Logic Upon Simple Implementation, Often Nonsensical
    EQUITY – Everyone’s Questionably Underachieving, Inducing Terrible Yawns
    ALLY – Always Louder, Less Yielding
    SAFE SPACE – Silencing All Free Expression, Shutting People’s Actual Critical Evaluation
    CULTURE FIT – Completely Useless Label To Unnecessarily Reject Everyone Familiar In Thought
    SOCIAL JUSTICE – Seriously Overhyping Collective Incompetence And Legal Jargon Undermining Simple Truths, Including Common Equity
    TRIGGER WARNING – Temporarily Releasing Irrational General Grievances Everywhere, Rendering Whiny Adults Really Needy, Increasing Nervousness Generally

    Wake up from woke!!

  • K

    Karen L / Jun 8, 2024 at 9:08 pm

    ’89 alumnus
    I was forwarded this on Facebook. I’m very happy I decided to click…thoughtful. Engaging. Eloquent. You attacked this issue with grace. I’m incredibly impressed

    The silent majority stands with everything written here <3 thank you for your courage. Chicago is a liberal dump. My proudest accomplishment is making it out of there with my 100% American morals intact. I’m a proud housewife and mother of three and I would never imagine sending my children to that woke cesspool. My husband graduated from Booth and he feels the same. We have not donated a cent to the university since we found out it has been overrun by woke idiots

    As you point out it’s high time some people learned their place in this world. DEI BS has gone on far enough. It’s like a cancer. The blacks and latinos are failing out of the affirmative action mills they’ve been admitted to. Some people just are Not suited for higher education. Why can’t we accept that? Why must we force them? Because evidently certain people are better off with meaningless pursuits like basketball and shoot-em-up games, leeching off society, becoming absentee parents, etc. it’s a cultural issue. I don’t know if it’s innate as you imply, but I do hold white bleeding hearts like Baicker and Alivisatos and Biden accountable for inspiring that entitlement. “Gee! I can put in minimal effort and get maximal reward!”

    Never forget that. I will never forgive the ones that led my seminars. By and large, ridiculously incompetent. And if you think that’s unfair to say then as you say DEI generalizes those in the same way and cheats everyone’s accomplishments. I don’t want to fking hear it. Spare me the fake outrage. Practice what you preach : equality.

    liberals are some of the most rabid racists you’ll ever encounter. uppity hpyocritesyou know exactly who and what I mean. with Stefanik rallying the pro-Israel lobby a Trump victory is certain she will put the woke like Alivisatos out of business as Trump’s Vice President MAGA 2024

  • G

    G.N. / Jun 8, 2024 at 2:28 pm

    Good…would be great had you included a discussion about women. I appreciate the focus is race, but gender too factors into the welfare system that is wokeism, especially those from non-Asian racial minorities. I saw few men in photos of the “encampments” in May, and even fewer as signatories to those reprehensible letters from Mr. Alivisatos’s woke posse in the administration. Really does make one think

    White and Asian males are this country’s most oppressed demographics. Good on you for recognizing this.

    Wokeism is a mind virus that must be eradicated…there is much more to be said but that would be censored
    -G.N., A.B. ’77, M.B.A. ’85

  • A

    Alum / Jun 8, 2024 at 7:33 am

    I very much enjoyed reading this! Your characterization of “WURMs” is spot on; their kind have infiltrated academia as well as industry and government. Monuments to mediocrity. Harper would be rolling in his grave if he discovered the extent to which President Alivisatos and the she-“WURMs” he has employed have diluted the university’s academic rigor. Like many alums, I looked on in horror as the woke mob sieged campus in 2020 to riot in support of what we now know was a drug addict, and again as they flooded the quadrangle these past few weeks.The simple fact is that some people are not suited for l’académie. I encourage you to look into Thomas Sowell, as many of his views align with yours (in fact, as I recall, he is an alum of the university). Arthur Jensen of Berkeley and his studies on hereditation and the “G factor” are noteworthy as well. Good to know not everyone at the U of C is “woke.” I look forward to reading more of your writings.

  • G

    Graham Slater / Jun 7, 2024 at 1:02 pm

    This is an interesting perspective piece and I commend the author for having the courage to share their perspective. However, as someone involved in DEI efforts and a co-signer of the op-ed by faculty mentioned in this piece, there are a number of errors or misunderstandings stated here that are very common.

    The author consistently confuses the way in which the success or failure of DEI efforts are assessed – that is, through statistical evaluation of demographic metrics that might demonstrate changes in participation through time as efforts are implemented – with the aims of DEI measures, which are to ensure all those who wish to and have the ability to pursue a particular academic trajectory have access to it. A reasonable null hypothesis is that, on average, we should expect to see relatively even participation, with some variation of course, across demographic groups in academic programs within the University. When we do not see this, as a community of educators, researchers, and, therefore, gate-keepers for the next generation of scientists, we should want to take action to ensure that barriers to participation are not the cause. Such efforts may involve diversifying recruitment efforts, changing the introductory course sequence structure, offering research internships at more junior career stages, and so on. These are the foci of DEI efforts and they should be remarkably uncontroversial. In no case, at least as far as I am aware, do these programs exclude students of one demographic in favor of another. Rather, they aim to broaden participation across a range of demographic axes by using inclusive principles, such as diversifying teaching styles, exploring big ideas before getting into the technical components of a topic, or even by emphasizing the accomplishments of scientists from across a range of demographic groups so that all students can see themselves in a career track. DEI efforts are, essentially, sales pitches; if we are not doing a good job of recruiting a particular demographic into Physics, Biology, or French Literature, should we simply accept this or should we try to market ourselves in a more attractive way to ensure we reach as wide a market as possible? What DEI in academia does is really no different to what the marketing department at a major company might do.

    I suspect that confusion arises because the only way to assess the effectiveness of such programs is to examine whether they do or do not result in an increased participation of groups that were previously under-represented, leading to the false and archaic perception of a quota system. We would all agree that a program that fails to increase participation in a program is not worth continuing. Similarly, if participation increases of successive years but then levels off, administrators might be interested in exploring whether the program is still needed and whether funding can be diverted to other areas. In order to achieve these aims, targets must be set and numbers must be examined. Using a population level demographic break down is a reasonable target for a program based on our null model, though in practice all accept that such targets may not be met. The idea that DEI admins are trying to turn the dials to achieve quotas of demographic groups is, though, just not the case.

    The author’s concerns regarding DEI statements as compelled-speech would be valid, if it were true. But I see no evidence that it is. Rather, DEI statements have the potential to inform an appointments committee regarding the strengths and merits of an individual application with respect to the University’s main functions. The functions of a University are, according the Shil’s report, (1) the discovery of important new knowledge; (2) the communication of that knowledge to students and the cultivation in them of the understanding and skills which enable them to engage in the further pursuit of knowledge; and (3) the training of students for entry into professions which require for their practice a systematic body of specialized knowledge. The Shil’s report (Section IIA) further states that “The standards to be applied by any appointive body should be those which assess the quality of performance in (1) research; (2) teaching and training, including the supervision of graduate students; (3) contribution to intellectual community; and (4) services.” and that “Distinguished performance in
    any one of these categories does not automatically entail distinguished performance in the others.”

    What this means is that the more information a committee has regarding the research, teaching, and service contributions of an individual, the better informed they can be regarding their suitability for appointment as researchers AND teachers. If we accept that a broad, inclusive teaching and mentoring style benefits the University’s students, then asking for evidence of such efforts, either in a teaching statement or a dedicated DEI statement, is a rational act. The University of Chicago does not currently require DEI statements, though such descriptions may be added to a teaching statement. However the University of California at Berkeley did ask for DEI statements during a cluster hire initiative in 2018-19 that was aimed at hiring faculty to enhance DEI in the Life Sciences and provided an assessment of the process. The criteria on which the statements were evaluated were listed as “candidate knowledge and understanding, track record of contributions, and future plans if hired” and “Only candidates who demonstrated, through their knowledge, past contributions, and/or future plans for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, potential to meet Berkeley standards were advanced as finalists and ultimately proposed candidates.” One can debate whether or not such positions should exist, but it is clear that these statements were not asking candidates to suppress their views or to make political pledges. Rather, applicants were asked for familiarity with educational statistics, evidence of programs that they have developed or participated in that achieve improved educational outcomes, and plans for such activities if hired. Applicants who did not provide such information were not further considered. In contrast with the claim that DEI engages in identity-based hiring, this resulted in the loss of a number of URM applicants from the pool.

    The Shil’s report noted that unless high standards of recruitment were maintained, the University would become a pantheon for dead or dying gods. To this end, it placed an extraordinary focus on the assessment of “potential”, in addition to accomplishments. Today’s DEI efforts are aimed at fulfilling these standards. By recruiting the best researchers AND teachers, we ensure we fulfill our mission as University faculty. By recruiting students with the most significant accomplishments or potential for such, we continue to produce the most well educated and engaged minds. DEI should not be viewed as a political bogey man. It operates within and to advance the principles on which the University of Chicago is based.

    Graham Slater
    Associate Professor
    Department of the Geophysical Sciences

    • A

      AB / Jun 14, 2024 at 9:54 pm

      “No” to everything you’ve written. No. No. No.

  • Y

    Yes / Jun 3, 2024 at 4:48 pm

    “WURMs” and their narcissistic ilk are fond of sophistry. Ad hominems (“Yew didn’t attack the issue!!! I, me, and we in every paragraph.”) Whataboutism (“But Tessier-Lavigne! But legacy admissions!”). Straw mans (“You oppose normalized racism. Therefore, you are racist!”). They do everything to avoid reckoning with their complicity in the matters at hand.

    “Instead, [WURMs] want control: to force us to internalize a permanent victim mentality, position themselves as our saviors…”

    Campus riots are a manifestation of WURMs’ frustration at losing control; WURMs engineered this hysteria as a means of catharsis (just a they did DEI). Affirmative action was outlawed. Other DEI initiatives are being challenged by lawsuits. And with Stefanik exposing the rampant, WURM-inspired antisemitism festering in academia, Americans’ disillusionment with WURMs/the wokerati is hastening. The walls are closing in.

    WURMs are trapped in a perpetual state of rage that they can no longer take minorities at their own valuation. To release their repressed wrath, they have manufactured outrage in a pathetic attempt to re-capture Americans’ sympathy as they did in 2020.

    Fortunately, their antics are in vain this time. African Americans and Hispanics are being forcefully re-emancipated, and “true equality” will prevail. SCOTUS and Christ will make sure of it.

    Cope, seethe, and mald. “Just following orders” won’t cut it on Judgement Day.

    Further reading:
    Caltech professors’ open letter to administrators regarding standardized test scores and subpar students

  • J

    JP / Jun 3, 2024 at 2:33 pm

    It is unfortunate that the Maroon allowed this to be published; it is too stuffed of the caustic words (“ironically,” “self-assumed,”) so characteristic of youthful screed. Beyond being badly written to the point of being incomprehensible, it misses the point.

    A real critique of DEI has not to do with the strength of its effects, but with their impotency. It is at the same time true that American universities are too preoccupied with silly race-mongering, and that such race-mongering fails to address the real and vast racial and economic inequalities of American society. As a white UChicago student, I worry not that DEI places me at any kind of real disadvantage, but that it allows sloppy scholarship, expanding of administered-life, and bourgeois neuroticism to substitute for the kind of revolutionary change necessary to achieve equality for my peers and neighbors of color.

    • J

      John E / Jun 14, 2024 at 5:30 pm

      What a weird and petty comment. You’re agreeing with most, if not all points the author makes.

      ““ironically,” “self-assumed,”
      There are countless examples of “caustic” language in this piece. Those aren’t two of them.

      “I worry not that DEI places me at any kind of real disadvantage, but that it allows sloppy scholarship”
      Right. Because DEI admits tend to be unqualified. The author addresses this at various points.

      “expanding of administered-life”
      This is word salad.

      “and bourgeois neuroticism to substitute for the kind of revolutionary change necessary to achieve equality for my peers and neighbors of color” You’re again agreeing with the author here.

      I think the article is imperfect, but at least it’s logically consistent. Far from “missing the point,” it’s spot-on. And I’d argue it’s far better written than the bombastic “screed” you’ve offered. (Who speaks like that?)

      If you’re going to critique, at make an attempt to engage with the ideas coherently. “It’s poorly written/I’m too dumb to understand what’s written and recognize I agree with the author” isn’t an excuse.

    • A

      AB / Jun 14, 2024 at 9:48 pm

      Verbose, arrogant hysterics. Your comment is full of sound and fury but bereft of substance. You criticize the writer for “bad writing” while refusing to critique the facts presented because you felt aggrieved by a few words. A shaky basis for a weak rebuttal. No, not a serious remark. Never mind the fact that, weirdly enough, you’re echoing the same sentiments presented.

      As for the latter part of your blather: It just seems interesting that instead of ever engaging with a topic logically, the response is always to set up some academic existential threat that justifies removing personal liberties. Today white equality, tomorrow white slavery.

    • M

      Michael T / Jun 16, 2024 at 2:01 pm

      So a real critique of DEI must align with your worldview? Do you understand what a “critique” is?

      Your criticisms would be more compelling if you attempted to address the points raised before (pretending?) to be an illiterate and launching into a sophomoric diatribe that casts you as precisely the conceited, self-absorbed, self-anointed patron saint of “people of color” that the author describes. You are hardly an exemplar of a “good writer.” Go back to your activist cosplaying.

    • A

      ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY ASIAN / Jun 19, 2024 at 4:03 am

      LOL!!! You care about peepul of color so long as they’re not Asian, I guess. You’re a racist fool.